City Council - Regular Meeting

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

Thank you, Mayor Leon. The record will reflect all members are present for tonight's meeting.

All right, thank you. And before we move on, does anybody have any possible conflicts of interest? Seeing none. We'll move on and we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Macias.

Please join me in our pledge to our flag. Put your right hand over your heart, ready to give.

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

And our invocation will be led by Pastor Richard Hernandez, who's already there.

Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening that we can look to you knowing that everything belongs to you and you've got the whole world in your hands tonight. We ask that you would take this meeting into your hands and that you would, Lord, give wisdom from on high, Lord, that we would be able to operate in this city with divine wisdom, Lord, and integrity. We pray that you would especially bless the leaders. Of this city dear God. That they would be able to operate. In a way that would be well pleasing in your sight. That would best benefit the citizens. Lord that we might live a peaceable life. And be able to serve you freely dear God. We thank you so much for the prosperity. You've given this city. We pray that you would help us not to spurn it. Or to waste it Lord. But that we would know how to glorify you better in it all. Have your way now we pray. In Jesus name. Amen. Thank you.

All right, this takes us to public comments. Your comments are limited to three minutes. You'll be alerted when you have one minute remaining. In accordance with state law, remarks during public comment are to be limited to subjects within council's jurisdiction. All of those wishing to speak, including council and staff, need to be recognized by the chair. Do we have any email comments, Madam City Clerk?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, they have been printed, placed at the dais, and will be entered into the record.

All right, thank you. So I have, once again, quite a few blue cards, so we're gonna stick tight to the timeframe. Our first speaker is Sarah Rios. You want to come up with her? You can come up with her. All right, so... This is going to be a little bit, we have a microphone for her. We'll sit her off to the side over this way, okay? And then she can hold the microphone. Yeah, that way's fine. Sarah, just be comfortable. We're just normal people. Just talk to us. You want to come up with those posters. I know that she's going to be talking about that, so you can come up with them so you're not sitting out there with them.

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah. All the memories of the council. And here's a message to you. Let's go and walk. Let's go and work school. School and Caminos. Communities participate for this activity year.

So you want us to go to El Camino School to participate in this community event, which is the National Walk to School.

It's National Walk to School.

Mm-hmm. Do you have any more? No. Okay, so I'm kind of in a quandary of a moment here because I'm not really supposed to be conversing back and forth, but what you're talking about is the walk to school, which is starting at Anthony Munoz Park at seven o'clock in the morning, October 7th. And then we'll walk with you all the way to El Camino School. Okay, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, good job. Our next speaker is Angie Miramontes.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council, other city staff. My name is Angie Miramontes, and I'm an Ontario resident. I'm speaking on items 4, 14, and 15 because I believe all three raise the same larger question. How are we preparing Ontario for long-term water security, extreme weather, and responsible growth? On item 14, I support strengthening the city's water conservation plan. The proposed ordinance would permanently prohibit irrigation of runoff. and begin phasing out potable water irrigation of non-functional turf, including turf in medians, parkways, commercial properties, and other public spaces. But as that turf comes out, we should think carefully about what replaces it. The city, therefore, has a choice between merely complying with state law or using the transition to create a connected network of water-wise native landscapes that capture rain, provide shade, support biodiversity, and make Ontario more resilient to both the drought and flooding. I encourage the city to prioritize California native trees, shrubs, grasses and flowering plants, along with bioswales, rain gardens, permeable surfaces and other green infrastructure. We should design our landscapes to not only use less water, but also to capture rainfall, slow runoff, improve infiltration, provide shade and support local biodiversity. The same thinking should apply to item four. The city is considering declaring approximately six acres of publicly owned land off of East Philadelphia Street as surplus. The staff report itself recognizes that the Surplus Land Act includes parks and open space among the priorities that must be considered. Before we permanently dispose of public land, I asked the city to evaluate whether it could provide value as open space, native habitat, urban forestry, stormwater capture, or groundwater recharge infrastructure.

One minute remaining.

And on item 15, the proposed development at Archibald and Inland Empire. It includes commercial building, surface parking, landscaping, and required stormwater mitigation. This is an opportunity for Ontario to demonstrate what high quality development can look like by incorporating native landscaping, shade trees, bioswales, rain gardens, and on-site infiltration wherever feasible. As we prepare for the coming raining season and the possibility of a strong El Nino winter, we should remember that rainfall is not just something to drain away, it is a resource. My request is that Ontario adopt a broader citywide approach that connects water conservation, native plant infrastructure, stormwater capture, groundwater recharge, and preservation of open space. Water conservation does not only mean using less water, it also means keeping more of that water that falls in Ontario in Ontario. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mayor, before you move on to the next speaker, if I could just ask your indulgence for one second. Ms. Miramontes mentioned that she was speaking to three items, one of which is on the consent calendar, and the other two were public hearings. And so she was kind enough to provide her comments in writing to the council. You all have them before you. With your permission and your assent, Ms. Miramontes, I would ask that those written comments be included in the public record for those public hearing items so that we don't necessarily have to bother her to come up again during those two public hearing items. Are you okay with that? Wonderful. Mr. Mayor, is that okay with you?

Yeah, I think that's appropriate. Thank you. As long as it's okay with you, right? Okay, thank you. Our next speaker is Tina Silva.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I would like to begin with a brief land acknowledgement. We recognize that Ontario sits on the traditional and ceded lands of indigenous peoples, and we honor their continued connection to this land and community. Since our last meeting on August 18th, there have been three more documented immigration enforcement incidents in Ontario, including multiple people detained. On August 19th, a man on his way to work near LaDenny Court in Virginia was approached and detained by immigration agents. I was there. He was so afraid that he would not roll down his window. He told the agents he was calling the Ontario Police Department. Their response? Go ahead. They know we're here and they'll help us. Then on August 25th, a man was followed from Bondview and Sultana and ultimately detained near Vineyard and Arrow. That same morning, another man was taken near Berlin and 4th Street. These are not isolated incidents. People in our community are being followed, detained and taken from places where they should be able to go to work and live their lives without fear. I'm asking this council to take a specific action tonight. direct the city manager and police chief to provide council and the public with a written report at the next city council meeting documenting all known immigration enforcement activity in Ontario since last June 2025, including where OPD officers or city resources were involved, what policies govern any interaction with federal immigration agents, and what protections are in place for community members who contact OPD for help. Our community deserves transparency and accountability. People should be able to call their local police without fearing that doing so will put them at greater risk. Now I have to say, this man was let go. This man was let go, thankfully. But can you imagine not wanting to roll down your window because you have masked people who won't tell you who they are, doesn't show you a badge. You tell them you're calling Ontario police and they tell you that that's okay, they know we're here. and they'll help us. I heard it with my own ears. That's not to say that OPD is going to do that, but I'd like to know. Thank you.

All right. Our next speaker is Brad Newman.

Hello, friends. My name is Brad Newman. I am the former city auditor for the city of Ontario in beautiful Southern California. The reason why I am the former city auditor is because I was ordered to violate the public's trust and I said no. I just want to put tonight's City Council agenda items into context for the public who may not be paying attention. At the last City Council meeting on August 4th, that was two City Council meetings ago, we had a brother and sister from Treasure Banquet Hall speak about how Alan Wapner is allegedly sniping their business. They described what sounded like an extortion scheme. In July before that, Alan Wapner's house was raided, and I was retaliated against starting in December of 2023. Scott, are you a corrupt city manager? Because I went to talk with you. Do you remember this yellow envelope? Because I went into your office around 1245 on Tuesday, December 12th, 2023, and I asked to talk with you about the appearance of corruption in your administration. You pressed a button on your phone and it sounded like Dan Bell picked up and pretended to have you on hold. Dan Bell, the communications director. I've asked public records to produce your phone records and they've refused to. You told me that you were on hold and you asked me to schedule a meeting with your assistant. I did that and those Teams messages between myself and your assistant have not been produced. Are you a corrupt city manager? Because a corrupt city manager would suppress the production of those records. So I'd like to have those records produced. You need to understand, Mayor, that we have what appears to be a fully mature corrupt administration here at this municipality, where executive after executive after executive after executive are willing to line up and violate the American way of life. Fire Chief Gherkin, you know that attorney Michael Heider- One minute remaining. That he falsified the administrative record. And you had the opportunity as a hearing officer to order the city to produce the audit log of case 44's investigative report.

You heard how his evidence- Mr. Mayor, a reminder to the speaker that this is the opportunity to address the council and not individual members of the staff or the audience.

Reclaiming my time, Reuben? Reclaiming my time, Reuben? Reclaiming my time.

Mr. Mayor, you control the time, and so Mr. Newman is aware of what the rules are for public comment.

All right, can you reset my time to 45 seconds before he interrupted me?

Okay, just speak to us.

We have what appears to be a corrupt administration that's engaged in retaliation. One of the things that struck me after I heard the treasurer banquet hall was that I had a meeting. I had a meeting with community development before I was placed on paid administrative leave where they walked me through their system. We intentionally failed to perform and we intentionally failed to develop all of the functionalities in the community development system. I believe to help facilitate that type of corruption that was alleged.

All right, thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin Kizzee.

If I could get one second, Your Honor, before I begin. give credit and thanks to the utilities director, engineering operations overseer, Brian Leary, and the operations supervisor, Daniel Fernandez. Those two individuals are instrumental in taking care of repairs that happen amongst the city. I know a lot of residents aren't aware of what they do and what it takes to dig up the concrete, the asphalt. cut roots and maintain some areas. Specifically, near one of our residents, there's a tree that was very important to a family member that's deceased now. And they were able to save that tree and also take care of some potting and make sure that it was preserved for that veteran who's living by himself now. So I would like to thank them. With respects to public comments, I'd like to talk about the girls here. I had the young men here before, and in looking to find out what was going on with the batting cages at Westwind, I learned here in your district, Ms. Macias, that at the Jay Galvin Park, these girls don't even have a bathroom. when they practice and that is deplorable that there is no bathroom. Now they have to be uprooted because we have revitalization going on at De Anza Park and they have to use Jay Galvin but to be placed there without bathrooms is deplorable and someone should look into that and make sure it doesn't happen. They're currently back at Kimball Park. Kimball Park has no lights. Kimball Park has no barriers around the fences. When the kids hit the ball in a far manner, there's no barrier to stop it. Parents are walking across the field to get to other fields. The bathroom situation. They have one lavatory for the men and women. And if they want some extra lavatories there, for example, on September 12th for their opening day, where they will have, I believe, Montclair, Riverside, Harupa, And maybe Claremont, all playing there, all of these family members and children are gonna have to rely on one restroom. That's completely unacceptable for a city with our surplus and the revenue that we generate. Why we are overlooking them, I don't understand. One minute remaining. I'm appreciative of the growth that we do have here, but I also understand that these kids need to be taken care of too. this group of young ladies right here they have to go from west wind to kimball which i get it we can only afford so many spaces they have to move around the parents are helping them do that but we have to make sure they have adequate places to play and adequate places for them to learn their craft and go on to hopefully softball in college or do whatever it is they need to do also we have the sports empire that's coming and unfortunately these young ladies won't be able to pay their play there because they can't afford to pay That makes no sense. For them to play at the Sports Empire, it seems like they have to basically end their little entity, which is the fastball pitch, and join something else. I mean, how would we like it if I have to end driving a certain type of vehicle and pick up another vehicle for my business? It's not fair. I ask that you guys please look into it and help them. Thank you.

Okay, Gianna Jones, or it's Gloria. It's Gloria Jones. I'm sorry. Gloria. Yeah.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Gloria Jones with Ontario Heritage and I want to speak tonight, this is Randy Campbell, she's on the board too. And what I wanted to announce that I want the community to know about our cemetery tour that's coming up on October 10th. It's always the second Saturday of the month. It starts promptly at 10.15. Tickets will start to be sold at 9.30. Tickets are also available on our OntarioHeritage.org website, also at Logan's Candy and at Bellevue Cemetery. The tickets are $20 for members, $25 for non-members. If nobody's ever been to one of our cemetery tours, I encourage you to go. I've done a lot of, I've chaired the cemetery tour the last two years since Petrina Delman retired or had left and she moved. I am really passionate about Ontario's heritage and the characters. So what we do is we take five notable citizens that are buried at Bellevue Cemetery and I do research on them and we get volunteer actors. In fact, we have one in our midst. Oh, I wonder who that is. And this year's gonna be awesome. It's gonna be really awesome, and it takes about an hour and a half, hour 40 minutes, somewhere around there. But if you've never been to our cemetery tour, I encourage you, you're gonna love it. And a lot of it, like I said, it all revolves around a notable person that's buried at Bellevue. And like I said, get to know the city of Ontario, of the history. It's awesome, really, really awesome. Wendy, did you want to say anything? Just that we always, just that- One minute remaining.

We always get rave reviews. People really like it. We have costumed people in period costumes telling their stories of their lives. They're standing next to their actual grave as if they were alive, reflecting on their life. It's very educational, appropriate for families and children. Thank you.

Yeah, and kids 12 and under are free, like I said. Tickets, $20 members, 25 non-members. I hope I see you there. Thank you. Thanks.

I heard you got grave reviews.

Oh, my God, yeah. Oh, that's awesome. I like that.

Chris Robles.

You digging it?

Good evening, my name is Chris Robles and I have three things I wanted to say. So first, I really love the accommodation for that speaker that she was allowed to get three minutes to talk about multiple items. I hope that courtesy is extended to all of us. Second, it dawned on me with the children here that those of you who have been here for over 30 years when you got onto the council those kids are now if they were born when you were put on the council they're now 30 years old or older and now have their own children it's good that you're talking about term limits and then lastly i did not get to finish my comments at the last meeting on, at that time it was item 15, two weeks ago. I spoke and said that in the last 12 month time period, Mr. Wapner had raised nearly $500,000. And given the airport authorities meeting today and they're looking at having a private, an external, I should say, an external investigation, or people from outside the agency doing an investigation, I think it's warranted here too. That is an insane amount of money for one person to be raising, and it can't be because people like them, that they would give them that much money. It has to be, I mean, common sense tells you there's some reason, And I won't say it because I can't prove it, but others would call it a quid pro quo. And given the high probability and likelihood and possibility of an indictment coming forward after these two FBI raids. One minute remaining. I think it is warranted for this body to call for a special investigator from outside the city, not connected to anybody or any firm. TO DO AN INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF SIMILAR THINGS THAT HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED AT THE AIRPORT, GIVEN THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S REASON FOR LOOKING INTO IT, THE SAME REASONS FOR HERE. I THINK THAT SENTENCE MADE SENSE. NONETHELESS, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MARY MCBRIDE. I'm sorry, Marty. I know the difference. But it looks like Mary here. It looks like Mary. Could have been a different person.

Yeah.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Marty McBride with a T. I am a resident of Ontario's District 1. At the emergency meeting held on August 7th, the city made it clear that it was not imposing a tax on the residents of Ontario. It was also said at that meeting that putting a measure on the ballot would allow voters to decide whether or not they wanted to be taxed. These statements represent a half-truth. The whole truth is that if the city did not intend to impose a tax, it would not have held a last minute 11th hour emergency meeting without a clear accounting and public presentation of the monies generated by Measure Q that was approved by voters four years ago. The Measure H has too many flaws. There is no accountability to residents. There is no end date to this tax. There are no spending guardrails or restrictions on how the money is to be spent. These monies will be a blank check for the city to spend as it pleases without any oversight as to anything other than that the money was spent. These actions speak clearly. If it was not required by law to impose, oh, I'm sorry. If it was not required by law for the city to put a tax measure on the ballot, it would not have done so. It would instead have simply voted 5-0 to impose a tax. And the only thing stopping the city from doing that was the law that requires a vote to put a measure up to the residents. I want to encourage on the record that all residents be made aware in one way or another of these facts. One minute remaining. And that the city provide as well a full accounting of all of the money that it spends in favor of passing this measure. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you. And we'll say our last speaker is Tommy Mush again.

First points I'd like to make is asking for university accessible playground equipment. I haven't seen anything yet or any reports on that. I'm waiting on that. I'd like you to dissolve the city's solid waste department and contract out to a private company to save money. You're making too much money. And when is Chino Avenue going to be reopened? You're busy pushing everybody on a Riverside Drive to look at your empire. But then again, I'm waiting for Chino Avenue to reopen up and it's taking too long. It's ridiculous. Then I've got a question for your zoning administrator meetings. Why are they consistently canceled every time? There's twice a month, but you consistently cancel them. I think that's ridiculous. And then over here, we've got the city manager gave away between January and June of this year, over 561 tickets. Basically, majority of them going to Ms. Macias, Wapner, Leon, and the assistant city manager, as long as the bell guy too. So you're giving away free tickets to your little events, with the most expensive ones being to your minor league baseball team at $170 a pop. Plus all in the 67 for anything at the arena. So I think that's a totally unfair that you're doing that. And I blame you city manager out of Glendale.

All right. Well, that moves us into agenda announcements and review. Mr. City manager.

Mr. Mayor, before we get into that, would it be okay if we just give a little bit of context to some of the things that you heard tonight?

Absolutely.

Um, Maybe working in reverse order, I don't know if there was anything that Mr. Muschigan said that was worth getting into, but with respect to the Measure H, to say that anybody from the podium knew exactly what this council would have done if you could is a bit disingenuous. The state law does not allow any council, and has not since 1978, I believe, to put any measure onto the ballot. And so it has to go onto the ballot for the voters to approve. This council cannot approve a tax. That is just the law. It is that clear. The law also dictates the manner in which a matter could be put on the ballot. It is true that this council put the matter on the ballot on the last possible day, but that timing simply was what it was. There was no other way to do it or just not actually call for the question. If you're going to call for that question, it had to happen by that last day, so many days before the election. There was no other nefarious reason behind it. And in fact, you still had the meeting. You had a packed house with a lot of folks who were here expressing lots of different diverse opinions, both in support and in opposition. And so that's why you have the vote, to let the folks decide. I understand, and I said it the other day, that if folks are upset and they don't want to pass it, then by all means, vote no. If you support it, and there are a number of folks that you saw at your hearing support, then I'm sure they're going to vote yes. And they're going to advocate for that yes. And to that end, the comment about how much money is going to be spent in passing the measure, how much city money is going to be used to pass the measure, I mean, I can tell you now it's going to be zero. Because the city cannot advocate for the passage of the measure. We can educate, but we cannot advocate. And for folks that would say, well, it's one in the same, I would argue, no, it isn't. The FPPC would tell you, definitely, it is not. And the FPPC is going to be the group that is going to receive, I'm sure, any number of complaints from folks who are saying, that's not right, or that's not fair, or that should not be the case. But there is the law, and then there is activity outside of the law. And so the city will continue to operate as an organization completely within those four corners. And folks can say, well, you should do more, you should do less, or you should do it. You're going to do what the law dictates that you have to do at the end of the day. Some folks may not like that, but to come back and make that argument that, well, if you didn't have to, you wouldn't comply with Prop 13 is just flat wrong, unfortunately. With respect to... I'm inclined to oblige Mr. Newman because for the better part of three years, he's been coming back to this body to spin any number of wild and sensational stories about what happened to him. Alas, what happened to him is not part of some grand scheme or done without due process. In fact, the due process for Mr. Newman culminated in a hearing in this chambers. because he requested that it was an open hearing when he was placed on administrative leave and let go. And I'll save the detail as to why, because ostensibly it speaks to his credibility as someone to tell the truth. But he disputed the discipline through the process. He had what is called a skelly hearing in front of the police chief. and the discipline was upheld, he appealed that to a hearing officer, which was the fire chief, and lost there, and appealed that to you, and yet lost here too. So is it not, in front of anybody who wanted to be here, anyone who wanted to watch and listen to the granular arguments that he would make trying to say that up is down and black is white, isn't it just possible that Mr. Newman just isn't right? And I would submit to you that based on all of the conversations that we've had all this time, that it is completely and abundantly clear that is not. It's one thing to go after council, one thing to go after Mr. Duran or myself, but if you're going to go and start leveling those types of attacks at our staff, I'm sorry you crossed the line. And unfortunately, Mr. Newman doesn't know what that line is, as he's demonstrated again and again and again. With respect to some of the other comments, and I promise I'll cut it short, with Mr. Kizzee. Excuse me. I won't have anything for you.

No, no, no, no, that's not allowable. You're not allowed to speak unless recognized. You're not recognized, so you really need to be quiet, okay? Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. City Manager.

Mr. City Manager, you're still on.

Yes, sir. The only other thing that I would submit to you with respect to Mr. Kizzee's comments, I would invite him to get together with our folks in CLC for licensed groups that are here in town, and I believe fast-pitch softball is, they'll be able to play at the deeply discounted rate such as they are right now at the Sports Empire. The whole point from city council was to make sure that our folks, the kids who play in this town that are part of those license groups, AYSO, Little League, the Fast Pitch, that they have access to that amazing facility first and foremost. And so let's just be real clear that that is something that this council has dictated for all of the kids in our community. And maybe one last thing as it goes back to Measure Q. Go online. I mean, the Measure Q page that is there online spells out where the money from Measure Q, where it's gone, whether it is the storm drains in the older part of the city so that hopefully someday we get rid of the little bridges that we have to put out whenever it does rain so kids can walk over the flooded out intersections, or if it is the wellness campus for homeless folks because we're doing more for homeless services than has ever been done before in this community. Or it is the parks and the park improvements for those communities and neighborhoods like Leonza, like Anthony Munoz Park, where we, and soon North Central, where we have needed those types of amenities. Or it is the improvements into downtown because folks seem to feel that we need And I would tend to agree that downtown may not be the economic heart of the city, but it certainly is the emotional heart of the city. So being able to put together a program to achieve a renaissance in downtown. And then certainly some of the larger projects that are in and of themselves economic development programs that generate revenue, that feed the overall programming of the city for all of those services that folks want and need to see. I'm sorry for going on, Mr. Mayor, but there was a number of things that I think can be made clear for folks if they are willing to hear what the actual answer is. And so as I offered last time, and I offer again, anybody who wants to talk about any of these projects or programs, give me a call. And I'm happy to sit down and talk with them one-on-one or in small groups and lay it all out there because Ontario has an amazing story to tell.

And just to piggyback folks a little bit on what he said, especially about the homeless situation, you may have been seeing lately in the news that HUD stopped funding Los Angeles for their homeless programs. At the same meeting that they were talking about that in Washington, D.C., I was informed by a high-level HUD official that they were also talking about the city of Ontario and what a great job we do. And probably they'll be partnering with us a lot, because we do. So thank you. Thank you very much. And if that's it, then we're going to move on to any announcements that you have. No, sir. All right. Thank you. So we'll move on to consent calendar. And all matters listed will be, there'll be no separate discussion unless an item is pulled by the council. Bye. Thanks for coming. As a reminder, comments for consent count items will be limited to two minutes. And we do have a few speakers. We have for 14 and 13, Mr. Newman.

Hello, friends. My name is Brad Newman. And Scott, you can produce the records when you feel like it. I'm here to say no on four. You guys cried some alligator tears when you approved the the truck way. You said, oh, we have to have this truck route through here and we can't do anything to make our air quality cleaner. Well, with number four, item number four, you're disposing of green land. We could use that land to actually have clean air. That's right next to a hospital. It seems like a good place for us to have some some parks and some walking areas for the patients there. Specifically, again, number 13 is the mobile home park accord. This is very clear corruption to me. This to me is the behavior of a corrupt administration picking the economic winners and losers at our economy. Do you remember the 1980s with Ronald Reagan? How did we win the war against the Soviet Union? We won it economically. The thing is that the Soviets are the ones that really lost the war because of their corruption. One minute remaining. I did a retrospective model to apply this logic to the past 40 years. If you can see at the bottom of the page here, Mayor, I have the listing. $100 worth of rent in 1986 is the equivalent to about $300 today. If you apply this Ontario rent formula, it would be about $600. Meaning that if you follow this policy, and if you flip over here, I have some charts to show you exactly how damaging this is. I don't know if you can see, this is on page 9 of 13, there's an orange line that goes way up and there's a black line that goes way down. That's the price of inflation versus the price of inflation of rental housing under this policy. This is the destruction of public wealth. This is generating inflation. Donald Trump hates Ontario. He hates California. I think he hates Ontario, California. And when he finds out we have high cost of living because of Ontario, California, he's not gonna be happy. This is high cost of living.

All right, thank you. We have Mr. Kizzee speaking to item number 13.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Given recent events in this council's public promises of transparency, passing a corporate rent hike on a silent rubber stamp is completely unacceptable. I demand that a council member pool item 13 for separate discussion or an alternative that you vote no on this predatory formula tonight. This isn't just about policy, it's about human lives. My own elderly aunt was forced to abandon her home and her community, displaced entirely by these skyrocketing lot fees. Today she is trapped renting a one bedroom apartment because the corporate landlord priced her out of her own neighborhood. Just this afternoon, an elderly resident in Rancho, Ontario, told me with tears in her eyes that if her husband passes away, she will be forced onto the street. Space rents have climbed past $1,700 a month. Mobile home owners own their structures, but they are captive to land beneath them. They cannot pack up and run from corporate greed. Tying rent hikes to 120% of the CPI with an artificial 4% floor guarantees that corporate landlords get richer while seniors like my aunt on fixed incomes skip meals and medicine to pay for dirt. Is this council aware that not only will low rent space But is this council not aware that not only will the land space rent increase, each unit is now responsible for their water, something that wasn't there in the past, especially at Ontario Rancho. This accord shields the city from litigation, but it actively shields corporate owners from accountability. Before you lock these poor souls into another five years of financial ruin, please look into your hearts, think about my aunt, think about other peoples, and I ask that you do your job and pull item 13. Reject this compounding multiplier and stand with the people of Ontario, not the corporate landlords. Thank you.

All right, thank you. I forgot to ask, do we have any emailed?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, and they have been printed and placed into the record.

I see them, thank you. Yes, Ms. Parada.

I'd like to talk a little bit or ask questions about number 13.

Do you want to pull it for a separate vote as we're gonna? No, no. Okay.

So I just would like the city manager and or the city attorney to help me with this a little bit too, because this is an ask of us on the mobile home people. This is an ask. They don't have to do it. They don't have to do a darn thing. And that's my understanding. So I just wanted to, we are asking the mobile home park people to please be decent, don't raise their rent so much, but they don't have to agree to it. There's mobile home parks that don't even participate in this agreement and they raise the rents, but they raise them. So this is us doing an ask for them to please try to keep that down. So Mr. City Manager or .

I think your colleague would like to come to him.

Okay, there you go.

I just wanted to give a little history to this.

This accord actually came to us from- You know, Mr. Wapner, I would like the city manager to answer my question before you. Yeah, well, so Mr. City Manager, would you please do that?

Sure. The mobile home, the Jack Galvin mobile home accord goes back to 2007. And as you point out, ma'am, the idea here is that it is a voluntary program. We have 19 mobile home parks in the city of Ontario. When we started the mobile home accord, or when the council started the mobile home accord in 07, 10 of those mobile home parks were voluntarily complying with the accord. And what that accord does is you, point out is limit the amount of increases that the private property owners who own the land under which the coaches sit, what they could do. The maximum amount of loan that, or maximum amount of rent increase that they could charge. This year, in the past, it was intended to be a unanimous vote by the participating mobile home communities. One of them dropped out. So now there are nine. Part of the accord that is before you tonight, as you know, is that it is voluntary. It is opt-in. I guess if you were to reject this mobile home accord, it is not a red letter day for the folks that live in the nine mobile home park communities, but rather it would be quite the opposite because they would then become subject to the state's rent control laws, which do not cover RVs. And so you would be subjecting them without any type of limitation to the increases of what has increasingly become private equity ownerships of these mobile home parks that continue to ratchet up those rents. And so it is actually, as you point out, a limiting factor on the upward movement of those rents. The formula that is in the accord is the same formula that's been in there since 2007. So it isn't as though you're doing something harmful to anybody. In fact, you're working with the owners and managers of those nine now mobile home parks to limit the potential future increases that they would then charge the tenants there in the property.

Okay. And maybe only would you please acknowledge Councilman Wapner because he also wanted to make some comments.

Yes, Mr. Wapner.

I'd like to put number 13 for further discussion since I wasn't allowed to discuss it just now.

Okay. What? Nothing. Go ahead.

I'm sorry, I missed what happened there. So, would you like to have the opportunity to discuss it?

I think I have the right to pull an item off consent calendar. I'm requesting to have item number 13 pull off consent calendar for separate.

You know, Alan, you do, but I was speaking first, so you needed to allow me to finish what I was doing, and now it's your turn.

Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull item number 13 from the consent calendar for separate discussion.

Okay.

Okay, so.

There's nothing wrong with that, so we'll go ahead Well, order is important. That's what she's talking about.

So are we going to go ahead and... Mr. Mayor, if I may, at this time, what I think I hear is a motion to approve the consent calendar except for item 13, and I believe Council Member Wapner is asking for a separate discussion and a separate vote afterwards.

Sounds to me like it's just let's pull item number 13 for a separate discussion. There's been no motion on the consent calendar that I'm aware of.

No, no, no. I agree with you. I haven't heard a motion. What I'm hearing is a motion developing. Certainly, trying to help you out here.

Okay, so Mr. Wapner has asked for item number 13 to be pulled for separate discussion, which is fine. So I'll entertain a motion to move the consent calendar made by Ms. Macias, second by Mr. Bowman. Let's take a vote.

With the exception of item 13.

With the exception of item number 13. Okay, so that passes. So let's discuss item number 13 individually.

Mr. Wapner. Thank you. I'm just following state law, and our ordinance right here says that any member can pull an item off the consent calendar. It's not mayor's discretion. It's called state law. In any case, had I been given the opportunity to speak, I would explain a little bit of the history behind the accord. It was actually brought to us by tenants of Mobile Home Parks. Jack Gallivan is the one that originally brought it to the city council, and they brought it because there were mobile home tenants that were increasing the rents 10, 15%, and by coming to a negotiated agreement between the mobile home owners and the tenants, again, brought to us by the tenants, we've been able to negotiate an agreement that, you know, any percent increase is gonna be tough, but at least to minimize that amount of increase. Thank you. Okay.

The only thing, and what I'd say is that I think that the high cost of living is touching all of us, whether it's, earlier we heard just on the fields for kids to be playing on. Everything from milk to gas to playing fields to rent is a burden today, and I think we can all agree on that. On the other hand, I think that whatever works for kids this consortium of owners of properties that have mobile homes is something that we have to go and as Mr. Watmer mentioned that there is a history behind why we even have this going on. So when it comes to item number 13, so now what we have to do is have a motion to approve or reject item number 13 is what I understand. So I'm not sure where you're going with that, Mr. Wapner. Are you approving or rejecting it?

I just wanted to make my comments on the history of the thing. I will make a motion that we approve it.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there a second? So a second by Ms. Macias. So we'll take a vote. So thank you. Thank you for having a healthy participation in the way government works. Thank you very much. I don't think there was any intention to... not allow anybody to do what they have the right to do. I think there was just a method of order. When a person is speaking, nobody should interrupt and take over. I wasn't here to see it, so I just can only believe that's what happened. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We're going to move into public hearings now, so item number 14.

Thank you. This is a public hearing to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California amending Chapter 8A of Title VI of the Ontario Municipal Code relating to the city's water conservation plan. Notice of public hearing has been given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and you have one written communication.

Okay, so at this time, I'll open the public hearing and let the record reflect the written communication. We don't have any blue cards to this tonight. So I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion or discussion on the item. Moved by Mr. Bowman. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Ms. Parada. Let's take a vote. Item passed is 5-0. That moves us to item number 15, Madam City Clerk.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, it's a public hearing to consider a resolution approving a purchase and sale agreement and joint escrow instructions by and between the City of Ontario and Archibald Property LLC. Notice of public hearing has been given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and there are two written communications.

There are two what?

Written communications.

Okay, thank you. I was going to ask you about that. Okay, so we do have Blue slips, you'll all be given two minutes to speak to the item. Our first speaker is Chris Robles.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Chris Robles and I am speaking on item 15. I have concerns about this sale. The agreement says that the city is using economic opportunity statutes and not the surplus land act. But the California Department of Housing and Community Development, also known as HCD, has already challenged that argument. And last year, HCD issued Ontario a Surplus Land Act notice of violation involving another land deal where the city relied on these same statutes. So why are we doing this again? Tonight, Item 4 follows the Surplus Land Act. Item 15 sells public land directly to a private developer. And we have... Too much of that going on. Where is the exemption and has HCD reviewed this disposition? And section 8.2 is also troubling because it anticipates a legal challenge and protects the buyer if the city's legal position fails. So I'm asking you to please continue item 15 until HCD confirms this sale complies with the Surplus Land Act. And I will be giving them a call tomorrow. Thank you.

All right, Brad Newman.

So the question that I have for you guys is when did you actually acquire this property and for how much? How many years did you have it in your possession? And where actually is the appraisal? There's a difference between the appraisal value of the property and the actual market value. You just passed item number 13, which says you expect at least a 4% increase in the property value year over year over year, regardless of inflation. And when inflation is higher, you give 120% of the inflation rate. So how long did we have this property and why are we selling it at a rate that doesn't keep up with inflation? The other thing is that we have $220,000 of expenses related to this for the environmental review, the staff costs, all that. If this group is able to purchase this for $50,000 that's not refundable, it seems like they should actually have a purchase price for the actual entirety of the cost. Instead of having $50,000 that's not refundable, it should be the entirety of what it costs for us to put into this to get it to the sale price. I just question how do you justify selling this property at this price? And to me, I think it's because we have what appears to be a fully mature corrupt administration. You guys are acting like a mob saying, hey, everybody, let's coordinate and increase our rent by 120% the price of inflation. Mayor, what would happen if Stater Brothers, Bonds, Ralphs, all the brochures said, you know what? Tomorrow, let's put up that price of bread by $1. and tomorrow we'll put up the price of eggs by a dollar. If we all collude and coordinate together, we can extort some extra money from the public. The thing is is that with this property, you have the city charging additional money to the renters, and then here when you have property that's for sale, you're not increasing its value at all. You're just saying this is what it appraised at. How many years ago was that appraisal? Was there any growth in it? Did you see any competitive bid for this? Could we get some explanation on the competitive process? Thank you. All right, Mr. Kizzee.

Good evening, Your Honor. Thank you. As we all know, I'm a resident of Ontario, and I'm standing before you tonight to express my enthusiastic support for the purchase and sale of the agreement in item number 15. I want to thank the city leadership and staff for having the backbone to protect our community's vision over additional warehousing. We all understand that property must be sold at some times, and while we may not agree, I'd much rather see this do something for the people through residential and commercial use other than warehousing. Look around us, our city has more than enough logistics centers. What our families actually need are spaces where we can live, connect, and enjoy community. This proposed 50,000 square foot pedestrian plaza with its high-end dining and walkable walkways is exactly the kind of vibrant destination Ontario deserves. It creates jobs, generates tax revenue without using taxpayer subsidies, and beautifully complements the growth near the Toyota Arena. However, because this project will be such a massive success and draw heavy crowds, we must aggressively protect our surrounding neighborhood from the literal fallout of that success. As you vote to approve this agreement tonight, I urge this council to hold the developers to strict enforceable standards. Specifically, we must address the infrastructure and traffic. Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard are already under heavy strain. We need the developer to implement comprehensive traffic calming measures and smart signal synchronization so our local roads do not gridlock. Furthermore, we must address light pollution. The proposed digital billboard near the freeway cannot become a blinding nuisance for nearby residents. We need ironclad agreements on strict nighttime dimming requirements and limits on flashing animations. Finally, I ask that you secure commitments for robust on-site private security. We have nothing without security. We need to keep those outdoor plazas safe for families at all hours. Thank you for refusing to settle for another warehouse. Let's pass this resolution, build this destination, and ensure the developer treats our neighborhood with the respect it deserves. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Fonseca. Is he outside? Somebody see if Jesse Fonseca is out there. Looks like he's not. Okay, so before we move on, Mr. City Manager, we'll close the public hearing. Did you have something to answer about these? Sure. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor.

Could I prevail upon you to keep the public hearing open so that Mr. Ochoa's answer gets into the record? And if there are any other questions from any of the council members, we have that as well.

Thank you. Okay, we'll keep the public hearing open.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. And I'll turn it over to our Economic Development Director, Jennifer Hiramoto, in a second. But the Council will recall, and I appreciate Mr. Kizzee's comments, this was originally going to be an IKEA. And during the pandemic, or just before the pandemic, as I recollect, they decided that this was too close to their store in Covina, and that they were going to pick up and move further east. And wouldn't it be okay with the city council if you allowed them to do a distribution warehouse with a small showroom that they could do all of their mail order online types of sales? And we said, no, that really wasn't in the vision for this part of the city. right along the 10 freeway at Archibald, and we undertook the opportunity to bring in a mixed-use developer that would ultimately take down much or nearly all of the site. The owner, IKEA, they had played along for a while. They were willing to wait while we secured a potential buyer for the property. Because as actually Mr. Robles points out, the Surplus Lands Act makes for a cumbersome process to get over for cities who are looking not so much to do affordable housing in a given location, but to actually do economic development. Fortunately for the city, there are the economic development statutes that are on the books that predate the SLA, and we have to make certain findings and employ those findings for a project such as this. And so the idea became that if we were going to keep the current property owner from doing what they chose to do with it, because they owned it outright, they had owned that property even going back, I think, to 2016, that we were going to have to either bring the buyers to bear or the city was going to have to acquire the property, which we did earlier this year in the spring. So we bought it in the spring, I believe in March. We are turning around and selling this piece of it to Porto's for their bakery at this location, probably the larger bakery in their chain, serving the Inland Empire, the greater Inland Empire, and taking pressure off the next closest bakery. And so as the council knows, this has been a passion project for all of you. I don't know anybody that doesn't love potato balls, that doesn't love the coffee and the cakes and the pastries and everything else. And through the hard work of our staff, we're able to work very closely with them to acquire this property from us. And as you can imagine, they are a very sought after brand. And so they are very jealous of that brand, protective of that brand, and not wanting to engage in any headaches or heartaches with respect to the disposition of the property, which is why you see the language in the purchase and sale agreement that is there for their protection. But I'd hate to think that somebody, anybody would think that doing a warehouse at this location as opposed to a large bakery and kind of a foodie village, if you will, with the other curated restaurants is somehow a lesser project than that distribution warehouse. It's something that the council's identified, something that we hear from our residents and customers on a regular ongoing basis. of what they want to see more of in Ontario. And so kudos to the council for having the wherewithal, wading through the successive economic cycles, and braving the difficulties that are placed in front of us from time to time by partners at the state. With that, I'll ask Jen to talk a little bit about the particulars on the project.

Yes, thank you, Mr. City Manager. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of council. The item before you tonight is the purchase and sale agreement with Archibald Property LLC for the 8.64 acres. Is your microphone on?

Okay, now it is.

Thank you. Located off of Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue. As the city manager just shared with you back in 2018, IKEA did buy this property with the intention of developing it into a retail store, but they pivoted during COVID and they requested to develop it into that distribution center and we said, no way. That is an incompatible use that certainly did not reflect the city's vision for that entire 25 acres. Fast forward, as the city manager mentioned, the city acquired the property back in March as a way to ensure a high quality development at this prominent location, as well as continue to leverage the public and private investment north of the 10 freeway. You can see the image here, it says site plan. The proposed project delivers on that vision brought forward by Archibald Property LLC. This is now fully entitled and includes approximately 50,000 square feet of premier dining and commercial space within the three two-story buildings. As you can see, the development is organized in such a way around a central plaza with outdoor dining, landscape walkways, and pedestrian gathering spaces. Parking is primarily adjacent to the 10 freeway, allowing the buildings and landscaping to define the Inland Empire frontage. The city is selling this property under the economic opportunity statute which is allowed under government code section 52201 and that authorizes a separate disposition path and enables a city to sell or lease property to create economic opportunity. And qualifying economic opportunities can include job creation or retention or a 15% increase in property tax revenue. As you can see, some of the economic benefits here from the project include the development of almost 725 temporary and permanent jobs, and it will also increase property tax revenue well above that 15% baseline at an increase in property tax revenue of 450%. Other transactions of this type of bakery and retail site include 1.8 million transactions a year. That is almost 5,000 customers a day at this retail site, in addition to the other ancillary retail, which will be expected to generate about 500 to 1,000 customers a day. The total private investment in this is estimated at 53.5 million. The land, I rounded up here, at 15.97 million. The developer will take on the parking improvements at $4 million, billboard signage at $1.5 million. The primary retail building will be $24 million. Additional retail buildings will be $7 million. And of course, the landscaping for $1 million. In summary, this project advances the Meredith International Specific Plan and builds upon the significant investment occurring in the area, including the new Hyatt House and Hyatt Place Hotel, just to the east of this, some of our new auto dealers, including the Genesis of Ontario, just to the west of this, and the planned Capital City Entertainment District at the Toyota Arena. Staff recommends approval of the purchase and sale agreement and the associated economic opportunity findings. I'm available to answer any questions you may have, as well as the city attorney, Ruben Duran, and we also have other counsel with BBK. Thank you.

All right, thank you. So we'll close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion or conversation and discussion from counsel.

I'll make a motion that we approve. And I know that this has been something that all of us have been wanting for a long time. I mean, at least for the 17 years that I've been on this council, I used to work at LAC, USC Medical Center, and we used to go to Porto's and Glendale. Somebody would make the run, you know, and come back with everything. And so it's just been something that, I mean, I'd go to the Glendale Cedar, sit there and wait for the matriarch to pass me by and, you know, hi, I'm Debbie, and we really would like you in Ontario.

you know so it's just something that um it's just going to be so exciting to have them here so i'm just really really thrilled so mr bowman okay so there's been a motion in a second um any other discussion uh so we'll take the vote all right the item passes 5-0 for the What do you call them? Mashed potato balls? So good. I think we're all happy with that. So then this takes us to staff matters. Mr. City Manager? All right. And now it takes us to council matters. And I do have some issues that I want to speak about. I would like to bring forward to the council in a future meeting, sooner than later, certainly at the end of this month is great, or in the first week of October, first meeting of October, that we need to really look at some reforms here in the city, especially when it comes to campaigning. We also need to have an ethics committee so that we can have some ethics here in the city that are followed by all of us, not just some of us. Some of the bullying that I've been hearing about in this campaign is just despicable. And it can't be just put up with forever. And we need some term limits. on our council, and some people would say, well, you've been here a long time. Yeah, I have, but it's about time. It's time now to start looking at that. In the past, I thought it was significant for us to have consistency, stability, and reliability in the development of the city, but it leads to some things that I think are troublesome, problematic, so we need to look at some term limits, campaign finance reform. Mr. Robles is mentioning some of the things that are really, again, questionable about how this all goes down. We need to look at some of the things that are happening. We've been mentioning the cost of living. We have approximately 187,000 to 200,000 people living in the city. Our median household income is $89,000. Rent is more than $2,000 a month. for a normal apartment. About 12% of our residents live below the poverty level. So when our residents tell us that affordability is an issue, we need to listen. There are things that we can do a little bit. that are reasonable, I think, to make Ontario a little bit more affordable. We cannot control the price of milk, the price of gas, the price of real estate. That is not within the city's ability to control, but we can control a few little things that can make life a little bit easier. Right now, for instance, we have What we provide qualifying low income seniors and residents with the disabilities discount of up to $15 a month on their combined water, sewer and refuse bill. I think we can extend that to everybody who lives below a certain income level. I don't think it just needs to be seniors and people with disabilities, but that's up to the council to decide based upon reports that we get from the city. We also have our empowerment scholarship program. It helps lower income, Ontario residents participate in recreation programs, as was mentioned earlier, and has helped more than 1,000 residents since 2014. I don't think that any kid should be held back from participating in the sports programs that we have in the city, no matter who's running them, because they can't afford it. I know that I ran into that when I was a kid. It was $7 to play baseball, $7. And my family couldn't afford to let me play. So I watched from the sidelines. and I could only play pickup ball in the community. And I don't think that's right. I think we need to be able to help kids get that experience. Our utility rate, hearing last year, approximately 230 households were enrolled in the utility assistance programs. That's 230 households. We have more than 53,000 households in the city. And... I don't know whether the number is low because the need is small, but I think that the program exists to help people, and I want to make sure that we're helping everybody. I think we should find out if there are people out there that need the assistance. So I'm asking our city manager and staff to come back within 60 days to give us an idea on how are our programs that are meant to help people actually doing something. So first our utility program. All low-income Ontario households, regardless of age or disability status, I'd like to see that as being a part of it. We have a very good first-time buyer program. I know people who have tried to access it, and they say that it's so difficult, they can't qualify. I'd love to see it either simplified or made more clear as to what is necessary to get involved with that program. And find out if they know. I think we have... Did a million and a half or a million a year towards that? And then we also have the $30,000 fix-up program. I was talking to somebody who was told, told me, now I don't know for sure because I wasn't there, that they were directed to a specific real estate program agency in town to get the $100,000 and the $30,000, but they were informed that they owed that no matter what. But it's my understanding that it's supposed to be forgiven in 10 year increments. Right, Mr. City Manager? Yeah, it goes away. So somehow people are getting misinformed. I don't know how many people have accessed that. and I'm assistant city manager, but it would be informational to me to find out how many people have been able to take part of that and participate in the program and the difficulty of applying. Then I want us to look at the $15 a month benefit itself and let us know for sure if we need to provide exactly the same level of assistance when that $15 was established, is that still sufficient for today? Okay. It doesn't sound like it to me, but $15 is $15. Our empowerment scholarship program, one out of every four Ontario residents is under the age of 18. I did a study on that, isn't that amazing? We do a lot to get our kids educated and sent to school. So I don't want financial hardship to be the reason a child in this city can't participate in things. So I'm trying not to repeat myself here. I'm not actually asking this council tonight to approve a single dollar of new spending, but I would think that we should look at whether we should expand these programs or not. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Uh, we need to reach the people who need the programs and provide meaningful assistance. So with all of that being said, I hope staff took note because I want to address these sooner than later. because I think we need to really look at all of these issues, from the first ones I mentioned to the last ones that I mentioned, and take charge of it and get something done as quickly as possible. People need the help. $15 may not sound like a lot, but if you don't have it, it's a lot. So thank you for hearing me out. I didn't read everything I had. We'd be here for another hour. So I'll move over to my right, Ms. Macias.

I just want to wish everyone a happy and safe Labor Day weekend. I know that that's coming up. We typically, you know, the people that work consider just a day off, but I would hope, Mr. Mayor, if we can adjourn the council meeting on behalf of our local labor union. That'd be great.

Mr. Bowman.

Thank you, Mr. Muir. You know, from time to time, we deal with some arduous, some very challenging issues and a lot of mixed feelings, a lot of true feelings, heartfelt feelings about what we do in the city and how we do it and balance and density and those types of things mean a lot. And I'm just thinking that from time to time, we agree that One of us has an idea, perhaps, that we can come together at another meeting and talk about that very idea. What I'd like to do is take a look at this time in a form of a resolution, to put together a resolution, a timely resolution, I think, in the overall balance of the city to really take a hard look at warehousing development and how that particular component of the city has really sprung, sprung up. And we really think it's time just to consider the overall current balance and the necessity to perhaps modify our course. And I think that's worthy of an opportunity to stop the forward motion and think about what we're doing for a while and contemplate what the future really looks like or should look like and whether we really want to be part of that with our name on it. So my recommendation, I'd like to take a vote to see if I have the support, but if I do have a council concurrence to have the city manager and staff bring forward as the next agenda, a proposed resolution that would do that very thing would be to put a hold on the construction of warehousing in the City of Ontario?

What I'm hearing you say, Mr. Bowman, is that you'd like to present a possible moratorium on warehousing. What I'd like to ask, if I might, if you might adjust to if we can first do a study on what we're looking at. A lot of times when it comes to warehouses, I know that the media plays into that whole idea of, and the din of social media saying there's too many, there's too many. I think that what we're doing right now in the City of Ontario is we have warehouses where they belong, but I do think that we need to look at where is that happening and are we staying true to our first initiative of being like that. And I think that comes with the report before an official motion and moratorium. I'd love to see the report on what we're doing and have a briefing here in front of all of us and then go from there.

That was actually my goal was to stop the full progress until we have an opportunity to do that very thing.

And I'm going to step in here, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind. I apologize for interrupting Councilmember Bowman. As I think you all know, the Brown Act does allow brief discussion to figure out whether to agendize a future item which I understand Councilmember Bowman attempting to do. Two of you have already spoken to the issue in some detail and so I'm going to respectfully advise you to be very cautious about another one of the five of you having a discussion on this. I think the question before the body now is Are there three of you who want to direct the city manager and his staff to further investigate the item as requested by Councilmember Bowman and perhaps draft up an ordinance? Beyond that, I respectfully ask you not to engage in any serious debate here. The public hasn't had an opportunity in advance notice to know that you would be discussing this issue. So am I clear enough, I hope?

I understand I was speaking more in the area of a resolution, which is an opportunity to evaluate where we're at in the process of moving forward from this point, so.

Yeah, and then my adjustment to that suggestion was we need to know where we're going before we say we want to go there or we don't. And so we'd need a briefing on what we're looking at first. Is that acceptable, Mr. Bowman? Yes, sir. Okay. So then the consensus would be that we have a briefing on what we're doing for the future of warehousing in the City of Ontario, correct? Correct. Is that good?

Again, I see two council members, which is not quite a consensus. I have a feeling that the city manager has a good sense of where this could go. I don't get the sense that he's been directed to bring an item before you, a resolution or otherwise, without another one of your membership agreeing to direct him to do so. We're in a little bit of a quandary, and I, all due respect to each of you, understand this is an important issue, but I'm not sure, and I'll let the city manager speak for himself as to whether he has clear direction on what the next appropriate move here is.

I would ask the council to express their opinions or their thoughts. Well, he's saying we can. No, I'm suggesting whether or not you should come forward. Yeah.

I'm not clear yet as to what we're asking.

A report on the future of warehouses in Ontario.

Is that what you're saying was said?

I'm gonna look to the city manager because truly he's the one who will direct his staff. I will support him and all of you of course. It is not clear to me as I sit here that that's what's been asked for. I'm hearing a study, I'm hearing a resolution. I think that this could be the beginning of an important conversation. I just don't know that we have enough to know what to bring to you to continue that conversation. Perhaps the manager could use a little bit more time to to formulate something and put it in front of you in due course.

As a means of level setting for the council, perhaps what we can do is as you recall, we recently adopted the general plan update and to revisit that and understand all the study because it was quite a bit of environmental review that went into that and quite a bit of community outreach. If we bring that back to the council, walk through that item again, And then from there, have the council in a public meeting that has been noticed, be able to articulate if you would like to change the general plan in some way or adjust the timing such as Mr. Bowman is expressing. That might be the best, most direct way to do that, particularly because we just recently did it. So it's still very fresh and we can go and express all that to the council.

And I will just add on that note that the general plan and the action that you took on that affects individuals and companies' property rights. And so there is a whole attendant due process that must occur. You have a planning commission and a planning staff that does a fine job of analyzing complicated and important issues like this and so Mr. Bowman, Mr. Mayor, I hope that you would understand that we would bring to bear those resources for you in compliance with the law to protect those property owners due process rights and to protect your community's interests and having the opportunity to participate in those discussions in the proper format.

Mr. Attorney, I understand. Irrespective of what it took to get here, that does not mean at some point in time we may have an opportunity, if we so desire, to change direction, period.

Absolutely. And as the policymakers, that is, the voters elect you to do that, and it's our job to help it happen in a legal, defensible way.

OK. So you understand what we want?

My recommendation to you is to bring back the general plan and review it with you in this session, in this chamber, to further flush out how all five of you feel about it, listen to the community again, and whatever direction you give, because it's a duly noticed meeting, we would act on it forthwith.

Are you okay with that, Jim?

I think that's a good beginning.

Yeah, I really think that we kind of need to be educated on it. It's easy to just say no more of this, more of that, what have you, but you really have to have an intellectual understanding of what's going on. So I would appreciate that. Thank you. Ms. Prada.

Nothing.

Mr. Watner.

Not everything.

All right. Well, thank you very much for indulging me with the largest amount of speaking time. And so we thank you for participating and we'll see you September 15th. This meeting is now adjourned.