Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is now 06:30PM. Welcome to the 04/28/2026 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for tonight's meeting are in the back and contain procedures that we will follow tonight. Please turn off all electronic communication devices or put them on non audible mode. Please do not engage private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during public comment or on a particular matter, please fill out a green card and submit it to the secretary at the end of the dais. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Miss Anderson? Present. Mister Gage?

Here.

Mister Hagman?

Here.

Mister Lampkin?

Present.

Mister Marks? Present. Mister Ritchie?

Present.

Chairman Deidmar? Present. Everyone's here.

Thank you. Now would you all please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance, which will be led by commissioner Anderson. Thank you all. Mr. Ngo, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

Thank you, madam chair. Yes, there are a couple announcements. So we will be taking items e and f together, and the project applicant for item d has requested that their item be continued indefinitely. With that, I'll turn it back to you, madam chair.

Alright. Thank you. Do any commissioners have a general announcement not related to an item on the agenda? Alright. Thank you.

Because there are none, we'll move on to public comments. Now is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on a topic that is not on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on a non agenda item?

Oh, got cards.

Oh, I have a card.

Be more than one. For public comments?

Oh, see. This is for Ray Smith. Mr. Smith, please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Ray Smith. I live at 3937 San Lorenzo in Ontario.

Thank you.

I just wanna make a simple observation and I'll give you a few examples. From the point of view of the community and as a typical resident, I believe that the commission and the council are out of touch with the residents. Our understanding of the city motto displayed behind you there, balanced community, is not supported by this parade month after month of warehouse approvals. And I say, we are out of balance. And the obvious reason for this is that the community is not being consulted.

True, there is some paltry outreach, but I think it's safe to say that 90% to 95% of our residents have no idea what's going on here tonight. Here's how we know we're out of touch. I'll give you three examples. As I'm sure you know, many cities around us are being much more selective about approving these projects. Chino, Montclair, Rialto, Fontana, Redlands, Banning are all hearing and accepting citizen complaints, but that's not happening here in Ontario.

Number two, a city employee recently told a crowd of prospective investors that the city, and I don't have a quote here, but continues to lean into our reality of being a logistics hub, and we're not shy about it. This community does not accept that this is our reality. Another example is the uproar over the possibility of not replacing Littleton Field was some sort of a ballpark. The total disregard for community input and the railroading of a competing plan was eye opening. I was stunned to attend one of the community briefings and only being allowed to see the preselected option.

I do not want to attend to a meeting and see a vote on a preselected option. I'm asking I'm asking you to make it your job to insist that the general public be consulted. Saying that if they really cared, they would be here tonight masks the reality that they've never even heard about what you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Smith. There's a card from Chris Robles. Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Chris Robles. I live in Ontario, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I wanna I really appreciate the comments that my friend Ray Smith has just made. I was actually witness to that comment by a city staff person. I do not remember ever being asked as a resident if we want to be a logistics hub.

It just is thrust upon us continuously. But my comment is to start with a fundamental issue, access and transparency. The agendas for this meeting, for this commission are presented in a way that is extremely difficult if not impossible for the public to meaningfully review them. Unlike city council agendas, these are not broken out with links. I'll give you an example.

January 27 agenda, 236 pages, one PDF document. February 24, 951 pages and tonight's over 1,400 pages. To be able to review that in pieces to understand where the breaks are is very very difficult. These are accessible issues. People cannot access their government when they're treated this way.

It's a barrier to participation and it needs to change. Second, tonight's agenda includes major policy items tied to the Ontario plan twenty fifty and proposition 70 protected land. These issues are long term have long term consequences for the community yet the public comment period for those topics closed last Monday. A bunch of us submitted, I submitted both of these comments. I'm sure you do not have those comments or the One minute remaining.

Package from the consultant who's putting that all together. Yet items G and H in particular, they have been noticed in the newspaper prior to this meeting, prior to the close. There's something significantly wrong with that. It's it's as though they're being treated as just obligations to check off a box and not meaningful public engagement. This is typical of the city and it should not be typical of the planning commission.

You have the power tonight to say no to many of these items, postpone these items. I have spoken before other city councils and other city planning commissions and I have seen planning commissions that have stood up to the city council on behalf of the residents, stood up to developers with big money have resigned when things have gone sideways against their wishes. I hope you all have the same purpose. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Oblis. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on a non agenda item? As there is no one else who wishes to speak, we will consider the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar will be enacted by one summary motion in the order listed.

There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the Commission votes on them unless a member of the Commission or the public requests a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for a separate vote. In that case, the balance of the items on the consent calendar will be voted on in one summary motion and then those items removed for separate vote will be heard. Do any commissioners wish to ask the staff a clarifying question about an item on the consent calendar?

Madam Chair.

Yes. Commissioner,

Yes, I need to recuse myself from voting on AO1 minutes as I wasn't here.

Thank

you. Last meeting.

Thank you. Do any commissioners wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?

Think Madam Chair, I think we have a few other recusals actually for 08/2001 because there was Commissioner Marks wasn't here. Okay.

Alright. So Commissioner Marks is also recusing himself.

Yes, I am.

Yeah. Thank you very much.

Just to clarify.

Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented? Pardon me? We need

to hear the speakers, the public comments for this item.

I can't hear, sorry.

Any other?

Public comments

Are for this there any other public comments for this item? You have two cards. I don't have a card. I have one for A2.

A2, that's A2 on

the Pardon me. All right, Mr. Robles, please return. I'm sorry. Pardon me.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Good evening. This item being presented as is is being presented as a simple cleanup and consistency amendment but it's not. It is a policy decision that advances a broader strategy to convert protected agricultural land. I'm gonna say that again, protected agricultural land into development supporting park infrastructure.

You are claiming the the city's claiming that CEQA exemption under section fifteen two six two, but that is not a feasibility study. This is an adopted plan tied directly to ongoing development and approvals including the Eastern Base Planning Area and that's just improper. Even more concerning, this action is part of a larger coordinated land use framing involving the county's 2026 land plan, the sale of proposition 70 dairy lands, and the creation of the Ontario Grand Park. These are not separate actions. They are one unified project and CEQA requires you to analyze a whole of that project together.

Under prop 70, which was initiated by the voters of California in 1988, These lands that are in Ontario were acquired by to be preserved in perpetuity for agricultural and open space. But the county's own plan shows that these lands are being sold and replaced with parkland. That's not the intent of prop 70. A park with agricultural programming is not agricultural preservation. It is rebranding and it is not proper.

The item moves that the city further further down the path of acquiring these lands and the farmland will be lost to industrial impacts and increase the the public is told that it's being offset with amenities. That's just it it shouldn't be an either or, it's both. This is protected land. The park is separate. The city has indicated they want to move in that direction. That's fine. Don't take protected land and somehow switch it around so that you all of a sudden have don't have to acquire additional land. That's not the intent of it. So I urge you to reject this item and bring it back and listen to more public comment because this is not going away. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Robles. And Mr. Beckendam, please. State your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening, commissioners. Randy Beckendam. I live in Ontario, 1400389 Sultana Avenue. And I'm executive director of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation. Our non profit managed these Prop 70 lands from 1990 until 2006 very successfully.

At that point, the county fired our executive director, dismissed the board and took management of the Prop 70 lands in house. And twenty years ago, since the last twenty years, they've been managing them and we can argue they have not been a good steward. First of all, the mandate of Prop 70 was to put conservation easements on those lands once they were acquired. That has not been done to this date. And so the county is in violation of the public trust, thirty seven years.

Secondly, if you look at the consent calendar, as Mr. Robles mentioned, the plan, and we know the plan because the county board of supervisors voted at their last meeting to sell all the Prop 70 land to the city of Ontario. So they'll somehow end up in the Great Park or Grand Park. And we don't know how that's gonna happen. But, at any rate, you reference in here SB eleven twenty four.

So I have a copy of SB eleven twenty four here, passed in 2010, and the county is not in compliance with this. This mandates that crop conservation easements would be put on all those lands by 2012. It hasn't been done. I'm going to submit this to the record so you have it fresh to review. So there's so much wrong here.

You've got to table this. There's so much more to discuss. The county is just in gross violation of the public trust One minute left. On Yeah, I could talk so long. As mister Robles said, the prop 70 lands are supposed to be preserved for agriculture.

We're experts at regenerative farming. The dairies are gone. All these lands have to be repurposed to regenerative farming. They have to be conserved right where they are and put into agricultural use right where they are. The Grand Park can be built alongside of them, And these 200 acres of regenerative farming can help the Grand Park in all their agricultural programming. But to subsume them into the Grand Park is just wrong. So, here's a copy of the bill for the record.

Thank you, mister Beckendam. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Tina Silva and I'm a proud resident of Ontario in District 2. And I'm so sorry I didn't put a card card in but I just after listening to farmer Randy and to Chris, I felt compelled to just say a few words to you all about this agenda item or this consent calendar item that I really think you should pull this and give it some further consideration because I understand it's being described as a small update, but it really seems like more than that. The plan expands the park area, changes the map, and adds what they say new uses like agriculture. Those are important changes that will shape what happens there in the future. Because of that, I'm concerned about using a CEQA exemption.

Even if this is just a planning step, it sets the direction for future development and those impacts should be looked at more closely. I also found it hard to understand exactly what is changing. Words like cleanup and alignment are used, but it's not clear what's actually different from the previous plan. Maybe I'm missing something. For a project this large, I think it's important to be very clear and transparent about what's being approved. I respect respectfully ask you for clear information and careful review before moving forward. Thank you so much.

And thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

I'm Thomas Leon Machigan Junior. I've been in Ontario all my life. I can give you numerous addresses where we're at. As a reminder,

you've got Please state your name and address for the record, sir.

I'm Thomas Machigan Junior. We got which address would you like in Ontario that we own real property in? Anyways, you've got the Gwassee Regional Park. You've got numerous what 36 plus parks in the city. You have enough hard enough time maintaining those. You've got a minor league baseball team, we don't need any parks. You have to keep the agriculture area consistent with community standards. Anything what South Of Riverside Drive, East Of Euclid and North Of The Chino Airport, it's all agriculture. There's still families that are still there operating dairies. You don't have to worry about water runoff or storm water.

You don't have to worry about, you know, hauling off the cow manure. We got the compost permit. So you gotta keep it agriculture. Why pack in more more buildings and more housing? Already overcrowded enough. We're already filling up the infrastructure we have now. Can't even handle it. And you're destroying the agriculture. I don't know what your hubbub is about destroying open land. We don't wanna end up like another LA or Orange County or Riverside's even worse. So I think plus I grew up on South Magnolia. So that's a horse property and you gotta keep it agricultural. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Marta McBride and I live in Ontario District 1. I want to say that the idea of you know, it just seems that these Prop 70 lands are the subject of a lot of almost like shell game tactics where we're kind of shuffling pieces of land and replacing this piece as long as you know, we can use this piece as long as we replace it with this other piece of land. And I don't think that meets the neither the letter nor the spirit of the law in which prop 70 was drafted and approved. So I think that earlier that last last week, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit Huerta Del Valle here in Ontario.

It is a beautiful community garden. It is enormous. And, I think that like, I can't remember who it was that mentioned it, but there was somebody up here who mentioned, I think it was Randy, who said that those Prop 70 lands can coexist in compliance with Prop 70 quite nicely adjacent to the park without affecting the park itself. Okay? Those lands can be used by the community for the benefit of the community in terms of growing food which is clearly an agricultural endeavor.

You don't have to do these things where you are manipulating the circumstances to meet a grand vision. You don't have to do that. You can hear the public out, listen to their ideas that will incorporate the best of everything. The best of preserving Prop 70 lands, the best of assisting the city in developing open park space, usable park space for the benefit of And the city we can do this if we work together. We can do this.

So we need our meetings, we need these these agendas to be more easily digestible by the average resident or we need to have meetings prior to these decision making meetings that we're having to let the residents hear in detail and ask questions about the pros and the cons of each of these proposals and get our people engaged in governing their own city and making decisions that benefit the greatest number of people. We have In this last election, we only had 10% engagement. People are sitting at home on their couches eating popcorn or whatever. They are not getting up. They are not getting out.

They have given up on being engaged in this city and we need to fix that. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

So Madam Chair, if I may, just to provide some clarification to both the Planning Commission and the public.

Thank you Mr. Ngo.

There has been some statements that the sale of Prop 70 land is part of this consent calendar item. I just wanted to remind the Planning Commission and the public that it is just the Grand Park Master Plan. So what what peoples of the members of the public have mentioned, this is to provide some minor clarifications and edits to make sure that our TOP, our general plan, that the Grand Park Mass Up Plan is aligned with our Ontario plan as well as with the land plan with the county. Any actions with regards to sale of prop 70 land will be part of a future public hearing if it happens at the city council level. So members of the public will be provided that opportunity to provide their comments with regards to that if that were to be the case in the future.

Also for clarification, we are removing items such as active park uses such as like sports parks and such and including agricultural uses to be consistent with Prop 70. Just to make sure that all of our documents are in alignment like I mentioned with our general plan as well as the county land plan that was just recently approved by the state. So with that, I'll turn it back to you Madam Chair.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Ngo. All right. For the Commissioner, is there a motion to accept the consent calendar as presented? No.

Can we move ahead with accepting the consent calendar?

Madam Chair, would, the commission, someone would need to make a motion and a second and have a vote to either move it forward or if a commissioner wants to pull an item, that's another thing that could happen but it's up to the commission to move forward.

We have the comments on the record. Yeah. Alright. So is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented?

Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion that we pull item A, I believe we were just speaking about A02 from the consent calendar before approval.

And you want to pull that from the consent calendar?

That is correct.

Okay. Alright, then the consent calendar will consist of item A01, the minutes approval. Is there a motion to accept the consent calendar as amended?

I'll second that. Did that need a second to be pulled?

Any commissioner can pull the item and then now what's before you is the remainder of the consent calendar which in this case is just the minute. Someone can make a motion to move that forward.

Thank you. So, I move that we accept the consent calendar with the exclusion of A02 as presented.

Okay. Alright. There's a motion to accept the consent calendar, motion and a second to accept the consent calendar. Madam secretary, please oh, and we have two abstentions as well, mister Gage and mister Marks. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

Sorry. Ms. Anderson?

Yes.

Mr. Gage is recused. Mr. Heckman?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks is recused. Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Chairman Dienmer?

Yes.

It is approved. The minutes, five to zero.

Alright.

Alright.

We'll now move on to the public hearing items. We'll now consider the public hearing. Pardon me?

It's been pulled out of the AO2. I'll introduce AO2.

Do we do that ahead of opening Yes. The Alright.

I know commissioner,

oh excuse me,

Commissioner Lamkin pulled the item. So he might say, I don't know if there's just a singular question or if you'd like a full staff report.

Thank you. And I was just waiting to make sure I was acknowledged by Madam Chair before we move forward to make sure we follow procedures properly. I do, I did ask that that item be pulled because when we initially started talking about Grand Park, there's normally a presentation that is done. There's some questions about alignment of when the presentation was done, the and then I guess there was a public comment or public comment feedback that was requested recently. So the first thing I'd like to do just to clear up any confusion.

I would like clarification on the timeline. When this public comment session or public comment hearing or this session that one of the speakers spoke about, when did it occur and what was being requested of these residents? What kind of feedback was being solicited from the residents?

I believe the resident was asking about the public notification for the environmental impact report that was associated with item G on the agenda, on tonight's agenda. And that's with regards to the notice of availability that the draft environmental impact report was available. So you have forty five days to provide your public comments. After that, these comments that we did receive, there will be a response to comments with the final environmental impact report and that will be done ten days prior to the publication of the final environmental impact report. So that'll be prior to city council if the planning commission so choose to move forward with that item.

So the feedback was solicited, but there was no presentation?

That's an item on the agenda that's going to be presented later tonight.

Okay, later tonight. I had one additional question. Sorry, I have a lot of notes here because we had a lot of speakers on the issue. As a part of the packet, is a presentation on the vision of Grand Park. I do recall seeing the presentation in the past.

I do recall seeing the presentation in the past. And if there is an update or if there are changes, can you provide clarification on what those updates or changes for the residents who are stating that they're confused about what those updates or changes are? You may have already said it, but I think it's good to start from here and say, here are the updates and here are the changes that are being considered tonight as a part of A02.

So Madam Chair, if you want, I can go ahead and introduce it and our senior landscape architect, Jamie Richardson

Please.

Will be able to provide that presentation. And we can just it'll be a quick presentation to go over some of those changes and the history of it. Thank you. So item A02 is environmental assessment and an amendment to the Ontario Grand Park formerly known as the Ontario Great Park to reflect revisions to establish consistency with the Ontario plan, update the name and include agricultural uses within the programming of the park. The Grand Park Master Plan guides the future phased improvements and development of the Grand Park which seeks to provide a major amenity to Ontario residents as a key organizational element of land use development.

The Ontario Park is approximately 370 acres and extends over three and a half miles in an east west direction from Haven Avenue to Campus Avenue with anticipated widths ranging from 280 feet to 1,600 feet. This amendment clarifies and clean cleans up items in the document incorporated language that aligns with the objectives and requirements outlined within proposition 70 and SB eleven twenty four. The amendment revises the project location map extending the park to Euclid Avenue on the West and aligning with the Ontario Plan TOP. Describes the project setting, language and programming related to adjacent land uses and reconfigures conceptual renderings based on previous adjacent land uses. The Grand Park master plan is exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section fifteen two six two feasibility and planning studies as a sequel guidelines.

And this is a city initiated project and city council action is required. And our senior landscape architect, Ms. Richardson will provide the presentation.

Good evening. Can you hear me? Good evening chairperson, madam chairperson and commissioners. Tonight I'll be presenting the first amendment to the conceptual ground park master plan. Mr.

Ngo provided a background on the conceptual master plan which was approved back in 2021. It serves as a flexible framework for the development of approximately 370 acres of parkland. The conceptual master plan establishes a long term vision for a major regional amenity that support passive recreation and open space within the city of Ontario. The park is envisioned as a central gathering place that connects residential neighborhoods with commercial, retail, and industrial areas. It will feature a network of trails, bike paths, and paseos creating multiple activity nodes throughout the site.

The first amendment to the master plan is proposed to ensure consistency with the Ontario plan. It's gonna update the park's name from Great Park to Grand Park and revise the permitted land uses within the park. These updates will align with the County Of San Bernardino's land plan under prop 70, which emphasizes preserving additional open space, habitat, and publicly accessible lands for passive recreation. So to answer some of those questions, the changes made to the Grand Park are just basically, as Mr. Neault identified, taking out any active recreation areas, so sports fields, so it can be developed in the future to allow for passive recreation, habitat, and agricultural uses and to allow that within the park.

Those are kind of the clarifying items. Here's the project location. It spans, as Henry explained, from Haven to Euclid, and it now extends the piece from Campus Avenue and provides a pedestrian connection to the Euclid Avenue median. And, the conceptual master plan balances the site's ecological legacy, agrarian history, and ongoing urban development. Additionally, it's organized around five key components.

It highlights the importance of water in our region. It establishes a forested edge and creates a central arroyo throughout the park. It develops a hierarchy of trails and pathways and supports diverse park programming. And so, the staff recommends that the commission adopt the resolution recommends approval of amendment number one of the conceptual ground park master plan to city council.

You. There was a comment that was made that there's gonna be a portion extended from Campus Avenue to Euclid Avenue.

So just to clarify, item G, the Ontario plan, our general plan, policy plan item G tonight, that is actually a proposal to extend it from campus to Euclid. And this is just reflecting that it'll be consistent with the general plan.

Okay. So since that item is agendized, I'm going to go ahead and reserve my questions regarding the portion we just talked about since it is item G. It's agenda. So I'll reserve my questions for that until we get to that item. And then my last question is in regards to the removal of any sports. I want to make sure I use the proper term. Need the removal of any sports fields, correct? Correct. From Grand Park. And I assume that the reason why those are being removed is because now we have the sports complex. There's no need to have both the sports complex and have sports or sporting amenities in this park. Correct. Since everything essentially moved to sports complex.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff from the commission? Alright, what's next?

Deliberation and then a motion and a second to

Do we need to open a public hearing?

For the consent count for AO2.

We do need to do that for AOC. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Alright, we will. So, open the public hearing. I'm going to open the public, yeah. Do I need to go over the instructions for public hearing?

No, if we can get a, if you can ask for a motion on the item A02.

Yes. Alright.

Madam Chair, I think we already had public comments because we took the cards. Yes.

So

in that case, I'd like to move that we approve A02 according to the facts that were presented by staff.

And is there a second to the motion?

I'll the go ahead and motion Madam Chair. Was satisfied with my questions.

Alright, so the motion is to, it has to be recommended city council, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, so the motion is to recommend to city council approval of item A02, is that correct?

Under the consent calendar, correct, yeah. Well, we would normally just approve the consent calendar as presented, but in this case that's part of

the issue. We had to pull it. So it's a separate, it's a separate item, correct?

So I

recommend Yeah, move the staff recommendation is fine.

All right, so now the, if the secretary would please call the roll. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Hegman?

Yes.

Mr. Lamkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Chairman Dedemar?

Yes.

It is recommended to City Council seven to zero.

Alright, thank you very much. Alright, now it's time to open the public hearing. All right. Alright. We will now consider the public hearing items.

The procedure for public hearings is as follows. We will first hear a staff report on the matter, followed by, questions of staff by the Planning Commission. I will then open the hearing for comments from the public and I will provide the applicant or their representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant, I will open the meeting to comments by anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on the matter. Each person will have three minutes for this purpose.

After all persons have spoken on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for purposes of rebuttal or clarification as necessary. Once all persons have spoken, I will close the public portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and final action. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the commission, an appeal may be filed within ten days with the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Mr. No, item B.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Item B is the twenty sixth annual model colony awards for file number PHP 20 six-six. Your request for the historic preservation commission to accept the nominations for the twenty sixth annual model colony awards. This project is city initiated and a city council presentation will be provided of the world awards. The first meeting, City Council meeting in June. And our senior planner, Ms. Santuna will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Ngo. Good evening Madam Chair and members of the commission. Since 2005, the National Trust of Historic Preservation has been designating the month of May as Historic Preservation Month. This year's theme for Historic Preservation Month and the Model Colony Awards is Past Meets Possible, Reimagining Place and Purpose.

This theme challenges us to see historic resources not as static, but as working assets, as places that can be adapted meet to meet today's needs, strengthen our economy, and shape a more resilient future. The Model Colony Awards were established by City Council in the year 2000 and the program recognizes exceptional efforts in restoring, rehabilitating and preserving Ontario's historic resources. This is now the twenty sixth consecutive year of the program. Award categories include restoration, rehabilitation, the John S. Armstrong Landscape Award, Founders Heritage Award, George Chafee Memorial Award and Awards of Merit.

This year there are five nominations representing two commercial landmark buildings and three single family residential properties. The first nomination is a rehabilitation award for the Bank of Italy and Bumstead Bicycle buildings at 200 North Euclid. This rehabilitation project involves the adaptive reuse of two designated local landmarks into a unified destination that now includes multiple restaurant spaces and a large outdoor dining area. The Bank of Italy was constructed in 1923 in the Beau Arts style. Originally constructed as a bank, the building was unified with the bump set bicycle buildings to the east in the nineteen sixties for the use as a beauty college.

The Bank of Italy building has had some minimal alterations over the years to accommodate the beauty college use while the bump said bicycle buildings was covered in stucco and plywood, concealing the still intact red clay brick walls and arched window openings. Over the past several years, the current property owner has done extensive work to both preserve and restore historic features while also upgrading the buildings to meet current standards and modern needs. Key preservation efforts include seismic retrofitting using an interior steel frame, restoration of terracotta brickwork and historic openings, removal of past alterations that obscured historic features. The project also introduced modern upgrades such as an elevator and new stair systems, commercial kitchens and a rooftop dining space. Importantly, the project preserved significant architectural features and adapted these buildings for a viable contemporary use.

Overall, this is a strong example of large scale adaptive reuse and significant investment in the downtown historic resource. The next nomination is an award of merit for the Bumpstead Bicycles building rooftop unit. The project transformed a previously open air roof top space into a functional enclosed dining area while maintaining the building's historic character. To meet operational needs for weather protection and security, the design introduced a lightweight reversible enclosure using a multi track sliding window system set behind the existing parapet. This preserved key visual elements and open air qualities.

The design team creatively applied the Secretary of the Interior Standards integrating modern materials in a way that is both clearly differentiated and highly compatible with the historic structure. By prioritizing transparency, the addition enhances this contemporary use without compromising the building's architectural integrity. Overall, the project demonstrates how thoughtful standards based design can successfully adapt a historic resource to new uses while preserving its character. The next nomination is an award of merit for 734 East F Street. The project at 734 East F Street introduced a two story accessory residential structure that enhances the property's functionality while preserving the prominence of the historic 1926 Craftsman bungalow seen here.

Carefully sited at the rear of the lot, the addition maintains the established hierarchy with minimal visibility from the public right of way. The design reflects a thoughtful and creative approach using compatible forms, materials and detailing such as the multi gabled roof lines, horizontal siding and complementary window patterns. The owner even ensured that the attic vents that's seen here on the left, the original on the original historic residence were replicated on the new accessory residential structure. Overall, the project demonstrates how Sensitive Infill can successfully be integrated into new residential uses and can serve as a strong example of preservation minded design. The next nomination is for constructed in 1884 in the American Foursquare architectural style.

The It is a designated local landmark and also a contributor to the designated College Park Historic District. The two story building was originally located at the Northwest corner of C Street and Euclid Avenue, but was relocated to its current site on Princeton Avenue in 1923 to make way for the Emmons Building with the Granada Theater. In 2022, the property owners received certificate of appropriateness approval to construct a two story accessory residential structure at the southeast corner of the site, placed strategically to protect a mature, healthy coast live oak tree. Photograph on the left shows the site prior to the construction and on the right, the new accessory residential structure. The new structure is located at the rear of the property to preserve the Avenue Boarding House's prominence in the College Park Historic District.

It was constructed with creative and thoughtful applications of the Secretary of the Interior Standards incorporating compatible elements like horizontal wood siding, a hipped roof and matching windows. Beyond architectural compatibility, the project demonstrates a deeper level of stewardship through the site sensitive design. The project also utilized salvaged materials. Pictured on the right is the front door that was on the Avenue boarding house when it was originally on Euclid Avenue, the 308 being the original Euclid Avenue address. Overall, the project serves as a strong example of how context sensitive infill can support continued use while reinforcing the historic character of the district.

And the final nomination is a rehabilitation award for 712 East H Street. This 1931 Mediterranean bungalow was rehabilitated following a period of significant neglect during which unpermitted alterations had compromised its original character. Pictured on the upper left and right are photographs from 2022 and 2023. A lot of the original historic features had been removed or concealed, so historic photographs were used to guide the rehabilitation project. Pictured here on the left is the before with some inappropriate window alterations, and then pictured here on the right is the after with new windows and new tile that was applied over the arcade entry.

The interior was completely renovated with a new floor plan, additional restroom was added, and all system upgrades, all of the systems were upgraded including plumbing, electrical, new roof system, new flooring, new laundry and kitchen facilities. This project successfully revitalized the deteriorated historic resource demonstrating how thoughtful rehabilitation can uncover and restore historic character while accommodating a contemporary residential use. This year's nominees represent a high level of commitment to historic preservation across a variety of project types. Each project demonstrates how historic resources can be preserved while remaining functional and relevant. Staff recommends that the commission accepts the twenty twenty six Model Colony award nominations.

Award recipients will be recognized by the city council at the 06/06/2026 meeting. This concludes staff's presentation. I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Antuna. Any commissioners have questions for Ms. Antuna? If not, then is there a motion to approve the file number PHP26-six, the Model Colony Awards.

Madam Chair. Open.

Pardon me?

Open public.

We open the public hearing first.

Sorry. All right.

All right. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask if there are, I have no green cards. Is there anyone who wants to speak to this matter? If there are none, then we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to the commissioners.

Madam Chair.

Comment. Mr. Cage.

Thank

you. Well, I want to applaud our Model Colony Awards period and what the city has done and what some of us also have done. The citizens have demanded comments about our historic downtown being revitalized. I grew up as a kid in the 1950s and 1960s with an amazing downtown that changed after strip malls, Ontario Plaza and others took all the businesses away and it all started deteriorating like many downtowns. And you know I think Ontario was behind for a while as other communities really applauded their historic downtowns and there's so many success stories.

Pasadena is one of the first ones, but Ontario has come a long way. Along with the citizens help from Ontario Heritage that was created in 1998 to get the citizens to show and talk about what's important with historic preservation, and why it's important. And looking at this Bank of America building, I mean that was built in the nineteen twenty's. It was security bank built by a couple of councilmen starting up a bank, but long, lo and behold nineteen twenty nine stock market crash, they couldn't open the bank. So Segundo Guasti from Guasti, he was on the board of, at the time it was Bank of Italy, not Bank of America.

And he helped raise funds to raise the amount of assets that were needed to open this bank. And so it did open and it opened as the Bank of Italy. And so, I don't know if you have previous pictures of this, but the fact that, you know, I'm so glad we're giving them an award because they rehabilitated this building back to brick where it was all stuccoed over. It had become, you know we had seen it in the past as Richard's Beauty College and a lot of other functions, but it's such a beautiful building. Yeah, there it is in the lower picture and the one on the right, it was all plastered over and totally different.

And it's brought, now it's been rehabilitated back to its historic beauty. There it is. And you know there's a lot of doubters that, oh it couldn't be done, it was too small for a restaurant. Some of us spoke up, a lot of citizens spoke up and said, no, it's worth rehabilitating this and reusing it as a functional. And just look at it, it's just beautiful in the middle of our downtown.

So for those citizens who spoke up today, it does help to speak up and things do get done, and historic preservation is one of them that Ontario's should be complimented for, and our citizens that stood up wanting it should be applauded. Certainly Bank of America, love to see this getting the Model Colony award. The Alpocone restaurant, if you haven't been there, go because it's, it turned out beautifully and it really shows off our city and that was part of the same building. The award of merit to the boarding house that's on Princeton, that boarding house actually, I don't know if you've heard, if you're my age, you heard a Henry Higgins and Ramona books that were written by Beverly Cleary. She came and lived in that house with her uncle.

She was from Oregon and she came to California and went to Chaffey Junior College and lived with her uncle and her aunt in that house. And it's just great that those homeowners are preserving that house and doing the right things with that house. And go read some books, Henry Huggins and Ramona. Love it. She wrote those books because she was inspired by her English teacher at Chaffee Junior College.

So there's a lot of history there that, you know, the background for all these. The other house on F Street, was actually an accessory unit in the back. It faces the alley. So that's the Craftsman bungalow is in front and it has the same kind of roofline. So that was well done too and should get an award.

And the rehabilitation award for that little Spanish bungalow that was, that had really deteriorated in something different and it's brought back to its beautiful simple self and it's great to see that also. So anyway, I'm all for this. I could keep talking for another hour like some of you on other subjects, But I'm all for granting this motion for these choices for the Monocolony Awards this year. And I'd like to make that motion.

And that would be a motion to approve file number PHP26Dash06, the Monocolony Awards?

Yes. I'd like to make that motion to

approve. Alright.

And Madam Chair, I think these the selection of items or selection of buildings that have been chosen for the Model Colony Awards represent the very definition of stakeholdership. I think one thing that we never talk about when it comes to adaptive reuse or looking at a building and coming into our city if you weren't previously an owner here or previously invested here and then coming in and looking at something is the fact that somebody looks at these buildings and says, there's something beautiful here. That last bungalow style home, previously painted blue, I cringed looking at the old photo. And someone looked at that and said, you know what, there's something beautiful here and I can make changes to that. I also feel like when it comes to the old Bank of Italy building, I feel like I know it inside and out.

Individuals who worked on that are here with us tonight from what I understand. We didn't talk about the retrofitting that needed to take place for earthquake retrofitting. And in many cases, many cities are looking at buildings like this in their cities and they're just choosing to tear them down. And that's not what happened in this case. Someone looked at that and said, there's something beautiful here and I'm willing to invest the time and the effort to bring the building back to its former glory.

And it's hard to even say former glory because former glory is current glory in this particular case. My only hope and wish for the Bank of Italy building is that we bring back that clock tower that was previously there and that would really just take it over the top. And I'd be even willing to propose another award if they can make that happen in the future. With that, I'd like to second the motion to

I was gonna ask if that was a second.

That is a second that is a second motion, but I wanted to make sure I provided those comments to know how much those individuals are appreciated.

Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Gage and a second by commissioner Lampkin. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Mister Hagman?

Yes.

Mister Lampkin?

Yes.

Mister Marks?

Yes.

Mister Ritchie?

Yes.

Miss Anderson?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Dietemacher? Yes. It is approved seven to zero.

Alright, thank you very much. And Mr. Ngo, design award.

Thank you Madam Chair. Just to refresh the Planning Commission's memory, a couple of months ago, the Planning Commission wanted to recognize the efforts of the developer and the restaurant owners for El Bacone, the Mule Car as well as the Bottle Shop that's located within the Bank of Italy and the Bumstead Bicycle Building. Tonight, I wanted to invite Alex Barronian, Barowian, and Cynthia and Sandra Ayalla, if you guys could come to the podium. Just wanted to recognize the adaptive reuse as we just previously mentioned and previously had presented of these two historically significant buildings. This is a catalyst for the reimagination of our downtown area that is we're trying to create that eighteen hour downtown.

And it's to the efforts of the developer, Alex Barroian, and the restaurant owners, Cynthia and Sandra Ayala. And this vision of that eighteen hour downtown is the vision that has been the city council's wishes and vision as well as the community. And on behalf of the city of Ontario and the Planning Commission, just want to thank you for your efforts, your dedication, your financial investment in our great community to make our great downtown and just to make our city that premier city and in the empire. So thank you. Let's take one to speak.

Thank you very much for the great honor, Madam Chairperson, Commissioners. It's been an honor and a privilege to work on the Bank of Italy and the Bumstead Building. I could easily say it was probably one of the most difficult projects that we encountered working on historic buildings thus far. But with great difficulty came great success. We endured a lot, especially during COVID.

It took a little longer than expected. It took a lot more money than expected. But I'm happy to say that it is done. It is completely occupied and there's three beautiful businesses now in Downtown Ontario with hopefully plenty more to come with additional historic buildings to work on. Thank you very much for the honor.

Thank you. And I believe Mr. No has a presentation to make.

Yeah

All right. I'd like to call a very brief five minute recess right now.

Commissioner Lampkin Lampkin, we're ready to go.

We're gonna reconvene the meeting now. Please would everyone take their seats?

Him.

You know, that's Quinn's job. Make sure Henry's here.

We'll do it without Henry. You

can take over, buddy.

And is director No here?

All

right, would you please take your seats? Thank you. Mister No, we're ready for item c.

Thank

you, madam chair. Item c is environmental assessment and certificate of appropriateness review for file number Php25Dash022. A certificate of appropriateness for the adaptive reuse of and construction of a 1,298 square foot 2nd Floor addition to an existing historic commercial building, designated local landmark number 29, the W. W. Smith grocery building on point zero nine acres of land located at 207 North Euclid Avenue within the Downtown West plan unit development and zoning district.

The project is categorically exempt, from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section fifteen three three one, historic resource restoration rehabilitation of the CEQA guidelines. And the project is submitted by Tamara Sousson Design and senior planner. Miss Santino will provide the presentation.

Thank you, mister Ngo. The project site is located at 207 North Euclid Avenue, generally at the Northwest corner of B Street and Euclid Avenue within the Downtown West planned unit development area and also within the potential downtown historic district. The site is within the mixed use retail core along Euclid Avenue envisioned as the city's primary downtown corridor and activity center. The site is developed with a two story historic building known as the W. W.

Smith Grocery Building, local landmark Number 29. It is surrounded by commercial uses to the North, mixed uses to the South, and parking and public alley to the West. Town Square is located to the East. The building was constructed in 1910 by Wilbur W. Smith and operated as grocery store.

It later housed a hardware store and then a jewelry store beginning in the nineteen sixties. During that time, the original facade was significantly altered to attract the modern shopper. The storefront was angled to herd or guide shoppers and drop them right into the main entrance to come in to see the jewelrywares that were displayed in the storefront. In 1998, the building was designated a local landmark due to its contribution to the city's commercial history and the building retains historic elements including the original 2nd Floor windows, seen here the five wood hung windows and at the rear the original brick facade is still visible. The building has two stories.

There are two separate second story unit, one closer to Euclid Avenue, the eastern second story unit and then the western second story unit is overlooking the alley. So these are some photographs where you can see the second story units looking north from the roof. The project is proposing to construct building shell improvements to accommodate three tenant spaces. To do that, they will be proposing They're also proposing a twelve ninety eight square foot 2nd Floor addition which will require some minor interior demolition as well as partial demolition of roof to accommodate the 2nd Floor addition. The project will also include system upgrades and seismic retrofit with a moment frame construction.

This cross section will better illustrate the proposed project. So the basement level seen here in purple will be a prep area for future restaurant space. This will house trash compactor rooms, storage areas, and will include a dumbwaiter to service the Ground Floor and potentially the 2nd Floor. The yellow area would be the main restaurant area and then the greenish teal area would be the Western 2nd Floor unit. And then on the upper area you'll see where that 2nd Floor addition would be constructed and also an outdoor rooftop patio area as well as outdoor dining that would overlook Euclid Avenue.

The project would construct a new elevator that would service the Basement Ground Floor and 2nd Floor as well as a lift that would service the Western 2nd Floor unit. Here you can see the floor plan with the basement showing the prep area as well as the future trash room and the 1st Floor would be the open area to facilitate a future restaurant operator. Again, the project is proposing shell improvements. Any future tenant would then separately come with a tenant improvement to customize the space specific for their needs. And then the mezzanine area showing that Western 2nd Floor Unit and the 2nd Floor unit with the addition outlined in purple.

The existing elevations that displayed before include those black metal panels that are an alteration to the original turn of the century construction. The applicant is proposing to construct a restoration of the facade using historic photographs as a guide. So visible here is the original brick construction with coins and decorative cornice and dentals as well as concrete windowsills. Here are the proposed elevations showing the proposed restoration. The applicant is proposing to remove the black metal panels and reveal the historic brick material that is currently still underneath those panels and would be repairing and replacing any brick as needed.

The window openings would remain but new windows to match the original hung windows will be installed. A new storefront would be installed with constructed of bronze anodized aluminum. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a roll up door for off hours to secure that open patio area overlooking Euclid Avenue. This would create an attractive enclosure that would be compatible with the historic features of the building. At the rear, at the second level over the new rooftop patio, there would be complimentary bronze anodized aluminum doors and windows and metal panels.

This is a project rendering where you can more clearly see that roll up door that would secure the open patio during off hours. And then conceptual renderings of the rear and the interior of potential restaurant. The applicant is proposing to use compatible materials. A composite material will be used to reconstruct those decorative, the cornice treatments that were visible in the historic photographs. This material is utilized widely on historic buildings and has accepted by the Secretary of the Interior Standards as an appropriate alternative material.

It would be much lighter than concrete and less susceptible to failure. So that's what's being proposed for this site. Additionally, there's an example of the proposed storefront system and also the aluminum patio cover that would be over the rooftop patio. So staff is recommending approval of the certificate of appropriate application. The Historic Preservation Subcommittee did review the application at the April 8 meeting and recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report.

This concludes staff's presentation. I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Antuna. Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lampkin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The decorative awning at the very top on the proposed development, Is that also behind the metal or is that going to need to be rebuilt?

Is this the awning, the photograph or the conceptual rendering?

The conceptual rendering shows like an ornate, isn't the I'm sorry, the front facing euclid. That ornate, those ornate, I don't know what you would call those.

The cornice treatment?

Yes. Is that behind the metal currently or will that need to be rebuilt completely?

That will have to be reconstructed and that would be reconstructed with that composite material.

Which is lighter than concrete?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

Any other questions? All right, if there are no further questions, I'll open the public hearing to the audience. I have no green cards, so I will close the public hearing. And turn the matter over to the commission for deliberation and discussion and action.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Yes. Commissioner Gage. I'm getting excited. I know historic preservation month isn't till May, May's almost upon us so I'm getting excited. I keep thinking El Pescador, what used to be Bob's big boy and Gloria's used to be the Blue Seal Building where our towels were all done from the high school and the junior high.

And, you know Bank of Italy is now, the mule cart and Matisse is in the Frankish Building and things are really hap we even got a Starbucks downtown and it's a drive through and it's really working. Anyway, there's so much going on downtown and this adaptive reuse. This is another example. Miss, you know I grew up with, that was white jewelers when I grew up in Ontario and it was a mainstay in the community. With Ontario heritage, I did a, when I was president, we had a historic home tour and Mr.

White's home was on on the tour. He lives at he lived at Columbia and Yale. And he built that house in 1947. He cleared orange trees by hand with a hand saw before power tools. And he and his wife were there at the home tour greeting people and he still had a GE electric stove and he had and he also had, anyway, lots of great things but that's a historic building.

It used to be white jewelers and now it's going to come back and relive as an end of the century style, which also is appropriate when it was a grocery store. So glad to see these adaptive reuse actually more than happening, I mean, and more and more to come hopefully. So I'll totally be in favor of this and a lot, lot more to come.

Would that be a motion?

With that, I'd like to make a motion. Where is that motion?

That would be a motion to approve file number PHP 202022, the certificate of appropriateness.

Subject to the resolution attached and the conditions of approval. Thank

you. Is there a second to the motion?

Madam chair.

Oh, who spoke first? Jonathan.

I just want to say I used to work in this building about eight years ago, so I'm very familiar with it and I'm excited to see it being redone and especially with this strategic location of the downtown. So with that, I'd like to second the motion.

All right, sir. All right.

Well done.

There's been a motion by commissioner Gage and a second by commissioner Hagman. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Lemkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Chairman Dedemar?

Yes.

It is approved seven to zero.

Thank you very much. File number PHP25Dash022. The certificate of appropriateness has been approved and will become final within ten days unless appealed. Mr. Node, you have some item D please.

Yes, thank you madam chair. Item D is environmental assessment and development plan review for file number PDV25Dash007. A public hearing to consider a development plan to construct a 226 room hotel totaling a 183,609 square feet including a 158,202 square foot hotel and 25,337 square foot commercial use on 3.41 acres of land located South Of Riverside Drive and East Of Hellman Avenue within the CCS Convention Center Service Commercial Zoning District pursuant to the previously adopted addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the city council on 07/16/2024. The project is submitted by Ontario Ranch Hotel LLC and as I made the agenda announcement, the applicant has requested that the planning commission continue this item indefinitely. And with that, I'll turn the meeting back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. And I have two green cards, so I'm going to open the public hearing and invite forward Mr. Robles.

We're opening the public hearing to provide you the opportunity

to speak.

But it is not mandatory if he chooses to reserve his call.

Would you?

We no obligation, it will

be reopened and then it will be a public hearing at that time. We can just continue. Thank you

for that. All right. And we are I also have a green card from Mr. Michigan. And would you please state your name and address for the record?

Thomas Michigan junior. How about 1480 South Carlos, that's an industrial building. I feel I shouldn't have to give my residence away in Ontario. It's Casey Van Bien's old dairy anyway. So if I'm mistaken, this is the hotel on the South Side Of Riverside Drive, East Of Ontario Avenue?

Yes, that's correct.

Well that doesn't fit in with community standards. Anything North Of Riverside Drive and on both sides of Vineyard is residential. And anything to the south of your complex at Chino Avenue and beyond south is all agriculture. Anything in South Of Riverside Drive and East of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, that's all new residential. It's new to me anyway. Plus you got the golf course across the street, is a real nice dog and pony show. It was a big basic weed lot. I walk by there all the time and I ask the golfers, they pay you to golf here? Let's just admit it's not PV. So, you know, Palos Verdes.

So but the thing is is it doesn't fit in. Nobody wants that. It's bad enough with that stadium there. We couldn't vote on it. The fireworks, my neighbors, the it's a brand new subdivision. That's right there. I know South Achino, there's the flood control ditch, but we're not gonna have no worry about that with the hundred year floods and whatnot. There's so much flood control channels coming down out of to the north all the way into Prado. So those basically, those things are a basin. Sounds like it'd be East Of Ontario and West of the Kukumuku. Those things are just a homeless invitation. You gotta call the county every time you see the chain link fence cut. And another problem is well, the county flood control will do that. But I'm against this hotel here. It doesn't fit in.

And why do we gotta take some of some clown up in a Watsonville anyway? There's enough hotels over by the airport. We don't need that there. Plus we're gonna build up. What are we gonna dump in there? Oh, another restaurant over there. Nobody wants that. We just representing. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And as the matter is being continued then there will be no further action to take on this. So we will now move on

Madam Chair, just need to make the motion to continue.

All right. Yeah. Yeah.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we continue the development plan for file number PDEV25-seven7 to future date.

I'll second.

Okay. There's a motion by commissioner Lampkin and a second by commissioner Ritchie to continue this item. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Mr. Lamkin?

Yes.

Chairman Deidmar? Yes. It is continued seven to zero.

Alright, thank you very much. Now we'll move on to items E and F, Mr. Null.

Thank you madam chair. Items E and F are environmental assessment, development agreement review, tentative track map and development plan review for file numbers PDA 20 Five-four, PMT 20 Five-seven and PDV 20 Five-ten. A public hearing to consider a development agreement between the city of Ontario and SLV LC Center LLC, HCW LC Center LLC, Strack Farms Land LLC, RH V Edison Avenue LLC, MV Edison Avenue LLC and EPC Holdings nine thirty eight LLC. In addition, a tentative track map to subdivide 15.91 acres of land into 99 numbered lots and 16 letter lots in conjunction with a development plan to facilitate the construction of 86 single family dwelling units and 139 multifamily dwelling units located on the Northwest corner of Hamner Avenue and Ladybug Paseo within Planning Area 10A of the Richhaven specific plan. The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with the Richhaven specific plan amendment for which an environmental impact report was adopted by the city council.

On 06/20/2023, the project the projects are submitted by Risewell Homes. City council action is required for the development agreement and our associate planner, miss Torres, provide the presentation.

Thank you and good evening members of the Planning Commission. The project site is located South Of Ontario Ranch Road, West Of Havner Avenue and on the East Side Of Clippin Avenue within Planning Area 10 A, which is the stand alone residential overlay of the Richhaven specific plan. The project site, it's currently vacant. To the north, we have a commercial shopping center that is currently under construction. To the east, we have existing commercial buildings.

Directly to the south, we have single family and multiple family residential dwelling units that are currently under construction. And to the west of the site, we have single family residential. There is a development agreement that is associated with this project, which will require subsequent city council approval. And the tentative track map and the development plan will require approval by the planning commission. The tentative track map will subdivide the subject property into 99 number lots and 16 letter lots to help facilitate the construction of 86 single family residential dwelling units and a 139 multiple family dwelling units along with private streets, common open space areas and a neighborhood edge along Havana Avenue.

The tenanted track map will be for residential condominium purposes, and it will help facilitate the construction of conventional single family, clusters, townhomes, and real towns. There is also a development agreement associated with this project. The initial term of the development agreement is for ten years with a five year option to renew. The development agreement will align infrastructure improvements such as streets, sewer, water, storm drain, and fiber, the payment of development impact fees, the formation of community facilities district, and the payment of affordability and new fees. The project site is comprised of 15.91 acres.

A total of 225 residential dwelling units are proposed, which include 55 real townhomes located along the northern portion of the site, 33 cluster detached two street frontage product type. And essentially, these clusters have street frontage from Clifton Avenue and B Street, which is an internal private street. Centrally located, we have 84 courtyard townhomes with an additional 12 that runs Havner Avenue. Along the western portion of the townhome, we have the recreation center, and then we have a passive park. Along the southern boundary, we have 48 cluster detached and duplex, product type.

And directly to the west and to the east, we have five conventional single family. The project site also includes a pedestrian connection to the future commercial as shown in pink. Primary access to the site will be taken from Havana Avenue, which connects to Ladybug Paseo with a secondary point of access from Clifton Avenue. Here we have the typical layout of the row towns on the left and the Courier townhomes on the right. These product types are accessible via these internal drive aisles that connects to the units garages.

Pedestrian access to the sites will be taken from these pedestrian paseos that provides connectivity to the units for an entry, and the units that face the streets will have pedestrian connectivity from the street. Here is a typical layout for the cluster single family detached and duplex no driveway product type. This is an APAC cluster with end units having a duplex cluster configuration. On the right, we have the typical layout for the cluster single family detached two street frontage product type. And essentially, these clusters will have frontage from Clifton Avenue and from B Street, which is an internal private street.

In terms of parking, a total of 543 parking spaces are required, including 69 guest spaces. A total of 543 parking spaces have been provided, which include 450 spaces within the garages and 93 driveway, drive aisle and on street parking, and the project meets the minimum parking requirements for this site. Here, we have elevation for plan one, which is the center units, which will face the internal drive aisle. A total of three architectural styles are proposed, which include the transitional Spanish for Plan 1A. Plan 1B will be developed with the transitional farmhouse.

And then Plan 1C consists of the transitional ranch. Plan two will front both A And B Street. Plan two includes the transitional Spanish. Plan 2b, the transitional farmhouse. And then we have Plan 2c with the transitional ranch.

Plan three will be a center unit, which will face internal drive aisle. Plan 3A consists of the Spanish, Plan 3B the farmhouse, and then we have Plan 3C transitional ranch. Plan four is the elevation for the Duplex. Here we have Plan 4A for the transitional ranch. So this is what we'll see from the internal drive aisle and this is elevation for the units from entry.

Directly below that, we have Plan 4B for the transitional farmhouse and then we have Plan 4C for the transitional ranch. And as Priyulisi mentioned, these units will be located at the end of the closure. Plan 5 Front Clifton Avenue, Plan 5A will be developed with the transitional Spanish, Plan 5B the farmhouse and Plan 5C the transitional ranch. And these elevations include a varied porch design to match the existing streetscape along Clifton Avenue and additional architectural treatment and features were provided to the elevations that are visible from the public right away. The real townhomes include a transitional ranch architectural style.

The front elevation will face internal landscape of sales. Directly below that, we have the rear elevation, which will face internal drive aisles. And here we have the right and the left elevation. The Courtyard townhomes include a transitional Spanish architectural style. This is the front elevation for the townhome.

We then have the right and the left elevation, which faces internal landscape paseos. And directly below that, we have the rear elevation. The project site provides landscaping throughout the site, including within the common open space areas around the building and within the paseos via a combination of tree, shrubs, and ground cover. TOP policy PR one dash one requires new developments to provide a minimum of two acres of private park per thousand residents. The track map is required to provide a total of 1.5 acres of parkland, and the project has provided 1.64 acres of parkland, which consists of point 91 acres for the recreation center, point 39 acres for the Passive Park, and point 34 acres for the pedestrian facade that connects both open space areas.

Here we have an enlarged exhibit of the recreation center. The recreation the recreation center will include a tot lot which shades out an open lawn area, a swimming pool, a spa, a dog park, as well as barbecues and outdoor seating areas. Along the eastern portion of the site, we have a passive park that provides pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial development to the east. The Passat Park will include natural boulders, seating areas, picnic areas, as well as an open lawn area. The pedestrian connection will include decorative pavers as well as decorative paw pedestals.

Here we have a rendering of what that pedestrian entry elevation will look like, which will consist of a combination of slump block wall with tubular steel and decorative pilasters. A pedestrian gate is proposed which will only be accessible to residents via key fob. And directly below that we have elevations for the decorative pop pedestals. And with that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution for file number PDA25Dash004 recommending the city council approve the development agreement and adopt a resolution approving file numbers PMTT25Dash007 and p d a 25Dash010 for the tentative track map and development plan. And with that, that concludes staff's presentation.

We are available for any questions and the applicant is also present. Thank you.

And thank you very much, Ms. Torres. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the staff?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Lemkin.

In the land development division for conditions of approval, there's an emphasis on improving the articulation on some the buildings. There's a for example in transitional Spanish. I just have a question. If whether or not this same request to work with staff or for the applicant to work with staff to for example revise shutter placement and design on the 1st Floor design with window lengths and include the decorative pot shelves to match second Story. If those same type of requests are being made of plan four.

That's my question. Are those same type of requests being made for plan four?

That condition only applies to that specific product type which is for the transitional Spanish and it basically only applies for that elevation. It wouldn't apply to the rest of the product types.

Okay. Was the discussion had about improving articulation we're planning for?

With regards to, so planning the staff, Ms. Torres and planning department did work with the applicant to provide. So this illustration is two dimensional. So you can't see some of the the recess elements that break up the the stucco from the the Hardy board siding. I think what was conditioned is to correct some of these elements to enhance that entryway into that townhomes.

And then for the cluster single family traditional Spanish, the shutter shouldn't go all the way to the bottom. And I think they're gonna correct that to just be aligned with window. So we just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware that those corrections were required. But other than that, they have worked with us to provide the articulation that we would look for and require in the Ontario Ranch, in our City Of Ontario.

Okay. I see some there is some recessing for example on your Cluster Plan 3C for the traditional ranch for example. There are some parts that come out and some parts that recess back. I guess what would alleviate my concern is let's take 4C I'm sorry 3C for example, on the left elevation, what will that be facing?

So plan 3C, it's one of the internal clusters. The front elevation will face that internal drive aisle and the side elevations would basically abut the homes that are right next to it.

Okay.

So it won't be visible from the public right of way.

Okay. That now starts to make sense to me. Does it make any sense to do any major articulation there because they're not facing anything and the area is so small, would would be very difficult to see from the public right away. Correct?

Yeah. So for the planning department, what we do is we look for best bang for our buck. The areas that are visible from public streets, parks, we provide enhanced elevations, provide articulation and movement. When these are the interior elevations, that's when they're only visible to the residents and the neighbors. And that's where those areas that aren't visible from those public areas, we don't provide more articulation in those areas because it's of wasting money, I guess, where it's not going to be a benefit to the public. Right.

Or advantageous in any way in terms of anybody's Correct. So these essentially be zero lot lines or maybe just five foot use Eastman in between.

Four foot setback between each Four

foot setback.

Eight feet in between the structures. Awesome. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes.

So this is a development agreement between the city of Ontario and a number of entities, number of LLCs, a number of them from Florida and Delaware. But my question is, there's a line in the agreement that says agreement addresses funding of DIF development mental impact fees. Is there something special that this addresses that's not usual with agreements with other developers or is this pretty standard agreement that we make with developers? I know it's very complicated and it's a lot of pages.

Yeah, the development agreement especially in the Ontario Ranch, it is required because we want to make sure and assure that the infrastructure requirements are constructed and phased and the timing and everything is done appropriately for prior to certificate of occupancy for these developments and these residences. So the city works with the applicant and the DIF as you mentioned, the development impact fee is a common thing for infrastructure improvement. So if it's a publicly maintained and it's within our DIF master plan and they construct it then those are opportunities to have DIF credits for instance for those developers. And in this case Risewell Home, the applicant will be required to pay all the development impact fees and fees associated with the permits, issuance of permits for those particular lots.

Okay, I appreciate that. Because it just said the agreement addresses funding of development mental impact fees. So it addresses it, didn't without reading the other 600 pages, I appreciate your answer. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission?

Madam Chair, if I may.

Commissioner Marks. Oh, Commissioner Hegmann, sorry.

So you talked about the transition to the commercial to the east and that pedestrian walkway, which I think is well done. Can you just describe the transition or if there is one to the commercial in the North? So like if I was in Unit Number 9697 kind of that North Row, what are they going to be looking at?

So

to the north is the wood development that is currently under construction. I think it's partially open. There are certain pads that are opened. There is a eight foot wall that separates the loading docks in the back of house of those major tenants. Those are the major tenants that you see.

Those white rooftops are the major tenants within there. So pedestrian connection, you wouldn't want that for the North. But to the east, the city, our planning team worked with the applicant, the master developer, Richland, on the conceptual site plan and elevations for this particular site. And what associate planner miss Torres mentioned, we worked hard on the pedestrian connection. Yeah.

So illustrated in here, there is a raised pedestrian connection. So from the street, it raises up to a ramp and then the pedestrians are raised above that. That's a traffic calming measure to provide more connectivity in a more pedestrian friendly environment. The applicant also is providing a decorative arbor fencing and a resident only access gate to be able to encourage pedestrian connectivity and walking from the residence to the commercial. There we worked with Richland, the master developer.

Developer. That connection is going to be kind of the major courtyard feature for that future commercial area. So in the future, the development advisory board would be reviewing that development plan. And if there is a conditional use permit, they would actually come forward to the Planning Commission. But that's what the enhancement was to provide that connection.

Thank you. I just want to confirm there's no pedestrian access to the north.

To the

north, correct. Thank you. Any

other questions from the commission? Since there are no further questions, I'll open the public hearing to the audience and ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant.

Ask the applicant first. Applicant. Yes. Yes, applicant first.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Sure. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Shannon Whitaker and I'm here on behalf of the developer Risewell Homes located 18300 Bon Carmen in Irvine. I'd like to begin by thanking the city staff for their collaborative efforts. Together, we've designed a community that both the city of Ontario and Risewell will be proud of.

We're particularly excited about the future development of the adjacent commercial pad. Both the city and the property owner, Richland, have put forth incredible thought and design for the usability. We view this as a massive perk for our homeowners providing high quality commercial real estate and services right outside their front door. Thank you for your time and I am here for any questions that you may have.

The first question is do you agree with the conditions of approval as contained in the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Questions from commissioners? All right, thank you And very I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. I have no green cards on this matter.

Madam Chair

Commissioners, you start Ms. Robles since

I we have no green card for this particular don't need

to put in a card.

Yeah, that was the instructions at the beginning of what Madam Chairman

So you don't want me to speak?

Lacking a green card, that's correct.

So the Brown Act does not require green cards. It also doesn't require that you even give an address or your name when you publicly speak.

You for your comments Mr. Oblis. Would you, I have a green card for you on item G. Yes.

Yes. Will speak on that.

Alright. Thank you.

So you're denying me the ability to speak.

I'm asking you to take your seat.

Thank you.

Madam. Yes. If we might,

we can have him fill out a green card afterwards and go ahead and take the public comment.

Alright, would you like to do that? Would you like to fill out a green card so you can make your comment? Alright. Go ahead and make your comment and then you can fill out the green card. Alright, Mr. Robles.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

So I found it really interesting that we require Parkland on new construction but we're doing little to nothing for Parkland in the bulk of the city where many of us all live. That's one point. And wouldn't it also be nice if we had a requirement that warehouses also set aside land for park space and open space? But I wish that I had the ability to have spoken about the townhouse complex that I live in similar to this one when it came before the city. And the comment I would make in general here is that the the reality of living in these townhomes is a lot different than the pretty pictures.

So even though it says 69 parking spaces and that is the requirement in the city, it is never adequate. Because I can tell you, although I may have not heard it, but I'm pretty certain we didn't hear how many bedrooms are each of these units have. And I can tell you that I live in a four bedroom unit and so do many others in my complex and it is inadequate even with a two car garage. Families today have multiple vehicles. All those guest spots will be taken up by residents.

That is a problem that we have. And yes, that is a problem that gets passed on to the HOA, but in reality, these are future residents of Ontario. We should consider that seriously and we should consider how these hound houses and these other complexes, how parking is handled. Oftentimes, the street parking is a third of a car space. Simply, there's a driveway and then a little space and then the driveway.

You can't park a car. If you go walk the streets and you see this, you can you can tell right away that a lot of this new construction is just wholly inadequate to the lifestyle of today. They look great. Interiors are great. But the lifestyle, like it or not, we have cars. So I would that's just a general comment. Sure this is going to pass like everything else tonight. Thank you for the opportunity. Opportunity.

And would you please see the secretary? Thank you. Would the applicant like to offer clarification or speak?

I guess I will just comment that the parking is based off of the city's code which is based off of bedroom count. So it is taken into consideration for the calculations. To

on to to going board.

Motion to approve of the development agreement file number PDA25Dash04 subject to the resolution.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Mr. Ritchie, thank you. There's a motion.

This is a recommendation to City Council by the way.

Correct. It's a recommendation to City Council, yes, to approve, correct?

Correct.

Okay. There's a motion by commissioner Marks and a second by commissioner Ritchie to recommend to city council to approve file number PDA two five dash o o for the development agreement. Madam secretary? Mister Ritchie?

Yes.

Miss Anderson. Yes. Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Hagman.

Yes.

Mr. Lamkin.

Yes.

Mr. Marks.

Yes.

Chairman Dedemark.

Yes.

It is recommended city council seven to zero.

Alright. Thank you. File number PDA. The PDA two five dash zero zero four. The development agreement has been approved and will become final with intent. It has been recommended to city council. Alright. We're moving on now to

Madam chair. Yes. I'd like to move that we approve the tentative track map and the development plan. File numbers PMTT20 and PDEV 20 five-ten subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

And there's a second by commissioner and motion by commissioner Ritchie and second by commissioner Anderson. Madam secretary?

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Chairman Dedemark? Yes. It is approved, seven to zero.

File number PMTT25-seven, the tentative track and PDEV25Dash010. The development plan have been approved and will become final within ten days unless appealed. Mister No, item G.

Thank you, madam chair. Item G is environmental assessment, general plan amendment and zone change review for file numbers, PGPA 20 five-two and PZC 20 five-two. A public hearing to consider the certification of the Ontario policy plan amendment, supplemental environmental impact report including adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Ontario plan twenty fifty policy plan amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park specific plan and approval of the amendment to the Ontario plan policy plan and a zone map amendment to implement the proposed policy plan amendment. The projects are city initiated and city action is required and our principal planner, Mr. Gron will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Ngo. Chairman and members of Planning Commission, I'm very pleased to present to you the general plan amendment and zone change applications. These are city initiated applications to amend the Ontario plan policy plan, which is the city's general plan and to change the zoning map accordingly to address some of the same parcels. So first question is why are we amending the policy plan at this time?

There's a need to update the land use element and land use designations to address current development patterns specifically within the Ontario branch area. We also need to address compliance with state law, specifically state housing law as it relates to our overall capacity and our reading requirements and make sure we're maintaining the capacity and addressing the number of units we need to be able to provide. We also need to address transportation planning as it pertains to AV98 and address mobility element and truck routes adjacent to sensitive uses. And we also want to maintain the city's vision for a future as a premier community. The state laws that we're addressing as part of this update include SB three thirty which requires the city maintain a certain number of housing units and address our capacity that we had when the law was passed back in 2017.

Our capacity right now is about 130,000 housing units. We need to plan for that and make sure we maintain that throughout as the city develops. We also have to address SP166 which pertains to maintaining adequate sites to accommodate our arena allocation which is a requirement by the state to provide adequate housing sites for a variety of income categories throughout the community and making sure we, at this time, are planning for a capacity of over 20,000 housing units. AB 98 is a law that was recently passed. It requires the city to address exposure of sensitive uses to truck traffic.

Sensitive uses can be residential units, senior facilities, hospitals, day cares, schools, parks, open space. And making sure we take into consideration those sense of uses when we plan truck routes, if we amend the truck routes and where those can be located. SB415 is a trailer to AB 98. It addresses the sufficient goods movement and infrastructure planning throughout the community. And then SB nine thirty two has to do with priority safety corridors and SB 1,000 is addressing environmental justice considerations.

One thing to remember about environmental justice is state law allows us to either have an environmental justice element within our general plan or we can have it interwoven through other elements. Our general plan interwoves or interweaves environmental justice policies throughout the entire document. So there's not a separate element on that. So as a project overview, the policy plan amendment, the general plan amendment updates land use throughout the community, primarily Ontario Rancho. There are some others occurring up along Holt Boulevard.

There's up in the Meredith specific plan, up at Vineyard north of the 10. We're also planning for the Eucalyptus Business Park specific plan, which is established at employment focused development in the Ontario Ranch area off of Eucalyptus and near Eucalyptus And Grove. We maintain required housing capacity under state law, as I mentioned earlier, SB three thirty and SB 166, which pertain to adequate capacity for overall capacity for the general plan and adequate capacity for arena requirement. And then we're trying to align long term growth with current conditions and policy requirements of the document. So changes that are proposed as part of the amendment.

We're addressing changes, land use changes to over 1,300 acres to address current market conditions. A lot of times it's changing properties that were in Ontario Ranch area from medium residential to a business park or industrial designation and then shifting those residential units to other parts of the area or the ranch area to make sure we maintain the capacity. Again, a big focus is maintaining capacity of SP330 and SP166. So I'll go into maps later that show where those are occurring, but a lot of it is adjusting those numbers to make sure that we maintain sufficient capacity. As part of AB 98, we're required to address exposure to sensitive receptors where feasible.

This is a long term effort where the city adopted a mobility element with the original TOP back in 2010. The mobility element has been revised over time. The transportation map, we revised it. If you recall back in December where we addressed AB 98 concerns then, we're after a significant public outreach. We revised those locations and took off a couple streets who were part of that circulation to address the concerns for exposure to sensitive receptors.

And we're also doing updating the policy plan policies throughout the document to reflect proposed land use changes and circulation changes within the document itself. So, as part of this project, we had I think a pretty robust attempt to encourage a lot of community involvement and and encourage people at different times throughout the development of this, both the general plan element, the EIR itself and bring as many people as we could to different aspects of it. Outreach approach complies with state law. It consists of state law requirements in terms of noticing and trying to get as many people involved in the process as we can. Part of that initiated with a notice of preparation that was circulated during the beginning of preparation of the EIR itself.

At that time, we received about 25 comment letters and incorporated those into the document itself. We had multiple outreach efforts over the past nine months where we had a lot of online surveys. We had community pop up events in both the northern and the southern parts of the city. We had an open house event where at the scoping meeting for the EIR, we encouraged a lot of public participation. All these events were included within the city's social media.

Notice in the paper where it was appropriate for like the NOP itself, but at events where you had the online surveys, community pop up events, were all advertised to the city's social media account. And then, as part of the general plan update, excuse me, the environment impact report itself, the notice availability, we circulated that notice to agencies surrounding communities, published it in the paper and we received approximately 17 comment letters on that as part of the response to comments or comments on the EIR itself. So this map shows current land policies throughout the city. As you can see, a lot of the industrial areas are focused around the Ontario Airport itself and there's some in the southern portion of the city adjacent to the Chino Airport. As part of this general plan amendment and zone change, we're proposing to change some of the land uses both in the northern and the southern parts of the city.

In the northern parts of the city, you can see on here, it focuses on Holt Boulevard at the Meredith Commerce Center at Vineyard And 10 Freeway and also the Part 150, which is the area just west of the airport itself. But the bulk of the changes occur in the Ontario Ranch area. As you can see here, the area outlined in blue is where the Eucalyptus business specific plan is located. If you go back here, can see that that area is currently a mixed use at a medium residential designation. This map shows that those areas are being shifted to a business park and industrial park, industrial designation.

And a lot of the medium density and high density units are located south of the Ontario Regional Sports Complex along Vineyard Avenue and along Grove Avenue. As part of the general plan itself, these proposed land use changes will result in changes to the number of units, the projected population, this non residential square footage and the employment of the city. It shows that there's a general 7,000 increase in the number of housing units that are planned throughout the committee. There's a slight increase in population, a slight increase in the non residential square footage, and a slight increase in the employment numbers. This slide is looking at AP98 concerns and existing truck routes.

And as you can see on here, these are the existing truck routes that community, they go through a number of residential areas, they go through a lot of industrial areas. The changes on here from what was approved back in December is the truck route that was North of Mission on Euclid Boulevard, that was eliminated and that truck route on, I believe, Philadelphia between Grove and Euclid was also removed. But as part of the AB 98 and our attempt to reach this number of people to reach the breadth and scope of the intent of AB 98, we tried to reach as many people as we could, encourage their participation through the online surveys, get feedback from them where they could, so truck routes could be evaluated in terms of their impacts to existing and planned residential areas, any conflicts with schools, parks, the Grand Park itself and ongoing community concerns about compatibility and safety for the truck outs. So as part of this, we're proposing the elimination of the truck outs on Archibald Avenue, South Of Riverside and along portions of Ontario Ranch Road or Edison, West Of Walker, between Walker and Euclid itself. But we're also proposing the creation of additional truck routes adjacent to, you can see on this on the dash line, adjacent to the Eucalyptus Business Park to ensure that there's adequate truck traffic and making sure those have adequate access to that sites to ensure there's consistent with concerns about efficiency of movement and land use compatibility.

Big thing about this is these changes to the mobility plan and the truck routes reduces impacts to approximately 1,600 existing residences, eliminates exposure to approximately 11,000 planned residential units on the west side of the ranch itself. Removes truck routes adjacent to parks and sensitive land uses, specifically the Grand Park. Reduces exposure within environmental justice areas, which is a big concern because of the additional exposure to those areas. And we believe these are consistent, again, with the breadth and scope of AB 98 and SB four fifteen objectives. So, the Eucalyptus Business Park, which is another aspect of the EIR itself and the general plan amendment, proposes amending the land use designations for about 138 acres of land North of Eucalyptus and south of what will be the extension of the Grand Park.

It's going to accommodate or allow the development of up to 2,900,000 square feet of employment generated uses and it integrates open space with infrastructure along the East West Street there just south of the park and allowing for the development again of about 2,900,000 square feet of employment uses. So as part of the project, an environment impact report was prepared that provides both a programmatic EIR for the general plan update or amendment itself and a project level EIR for the Eucalyptus Business Parks specific plan. As part of this project, because there were a number of impacts from the impacts or environment impacts remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations is included in the packet and it addresses those areas that could not be mitigated to a level of non significance. So the summary of the environmental impacts. There's 21 environmental impacts that are addressed in an environment impact report.

16 of those are less than significant before or after mitigation and only five of those were considered to be significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. It includes air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, culture resources, noise and transportation. As part of the public review of the draft environmental impact report, we received 17 letters from surrounding communities, from the county itself, AQMD, a variety of organizations and six residents. Those response to comments or response to these letters is not included in the package for you tonight. Those would be provided to the council should you recommend approval of this project And those would be provided to all those people who submitted comments ten days before that hearing.

Those notices will go out and give those people that submitted them adequate time to review those comments and before any council recommendation or council hearing. And with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council that they certify the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental EIR and include in a statement of overriding considerations and that they also adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the Ontario Planning Policy Amendment through the GPA 20 five-two and that they adopt a resolution that the city council approve the zoning map amendment for zone change 20. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available should you have any questions and we also have members of our consultant team here should you have questions that I'm not able to answer.

Thank you Mr. Graham. Commissioners, questions for the staff?

Yes Madam Chair.

Is that Commissioner Lamkin?

First I want to thank the staff for providing that outline of how the meetings took place, the timeline in which the meetings took place and then public comment was provided and all the efforts that you underwent to solicit feedback from the community. My first question is when was the last date for public comment or for any type of input that can be provided for the The last date.

The last date was April 20 which is last Monday.

Last Monday. Okay. And my next question is, is this item related in any way that you can think of to Prop 70 land?

With regards to Prop 70, isn't related to the sales of those lands. Like I mentioned earlier in the meeting, the sales of those lands will be conducted in a city council hearing at which time the public will provide an opportunity to comment on those sales of those lands should they occur. Quick clarification as The date that Principal Planner Gron mentioned was for the environmental public hearing. We were able to receive public comments up till tonight

at like five as well. Awesome. Thank you for clarifying that. Earlier we had a discussion as it relates to item A02. It's already a close issue, but I just wanted to make sure we reiterate when you provided me with I guess an update or clarification that we'd be discussing that second item. I guess that led to the change in A02 or I guess sort of discussion about changes in A02. So the second change was this item here, item G, That's correct.

Let me bring up the

map. Let's bring up, go back 105,

106.

Go back two more.

That one? Yeah. So the extension of the Grand Park? Yes. If you can see it's hard to see but

I can see it on there. Shows it.

This portion here. So this is changing from mixed use to space, park open space. So that's the extension from Campus Avenue that will link the extension of Grand Park from Campus to Euclid.

So essentially what you're saying is we are switching from an area that was previously going to be used for development for mixed use and we're getting open green space instead. Correct. Okay. And then also thank you for that clarification. There was a comment that was made as well that I just noted here that the bulk of the changes are occurring in Ontario Ranch area.

So hopefully that clarifies any issues that anyone had regarding any confusion about what the previous item was or what item G was about. Think I had one more question, just bear with me here. My last question. Typically when these presentations occur and there is or there are questions to the staff or comments provided by the community rather, there a slide that shows what the concern was and the staff's response. Especially when it comes to concerns regarding CEQUA, some of those environmental hazards.

For example, if you had questions regarding the effects in that particular region, there's usually an answer. I found this time to be very unique that those questions are going to be provided to counsel and not provided to us this time. Can you explain why that is different on this go around?

Yeah. So this isn't not uncommon. With the draft environmental impact report that we received and the 17 comment letters that mister Guran had mentioned for the notice availability on the environmental, the response of comments will be provided to the public ten days prior to us publishing the final draft environmental impact report. So prior to the city council meeting, we'll work with the consultant to provide response to comments and we will have all those response to comments. Since this is a recommendation to city council, the city council has the final action and therefore that's when those response to comments will be provided in a public hearing setting and the public will have that opportunity to see how we responded to those comments.

I see. Okay, I understand that. I understand the difference now because a lot of times when we see that slide, it's it's an item that falls under our purview for direct approval without making a recommendation to counsel for approval.

Correct.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. Those are all the questions that I have.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Gage.

You had mentioned there's change to the Meredith property area. Can you give some more detail on that?

So for the Meredith, we aren't changing the land use. What we are doing is increasing the minimum density from 14 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre. And that's just to assure that the development of that mixed use area meets the vision of that area and to provide that higher density residential development, including some mixed use of commercial uses in that area.

Are there specific areas that will, I mean,

lot of it's developed already, is there? Correct.

So the main portion that it would affect is the vacant piece that's known as the IKEA piece. So that one is the main piece that the reason why we were providing that minimum density increase just to assure that developer doesn't come in with a lower density development like road towns and such. We want a more like you see the Palmer across the way and the vineyards that is developed already. That's an envision of what we envision for this vacant piece of property in addition to some commercial component.

So that's consistent with the vineyards density.

Is that what you're saying? It'd be more consistent with that.

Correct. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I may, I had another question. I found I lost it somewhere in all my notes, but I found it.

Go ahead.

Thank you Madam Chair. When it comes to AB 98, it went into effect 01/01/2026. And one of the key aspects was that this new law that was passed by the legislatures at the state level applies more stringently to what they refer to as warehouse concentration. The warehouse concentration region. And they specifically noted that the warehouse concentration region is Riverside County and San Bernardino County.

I even noted that Los Angeles County was not noted or mentioned. It requires that we engage in a phase one truck route adoption by 01/01/2026. And those cities that had not done so in the warehouse concentration region would face fines up to $50,000 every six months had they not passed that. I assume, and I guess here's my question, when we began to make changes to truck routes, for example, the area on Grove, was that an attempt to make sure that we meet the deadline for 01/01/2026?

Yeah, as was mentioned in the presentation previously or as we mentioned a little bit previously, we did do a technical TOP general plan amendment in December and that was to meet the intent of showing progress that we are intending to be in compliance with AB 98. The short timeframe that they provided, it was very difficult. I'm sure there's a lot of jurisdictions out there that are scrambling. But what Mr. Gron had mentioned us eliminating Euclid Avenue north of Mission to the 10 Freeway.

That's a huge thing because there's a lot of sensitive uses, schools, residential uses, some parks and our downtown. And with that, we also eliminated the portion between Philadelphia from Euclid to Grove Avenue. And that's because there isn't there are sensitive uses along there and there weren't any industrial and or business park uses in those areas. So to provide good faith that we are trying to be in compliance with AP 98, we did that first technical amendment to show the state we are trying to be in compliance with it. And then this one, the amendment before you is the full implementation of us aligning our TOP general plan and our truck route with AB 98 to take into account the sensitive uses and to try to reroute our trucks away from those and concentrate those and reroute those more towards our industrial business park types of developments.

And that's why we are adding Eucalyptus and removing a portion of Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald because we did hear the community residents, a lot of them shared concerns about Archibald. And the reasons why we are proposing the business park along Eucalyptus is because of the existing business park specific plans and developments along South Of Eucalyptus and to Merrill. And then to the north, that's why it made sense to align our employment hub that the City Of Ontario is as well as some of the property owners' requests to make those changes and to be thoughtful and to be strategic about it because Eucalyptus, that's why we added that as a truck route because that's more the concentration of an area to strategically plan for those market conditions.

So you're essentially saying that our phase one truck route adoption plan is not done, but we're close to completing. Or would you say we actually are done, we're just now as our city continues to grow, we're now making adjustments as development continues to happen?

Yeah, we're taking a look at it but specifically just to be able to be in compliance with AB 98. We took a close look and analyzed the data of the trucks and the sensitive uses and tried to balance it because we have to balance not only the land uses and the sensitive uses but also provide the goods movement and to provide those opportunities for those those businesses to have trucks and those designated truck routes. So, yes, it was done in two parts. So we the Planning Commission recommended the city council city council approved that technical amendment in late twenty twenty five, early twenty twenty six. And then this completes that AB 98 requirement and us aligning with that state legislation.

And staff and our consultants we believe that we've put together a great alternative and we took everything into consideration and this is the fruition of that.

I know we won't see the comments tonight. But would it be safe to say the government entities that were listed as providing letters or comments that whatever this plan is that should it be approved today, they will also be affected and that could be the reason why they're providing feedback?

From the state agencies? I think they just want to make sure

that Not the state agencies, but there were a couple of cities that were listed that are also in San Bernardino County as well. Oh yes.

And we work with our surrounding jurisdictions and we'll work with them on their comments and their concerns. Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? All right. Since there are no more, then I'll now open the public hearing to the audience and invite Mr. Chris Robles to come forward. Thank you.

We love our green cards.

Too bad it's not money. This is a massive undertaking by the city, but also by residents and probably more so by residents because we don't have the background that staff have or the ability to talk to staff and be briefed like all of you. And so as much as they talk about all these outreach efforts, they're inadequate, wholly inadequate. I attended some of those. Others, I could not.

We have a 185,000 residents. There are reasons why people don't attend these workshops. They're boring. There's no presentation like this at all. This is the first time I've got a presentation at all.

I went to that workshop, what whatever they wanna call it, and they had little stations and they just said, what's your comment? And they answered questions, but the public has to know what to ask. They need to be educated about this. So this is not adequate at all and it's an ongoing comment that I make at council and and have issues with the city in general. We never said Prop 70 land, this item is being about selling it.

The big picture is the chess pieces are being moved. You've already voted on one item. This is another one. All the pieces are being moved in order for it to be sold. The county has already voted on that and blatantly said that's what they're going to do. It is illegal to do so. Then I just have an ongoing list. We are not adequate on SB 98 or SB 1,000 and as much as they want to say we're trying and we're doing this and we think it'll be good, they're not in compliance. There are numerous groups and organizations looking at this right now. And I I I don't understand this

One minute.

Just thing. Oh, just just go ahead and vote on this item because it's not really going to have this big impact. Every little vote that you've taken has an impact. It all is additive. It's all about moving these pieces of land so that they can accommodate bigger development like the Eucalyptus project.

That's what all of this is. They had to make they had to the city had to open up the general plan to accommodate all of these changes at the state level and then they threw in all these other things into it, over complicating it and they should all be separate. I'm running out of time. You should have gotten this. The fact that it wasn't given to you regardless of whatever the comments have been, it it is premature to be taking this up tonight. And as I said, before the comment period closed on Monday

the twentieth,