Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is now 6.30 p.m. Welcome to the June 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for tonight's meeting are in the back and contain the procedures we will follow tonight. Please turn off all electronic communication devices or put them on non-audible mode. Please do not engage in private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during a public comment or on a particular agenda item and you have not done so already, please fill out a green card now and submit it to the secretary at the end of the dais. Thank you for your cooperation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Ms. Anderson is absent. Mr. Gage?

Here.

Mr. Hagman? Here. Mr. Lampkin? Present. Mr. Marks? Here. Mr. Ritchie? Present. Chairman Dietmar?

Present. Thank you. Now please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led tonight by Commissioner Hagman.

Please repeat after me.

Thank you, Commissioner Hagman. Mr. No, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

None tonight, Madam Chair.

All right, thank you. And commissioners, does anyone have a general announcement that is not related to an item on the agenda? All right, thank you. Since there are none, we will now move on to public comments. This is the time when anyone in the audience who has completed a green card can speak on any topic that is not on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. Madam Secretary, are there any green, I have two green cards for non-agenda items. Are there any others? All right, thank you. Each person wishing to speak will have up to three minutes to make a presentation. The Planning Commission is prevented by state law from taking action on any item that has not been placed on tonight's agenda. The Commission may, depending on the public's request, direct staff to place the item on the next Planning Commission agenda. And if you wish to, the two people who wish to speak, please address the Commission from the podium. All right, I'd like to call Anna Gonzalez. Thank you. Please state your name and address through the record.

Yes, hi, good evening. Ana Gonzalez, I am the executive director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. I was here at the last city council meeting last week where we brought up some civil rights violations and potential violation of the new SB 707, which is the Brown Act new guidelines for providing simultaneous interpretation for our Spanish speaking communities. So today we also have several Spanish speakers. I don't know if there's gonna be simultaneous interpretation, so we just wanted to make sure that's being done and that there is a qualified, certified interpreter that can also translate their comments to you all to understand. what they're saying, so they're here. I just wanted to bring that up, that moving forward, that's gonna be a mandatory requirement by law. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Randy Beckingham? Pardon me, Beckendam. Beckendam, yeah.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Good evening. Commissioners, right? Yeah.

Correct. That's it.

I'm Randy Beckendam, Executive Director of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation. So I've spoken often, sometimes I feel like a broken record, but this issue of preserving farmland. So when I bring this up, you know, in South Ontario, when I bring it up, I'm told, well, there's a right to farm overlay, so we're not taking that away. If you want to farm, just buy the land and farm. No one's going to stop you. And so we all know the land is over a million dollars an acre. But that's what I'm told. So that's good. I hope that this right to farm never goes away. But with regard to the Prop 70 land, this land has already been bought. by the people of California. So it doesn't have to be bought. And the county is actually a steward. So this land could be farmed, but it's not the farming that we want to do, which is regenerative farming.

Madam Chair, may I just, Randy? I'm sorry. Randy, over here. You're asking about an agendized item, I'm assuming, item E? I'll drop that. Yeah, so if anything on the agenda, you'll have an opportunity. Okay, thank you.

So back to the farming. We, with regard to land use and highest and best use, I really think that we should seriously be talking about land uses that have a value other than how much money can they generate, providing healthy, nutritious food for the residents of Ontario, which is the work that we do. It's chemical-free methods. It produces the most nutrient-dense food possible. We believe strongly in using food as medicine. And so we really think the city should be wanting to preserve land for those activities rather than pave everything. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beckendam. I have no other green cards, so we will now consider the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar will be enacted by one summary motion in the order listed. 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 their public requests a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for a separate vote. In that case, the balance of the items on the consent calendar will be voted on in summary motion. and then those items removed for separate vote will be heard. Do any commissioners wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? All right, so we will, given that no one wishes to do that, is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented?

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I move that the commission accept the the consent calendar as written. However, just barring any abstentions from the previous minutes since we're voting on the minutes from April as well as May. So I'm not sure if all the commissioners were present at each of those meetings.

Yes, that's a good point. We're voting on both April and May. Madam Secretary, was anyone absent in either April or May?

Both. Okay.

And who was that?

She said everyone was here? Everyone was here. Okay, in that case, I move that the Planning Commission approve the consent calendar as presented.

Okay, is there a second?

Madam Chair, I'll second.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Gates.

Yes. Point of order, Madam Chair. Go ahead. I just need clarification from Secretary regarding who was present on the month that we took votes for Chair and Vice Chair. I believe we had two commissioners. That was in March. That was in March? Okay, thank you.

That's good.

Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Mr. Marks? Yes. Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Chairman Dietmar? Yes. The consent calendar is approved six to zero.

Thank you. We'll now proceed to 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. 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 and has completed a green card. Each person will be given three minutes for this purpose. After all persons have spoken on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for 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 10 days with the Ontario Planning Department and the appeal must be in writing. Mr. No, item B.

Thank you Madam Chair. Item B is environmental assessment and development plan review for file number PDV 25-007. A public hearing to consider a development plan to construct a 226 room hotel totaling 183,609 square feet 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 a previously adopted addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the City Council on July 16th, 2024. This project is submitted by Ontario Ranch Hotel LLC and Principal Planner Mr. Gron will provide the presentation.

Good evening Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. This is an application for development of a site that is within the Ontario Regional Sports Complex. It's south of Riverside Drive, east of Vineyard Avenue, north of Chino Avenue, and then narrow it down a little closer. It's gonna be at the northeast corner of what will be the South Champions Way that goes north and south to the west side of the site, and East Stadium Way which goes east-west to the south of the site. Project area is just over three acres and it incorporates the entire proposed development. So this application, the hotel itself sits on the entirety of the site. It includes the footprint of this hotel. Improvements associated with it also include landscaping, all street improvements, parking improvements for the proposed complex. This gives a little blow up of that site. So there's parking located to the north of it, to the east of it. Driveway access to the site will be off of the west, the south, and east sides of the site. On the floor plan, the floor plan for the first floor includes all the commercial uses. So on this screen, the yellow shows where the conference center is located. The green is a cafe. The blue at the top left corner is a yogurt store. The area to the south shows what was previously shown as a Legends Attic, which is a sports memorabilia, but that's no longer part of it. So the first floor will be revised a little bit to address some of those other uses. But this will give you an idea of what's located on the first floor of the site. Second through the fourth floor are all tenant rooms. They're all the same. The fifth floor includes guest rooms and also a fifth floor balcony that overlooks both the Ontario field to the west and gives great views of the mountains and area to the north of the site. Elevations of the site, it's primarily a stucco finish. It also includes metal cladding, brick veneer, a variety of colors to give visual interest. There's a lot of movement, articulation in the building plane, both vertically and horizontally to create a lot of visual interest in it. This shows the north. And the west elevation, so the lower elevation will be what's facing Ontario Field. As you can see, it's got the fifth floor balcony that overlooks on that. We'll have seats that are overlooked directly under the field, giving great views of that complex. This screen shows elevations to the south and to the east. On the top of this, it shows the east elevation, so that's gonna give you access to the conference center. Go back one screen, the north elevation will give access to the hotel itself. This gives you perspective of kind of what the application looked like when it first came in. It first came in as a four-story stucco building, not a whole lot of articulation. We worked very closely with the applicant, and they revised it, and what they gave us, I think, really gave a great design, gave great addition to the Ontario Sports Complex, and a big benefit to the community. This is a landscape plan. It shows where the site is situated in terms of how it's landscaped around it. It shows landscape frontage on the west and the south facing both the streets and also on the north and east that face the parking lot area. This is the interior courtyard, and these are other plazas that are associated with it. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the development plan for PDEV 25007, and that concludes my presentation. If you have any further questions, I'm available to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Cronin. Commissioners, any questions? All right, then I will open the public hearing to the audience. And I have a green card. Jamie O'Connor. Back, oh, pardon me. Ask the applicant to please step forward. Please state your name and address through the record.

My name is Jigga Shaw and I live in Upland, California. You want the exact address?

No. Are you the applicant?

Yes.

Okay, yeah. And do you agree with the conditions of approval that are contained in the staff report?

Yes.

Thank you, please proceed.

I just want to thank everyone for the opportunity to continue to help Ontario grow.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll now open the public hearing to the audience and there's a green card from Jamie Hall.

Good evening, my name is Jamie Hall. I'm a land use and environmental attorney with Channel Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing Unite Here Local 11. My client respectfully requests that you deny the development plan for the proposed Ontario Ranch Hotel, or in the alternative, continue this matter until the city has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. First, the development plan relies on an addendum that is fundamentally flawed under CEQA. California law strictly requires environmental review to be completed before an agency commits to a project. However, the city conveyed this property to the developer on April 4th, 2025, more than seven months before this addendum was first considered by the Planning Commission. Preparing an environmental document after the property has already been sold is the exact kind of illegal post hoc rationalization that the California Supreme Court has warned against. The City Council even acknowledged this precise piecemealing issue when they ruled on my client's appeal in January of this year. yet they inexplicably readopted the addendum without unwinding the sale of the property. Because this development plan relies entirely on an illegal addendum, the DDA cannot be approved tonight. Second, the required findings for the proposed minor adjustments are not supported by substantial evidence. The applicant is asking for a 50% reduction in the west side building setback, down to eight feet, and a 10-foot fifth floor balcony encroachment. The staff report claims the site's smaller dimensions and corner location create a practical difficulty, but the site is flat, vacant, and subject to the exact same zoning requirements as adjacent parcels. The only actual difficulty here is the developer is trying to squeeze a 226-room dual-brand hotel onto a 2.37-acre parcel when the original sports complex EIR only analyzed a 100-room hotel for this area. Under California law, a self-imposed burden cannot be legally justified. Relaxing these rules is an economic preference for the developer, not a physical hardship of the land. Granting it would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by surrounding properties, directly violating the development code. Finally, the underlying surplus land act defect remains unresolved and is a subject of my client's current litigation against the city. For these reasons, my client urges you to deny the minor adjustment and the development plan. We have submitted a detailed objection letter for the administrative record. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I have no more green cards on this matter or does the applicant care to offer clarification?

I can provide some clarification, Madam Chair.

Mr. No.

With regards to the CEQA addendum, as the commentator mentioned, that was already certified and adopted by the city council back in January of 2026 of this year. They did that as part of the restated disposition development agreement. So the CEQA matter, that's not. An action for tonight that was already been approved by the City Council with regards to the litigation and the sale I mean that's going through the process and it's a separate process so the city will Abide by the courts and work with the appellants and we'll go through that process accordingly making sure that we abide by all the laws and requirements of the courts With regards to the minor amendments, we did provide the proper findings for those amendments for the reduction in the setbacks and justifications of that. This is in particular for this particular property, that vision for the sports empire in this particular area is more like a Main Street concept. It wouldn't be, has different development standards than the CCS development standards. And that's why it is consistent with the minor modifications and the justifications for this particular property. It is consistent with the development code and those findings. So we've provided those justifications within the staff report for the record.

Thank you, Mr. No. As all have spoken, I will now close the public hearing and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Commissioners? Hearing no requests for discussion, is there a motion to recommend either approval or denial of file number PDEV25-007, the development plan?

Madam Chair?

Yes.

Yes. We're approving a 226, we're asked to approve a 226 room hotel in Ontario. I really can't see any reason not to. We're a crossroads community that needs hotels people come to our community and they need places to stay and if you ever looked up a hotel in Ontario a lot of them are getting old a lot of them aren't large enough a lot of them can't accommodate the city that we have here in the Tourism in Southern California and the hope the hotel is will be a good addition to our community and I think it's needed. So I'm gonna make a motion if there's no other discussion to approve development plan file number PDEV25-007.

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second.

There's been a motion by Commissioner Gage and a second by Commissioner Ritchie. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Hangman?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. Mr. Gage? Yes. Chairman Ditema?

Yes. It is approved six to zero. Thank you, file number PDEV25-007, the development plan has been approved and will become final within 10 days unless appealed. Item C, Mr. No.

Thank you Madam Chair. Item C is environmental assessment conditional use permit and development plan review for file numbers PCUP 25-004 and PDV 25-005. A public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request to establish outdoor storage trailer parking in conjunction with a development plan to construct a truck trailer parking lot with a 500 square foot guard house. Decorative screen walls, landscaping, and other associated site improvements on 10.6 net acres of vacant land located at 8552 and 8643 East Eucalyptus Avenue within the business park land use district of the Merrill Commerce Center specific plan. The environmental impacts of the project were previously reviewed in conjunction with file number PSP 18-001. the Merrill Commerce Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report that was adopted by the City Council on February 21st, 2021. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The project is submitted by Kimley Horn and Associates, Incorporated, and Associate Planner, Ms. Vaughn, will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Ngo. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. The approximately 10.6 acre project site is surrounded by agricultural vacant and industrial land uses and is bordered on the north by Eucalyptus Avenue, on the west by Walker Avenue, and on the east by Baker Avenue. Taking a closer look, on February 14th, 2025, the applicant submitted an application for a CUP to establish the truck parking use and a development plan to otherwise construct the project. On April 20th of 2026, the Development Advisory Board reviewed the project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The Merrill Commerce Center specific plan requires conditional use permit review and approval for outdoor vehicle storage if allowed by the planning director. The CUP process provides the city with the opportunity to analyze the use request, determine whether the uses are in keeping with and have no greater impact than those in the vicinity and allowable in the area. specific plan and incorporate conditions of approval that aid in reducing any potential nuisance impacts of the project. To provide for greater flexibility in meeting current market demands, the planning director allowed the request as development of this project will not preclude future development of business park buildings. The city has conditioned the site to be operated in an orderly manner, including keeping the site clean from debris and litter, storing trucks and trailers in an orderly fashion, installing security features like lighting and cameras, securing ingress and egress with a full-time guard, and prohibiting the use of the site as a rest stop or maintenance facility. The site will be developed with a surface lot intended for truck and trailer parking, a 500 square foot guard house, site lighting, decorative screen walls, landscaping, and associated public right-of-way improvements, including sidewalks, parkways, and a multi-purpose trail. The site will be accessible via a new drive approach along Baker Avenue near the southeast corner of the project site. Okay. All right. And then the site will serve a single business's fleet and will not be open to the general public. A simple contemporary design is proposed for the guard shack utilizing similar colors, materials, and features that blend in with the industrial adjacent buildings. A neutral color tone palette will be provided including white metal panels with gray color blocking around the building space, vertical reveal lines, and a standing metal seam roof. The metal panels will help provide visual interest. Here is a project rendering which helps to illustrate the amount of landscaping that is being provided for this facility. So landscaping is proposed along each street frontage and along the site's southern boundary to help soften the appearance of the project site from public rights of way. A 29 foot landscape edge has been provided in addition to the required 35 foot neighborhood edge along Eucalyptus Avenue, which includes a parkway, sidewalk, and 23 foot landscape buffer. The northwest and northeast corners of the project site will be enhanced with additional landscape pockets similar to what exists directly east, just on a smaller scale for this project site. A minimum of 10% landscaping is required and 13% will be provided on site. Pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolutions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving file number PCUP 25-004 for the conditional use permit and adopt the resolution approving file number PDEV 25-005 for the development plan. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vaughn.

Commissioners, any questions?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Were there any responses from adjacent neighborhoods?

We did not receive any public comments regarding this project.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hagman.

Madam Chair, just a question for staff. Can you clarify the height of the screening wall?

The screen wall will be a minimum of 14 feet.

And that'll cover the trucks? Yes. Thank you. That's it for me, Madam Chair.

All right, thank you. Any other questions? As there are no further questions, I will now open the public hearing to the audience. And do we have an applicant? please step forward and stage your name for the record, name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Forrest Wilder with Kinley Horn, and my address is in Long Beach, California.

All right, and do you agree with the conditions of approval that are contained in the staff report?

Yes.

Thank you. Please proceed.

I have nothing additional to add other than thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission and also all of the staff that spent so much time and consideration in reviewing the application.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. Do we, oh, we have no green cards for this item, so now we will move on. I'm gonna close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Ritchie? Oh, pardon me. Go ahead.

The other bald guy. Commissioner Lampkin. This project has a couple of things going for itself. I think the most important one is providing the business with an opportunity to not allow their trailers to just be left on the street to park overnight or any time during the day and keep the streets clear. I like the idea that it will not be allowed to be used as a rest stop or a maintenance facility. And then the screening wall is actually very appealing. It hopefully will lead to the lot blending seamlessly into the community, especially with the additional landscaping that will be buffering the wall. And then also the setback as well. The setback is pretty dense on the eucalyptus side. So with that said, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit under file number PCUP25-004. And if it's the Madam Chair's desire, I would also like to make a motion that we approve the development plan file number PDEV25005 simultaneously, subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?

I second the motion.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. Mr. Gage? Yes. Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Chairman Dietmar?

Yes.

It is approved six to zero.

Thank you very much. File numbers PDEV25-004 and PDEV25-005, the conditional use permit and the development plan have been approved. They will become final within 10 days unless appealed. Item D, Mr. No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Item D is environmental assessment and development code amendment for file number PDCA 26-002, a public hearing to consider a development code amendment as described within the agenda. The proposed development code amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15061, subsection B3 of the CEQA guidelines and that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption. The application is city initiated and city council action is required. And associate planner, Ms. Vaughn, will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. No. The proposed Development Code Amendment is of citywide impact affecting approximately 50 square miles of land generally bordered by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west, Interstate 10 Freeway, 8th Street and 4th Street on the north, Etiwanda Avenue and Hamner Avenue on the east, and Merrill Avenue and San Bernardino County, Riverside County boundary on the south. The amendment is comprised of certain clarifications and revisions to the development code as follows. Number one, revise chapter two, administration and procedures, section 2.03.010.c.1, public hearing notifications such that discretionary and legislative projects have the same 600 foot noticing boundary and table 2.2-1 review matrix to clarify the approval authority for electric truck vehicle charging facilities for equipment and for ancillary construction and for semi-trailer storage facilities. These modifications formally codify the noticing procedures already in place and introduce regulations that will aid in the governance of electric truck vehicle and semi-trailer storage facilities. Number two, revised chapter four, permits, actions, and decisions, section 4.02.025 development plans to provide clarification regarding the development of an electric vehicle charging facility or semi-trailer storage yard facility. This modification formally introduces regulations that will aid in the governance of electric truck vehicle charging facilities and semi-trailer storage yard facilities. Number three, revise chapter five, zoning and land use. Section 5.02.010 allow land uses, activities and facilities to modify the table for the land use matrix to include bowling centers and simulated racing facilities such as go-karts, radio controlled vehicles and other similar facilities as conditionally permitted land uses within the open space recreation or OSR zoning district when privately operated on publicly owned land, and to prohibit massage services ancillary to day spas and wellness centers within the MU1 zoning district, which is the downtown zoning district. These modifications will allow for additional flexibility in programming recreational areas within the city, and may prohibit potential nuisance activities within downtown Ontario. Number four, revise chapter five, allowed land uses, activities, and facilities to modify table. Sorry, I had them switched in my presentation here. Two. to include electric truck vehicle charging facilities as a conditionally permitted land use and introduce new section 5.03.163 electric truck vehicle charging facilities to the development code to establish regulations for the land use. These modifications formally introduce regulations that will aid in the governance of electric truck vehicle charging facilities. There we go, okay. Number five, revise chapter five, zoning and land use, section 5.03.025H3, alcoholic beverage sales to update the name of the Ontario Toyota Arena Entertainment Zone to the Capital City Entertainment Zone and add a new subsection to support the Ontario Sports Empire Entertainment Zone. including new standards and the figure that you see here on the right. These modifications provide further clarification and introduce regulations that will aid in the governance of the new sports empire entertainment zone. Next we have revised chapter 5.0, section 5.02.010 for allowable land uses to modify table 5.2-1 land use matrix to introduce semi-trailer storage yard facilities as a conditionally permitted land use and introduce section 5.03.357 semi-trailer storage yard facilities to the development code to establish regulations for the use. These modifications formally introduce new regulations that will aid in the governance of semi-trailer storage yard facilities. Next we have revised chapter six, development and subdivision regulations, table 6.01-8 for commercial zoning district development standards to increase the maximum height within the light office zoning district from 35 to 55 feet. This modification provides additional flexibility for development within that zoning district and it does not increase the FAR or overall development intensity. Oh, we have one more. Revise chapter six, development and subdivision standards for non-residential zoning districts to include standards for the screening of semi-trailer storage yard facilities and electric truck vehicle charging facilities. We also have a revision to chapter eight for sign standards to clarify the maximum height of freeway signs. This modification for freeway adjacent signage will to be on an appropriate consistent height regardless of the grade of the adjacent businesses property. All right, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and resolution, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution for file number PDCA 26-002 recommending the city council approve development code amendment number two. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Villan. Questions from commissioners?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay, Commissioner Lamkin.

For the revision of Chapter 5.0, Zoning and Land Use, Section 5.03.2, 025.H.3. Will there be a requirement to narrow down or specify how we will be spelling capital, whether it be C-A-P-I-T-A-L or C-A-P-I-T-O-L before we move forward?

With that, right now, as we know it, it is capital with an A, but in the future, if it does get changed to with an OL, we'll do another development code amendment cleanup. We do them two or three times a year, and at that time, we'll rename that district.

Thank you, that's all I have, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair. Commissioner Ritchie.

Yes, I'd like to just get some clarification, same slide, on the sports empire. So this makes it an entertainment zone. One of the things I was just trying to envision is how that would apply to the fields where alcoholic beverages, is there snack bars or what's the anticipated use for that?

Yeah, there are concession stands, but with the entertainment zone, like we did for the now proposed capital city entertainment zone, this allows for outdoor consumption of alcohol. This just provides the standards and actually includes this area within the city as an entertainment zone. In the future, we'll work with GoCal and PD and the necessary departments to review the management plan of that. There are concession stands and there'll be potentially alcohol sales within the concession stand. So this'll help provide that opportunity and then that management plan will go through that process to help regulate that. Okay, that was,

I just wanted to get an idea of what we're looking at for that specific area. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes. Regarding electric charging stations, Is this something new that has to be put in? What was our development code before regarding charging stations?

We didn't have any particular for actually like semi-truck charging stations, electric charging stations. There was state legislation that was passed that kind of made the process more streamlined for this particular use, but what we're doing now is to provide for development standards for areas that are proposed so that we'll get proper landscaping screening, et cetera, for those. So that's what we're trying to establish now with this Development Code Amendment.

Okay, and secondly, Why are we renaming the entertainment zone capital city? Where did that come from?

The Toyota Arena entertainment district, that was provided and brought before the planning commission and ultimately adopted by the city council. um earlier this year before the actual name of the development changed to capital city so just to provide for clarification so there isn't any confusion we just wanted to make the name appropriate what it's going to be known as

Okay, and a third question. The permit to increase the height of office buildings from 35 feet to 55 feet, does that comply with the Ontario plan as far as building structures that are commensurate with the neighborhood or the surrounding structures? Does that change that vision at all from the Ontario plan?

It'll still be consistent with the Ontario plan. Correct.

Any other questions? No, then I have one green card. Mr. Chris Robles.

If you can open the public hearing.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Madam Chair and commissioners, so just a moment ago you gave a conditional use permit for trucks. And I turned to my friends over there and I said, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. And it seems like this constant approval for warehouses, which clearly no one wants except City Hall for some bizarre reason. Now we're accommodating them. So we've caused a problem. Now there are all these trucks and we don't want them on the street, which by the way, it was already illegal for them to be on the street. So that's not really our problem except this city and this, panel and the city council caused the problem by approving these warehouses. So now you're trying to fix it. And now, in this item, you're specifically allowing this to be broadly done. And part of that is because there have been illegal uses of farmland down in South Ontario for truck parking. Once again, causing a problem, and now you're trying to fix it. So at what point are we going to stop doing that? At what point are we going to not continue to accommodate and change the look and style and health and conditions in our city to accommodate trucks? This is so wrong and you all have a responsibility. You're residents and you're there to be part of protecting residents and you're not doing it. So I wanna know how many future sites could qualify. Is this merely a clarification of existing regulations or an expansion? But I already know the answer to that. And then what analysis was performed regarding cumulative impacts on this additional trailer storage? Not just here, but now what you're planning to do, because we already know it's a six of a vote. We already know. One minute remaining. Well, I'm done, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robles. Any comments from the staff

With regards to Mr. Robles' comments, we are providing standards, like the staff report mentioned, with regards to the trailer park storage areas. We are eliminating them to the IG, which is the general industrial, heavy industrial, which is IH, ONT, and then utility corridors. And then for the utility corridors, if it's utilized for like SCE, we're requiring that it be surrounded by industrial uses and it shouldn't be adjacent to sensitive land uses. the proposed warehouses and such, they're existing in our city. So with this, we're providing a opportunity to be able to store them as Commissioner Lampkin had mentioned previously, a more suitable and making sure that it meets our development standards and is consistent with our general plan. So we're doing it in a way that is not reactive but proactive in making sure that these locations are appropriate and that we provide standards that help protect the community, protect our high quality of life, and to minimize these impacts to our sensitive uses such as our residents and or hospitals and such. So we're providing this Development Code Amendment to actually be proactively implemented making sure that if a developer proposes these off-site trailer storage that it meets our intent and our vision for our general plan.

That's it.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes, for the staff. Just generally, There was a comment that the state owns farmland in the city and I don't quite understand how that would mean we have to change warehouses and truck facilities and residential communities and industrial areas and commercial areas. I mean, do we really have a choice for that the state owns farmland and instead of making these other facilities that were asked to approve?

So just for clarification, I believe what the public commenter was mentioning is the next item, which entails Prop 70 land. So we can discuss that item next, but with regards to other past actions, I believe what he is mentioning, as he stated in previous public hearings, like the TOP that was just approved by the City Council, recommended by the Planning Commission a couple months back and approved by the City Council last week. Changing some land uses to business park or to that. those types of actions in previous city actions in the Ontario Ranch area. But this is pertaining to citywide, like I mentioned, to general zoning standards.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else, commissioners? All right, then I'm gonna close the public hearing and turn the matter over to the Commission for discussion and action. If there's no discussion, is there a motion?

Madam Chair.

Yeah, Commissioner Gage.

Yes. Well, most of these things are just amendments to codes regarding electrical charging stations and naming of entertainment zones and such. Height requirements, I got a satisfactory answer on office buildings that 55 feet height increase won't be done if it doesn't comply with the neighboring structures as per our Ontario plan and the vision of our Ontario plan. So, regarding the tractor trailer storage yards, you know, there's been widespread complaints, of course, of tractor trailers parked on illegal areas, maybe some legal areas. I think it's common sense that we should accommodate tractor trailers because it's a fact of life. And I don't look at it as a negative. We're improving the situation for the community and the area by having a tractor-trailer facility. And it was done with the appropriate walls that hide the area and landscaping that surround it. So I think it's a needed thing. So with that, unless there's other comments, I'd like to make a motion to... approve the development code amendment file.

Recommendation. Recommend to cancel.

I'd like to recommend approval of the development code amendment file PDCA26-002 subject to the resolution.

Thank you, is there a second?

I'll second.

There's a motion by Commissioner Gage and a second by Commissioner Lampkin to recommend to City Council approval of file number PDCA 26-002 Development Code Amendment. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Mr. Gage? Yes. Mr. Hagman? Yes. Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Chairman Dietmar? Yes. It is recommended to City Council 6-0.

Thank you. File number PDCA 26-002, the Development Code Amendment has been recommended to City Council. Mr. No, Item E.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Item E is environmental assessment and specific plan amendment for file number PCPA25-006. A public hearing to consider an amendment to the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan to reintroduce 71.6 acres of land into the specific plan area. including exhibit and text updates throughout the document to support the change for land located at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Campus Avenue, currently within the specific plan, agricultural overlay zoning district. The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with file number PSP 19-001, the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified by the City Council on March 1st, 2022. and per the technical memo to the original EIR prepared for the project, this application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The application is the city, it's city-initiated, and city council action is required, and our associate planner, Ms. Vaughn, will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. No. The approximately 71 acre project site is surrounded by agricultural, dairy, vacant, industrial, and airport land uses, and is bound by Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Campus Avenue on the west, Merrill Avenue on the south, and Bondview Avenue on the east. On March 1st, 2022, the Ontario City Council approved the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan or SOLC-SP and associated environmental impact report inclusive of the project site. On March 30th, 2022, a stipulated dismissal challenging the project was filed and a settlement agreement was entered into by the applicant and challenger on October 14th of 2022. A major term of the settlement agreement was to remove the project site from the SOLC SP and further prevented any action to seek future development on the site for a period of 30 months from the effective date. On December 6th, 2022, the applicant filed an amendment to remove the project site from the SOLC SP and the city initiated a zone change to reestablish the specific plan agricultural overlay zoning district. On May 16th of 2023, the city council approved these modifications. In June of 2025, the terms of the settlement agreement expired and the city proceeded with an amendment to reintroduce the project site back into the SOLC SP. At this time, there are no plans to develop the project site and the SPA is intended to bring the land into conformance with the underlying policy plan or general plan land use designations of business park and industrial. Here on the map you can see the original project site included both the yellow and red highlighted areas. The existing specific plan area is in red and the project site is in yellow. So here we can see the specific plan land use revision. The proposed amendment consists of exhibit and text changes to accommodate the reintroduction of the project site back into the SOLC SP area. In general, the amendment includes adjustments to boundaries, total acreage and build out, development phasing, street and landscape sections, circulation and utilities. The amendment will also facilitate any necessary cleanup throughout the document to reflect current conditions. A reintroduction of the project site will result in an increase in acreage from approximately 148 acres to 219 acres. The maximum building square footage will be increased from approximately 3.6 million square feet back to the originally approved 5.3 million square feet to be spread across the original five planning areas. While the original SOLC SP and associated EIR included the project site, a technical memo to the EIR was prepared to address any changes in regulations since the original approval date. The memo confirmed that the project site introduces no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed. and future development would still be required to comply with the applicable standards of any state and federal laws and regulations. There are no substantial changes proposed to the project site which would require any revisions to the previous EIR and all previously adopted mitigation measures will still apply to the site. Pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and resolution, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution for file number PSPA25-006 recommending the City Council approve the amendment to the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm here and happy to help if you have any questions. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Vaughn.

Commissioners, do you have questions? All right, then I'm gonna open the public hearing to the audience. I have three green cards for three speakers who require translators. Do we have the translator here? Yes, we do, Madam Chair. Okay, let's have all three of them come forward, please. This is Maricela Contreras, Claudia Cuevas, and Luz Hernandez.

My name is Maricela Contreras from the community of Ontario.

The air that we breathe, that our children breathe, it becomes more difficult to breathe in.

Let's put in a pinch of salt to provide a better quality of life to our future children and to the generations to come. Humanity is in danger.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Contreras.

Hi, good afternoon, my name is Claudia Cuevas. Madam Secretary and members of the Commission, I would like to state.

that everything that has been said, the Latin community has not stated.

We ask you to provide respect to the community and to provide proper translation from all the projects that have been mentioned. .

I come from the community center of justice and humane. Representing the city of Ontario.

Representing the city of Ontario. We are against of the proposition. Of rezoning 71 acres. 71 acres of agriculture.

that has been presented.

We live in times where the nutrition food is not easy to be obtained.

That acre and that land is very valuable and can bring lots of nutritionist food to the Ontario residents. La región se puede transformar en terrenos regenerativos. The region can become and can be made something more.

Para balancear las oportunidades de la ciudad. Para balancear. To balance the opportunities of the city. Por favor, voten no y conserven la promesa de la Propuesta 70.

Please vote no and... Maintain the promise against.

The item seventy.

We must understand to be able to provide the proper communication last week. The Mayor Paul Leon stated that we didn't need any more space for agriculture. When a farmer is very different than an agriculture.

Los farmers mantienen gallinas, vacas, caballos, cerdos.

When a farmer maintains cows, chickens, and other animals such as pigs, por eso es indispensable tener suficiente terreno. Thus, it is very important to maintain the agriculture.

Y no es lo mismo que mencionó que ya teníamos suficiente con Huerta del Valle.

And it's not the same stating that is sufficient when the solo is.

Don't they? When it truly still remains a small space that communities can. Take space in.

I ask that as you see in this book, the birds, I would like to keep seeing birds near me. Please, I advise you to take into consideration the community and not the warehouses. Thank you.

Can counsel provide clarification here?

Pretty close translation. Which details?

Madam Chair, can we have clarification from legal counsel please?

Correct, so Madam Chair, the public speaker, if they brought a translator with them that they prefer to use, that's fine. That's their preference, it's just that the city has made a translator available.

All right, and would that mean that we have to go hear the two previous speakers? No, no. We can just use the requested translator for the third speaker. All right. All right, let's do that then. Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Luz Maria Hernandez.

Resident of this very own city, Ontario. I'm here today.

Because in current days, the pollution in the air has been very high. And that is what we're breathing every day.

And this is partly in reason because of the current warehouse in Boyle Heights that is burning in this moment. It is east of LA County and west of us.

And if I'm not mistaken, it is about 32 miles away from Ontario.

And however, it is impacting us very highly. The quality of air is impacting us very highly.

Here in the city of Ontario, we have faced similar problems.

When the warehouse Kimberly Clark burned down about two months ago on Merrill. And also the recycle facility that burned down on Bondview and State.

I am mentioning these disasters. Because we are exposed daily that these occurrences happen again. These same problems happen again. I am here today asking the you don't rezone these 71 acres on eucalyptus and campus.

We don't need any more business parks in Ontario. Please vote no on the rezoning. Thank you so much.

Next, I'd like to call Maria Galvan.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Maria Galvan. I'm an Ontario resident. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue this item and direct staff to provide additional information regarding future development, potential environmental impacts, and the relationship between this proposal and the original Proposition 70 preservation objectives. And thinking about fires, haven't we had too much fires in the community? All around us, right, Boyle Heights, the warehouse that was burnt right here in Ontario. A resident mentioned Kimberly Clark. And it took how many firefighters? Wow, 100 firefighters. Do we need more firefighters to be combating all these fires in the communities and outside of our communities? Why? because of these big massive warehouses i mean they are uh like fire prone aren't they i respectfully ask you to stop building isn't it enough warehouses in ontario We need more green spaces, right, for our future children, grandchildren, generation after generation. We need green spaces, and that includes agricultural land. And you know what I learned? Oh my God, I think I'm going to die or get asthma pretty soon. Thank God I don't have it. Ontario is the number one most polluted city in the nation. I don't know. Did you guys know that respectfully? Did anybody know this? I'm like, I'm learning. And I used to think it was San Bernardino. I'm just appalled. I can't even believe it's Ontario. So please pay attention to the residents, respect the comments, and also provide translations regarding the information that's presented here. And I thank you very much for your time. And I thank you for your work. And thank you for the three minutes. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Luis Cartero. Please restate your name when you get to the podium.

Luis Cartero.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Luis Carretero and I'm here tonight to strongly urge this commission to vote a denial on file number PSPA25-006. This item proposes to permanently strip 71.6 acres of land from our agricultural, uh, agriculturally overlay zoning district to expand the South Ontario Logistics Center. We do not need another mega warehouse. We do need to protect the dwindling green spaces, fertile soil, and rich agricultural legacy that built Ontario.

I emphasize this because once you pave over 71.6 acres of farmland with concrete, it's gone forever.

Now what is most alarming about this proposal, it relies on its secret determination that you use completely outdated environmental impact report. The city wants to use the previous EIR claiming that the expansion introduces no new significant environmental impacts. But to say that nothing has changed since 2022 is a complete failure of environmental review. The baseline for warehouse safety and community environmental risk in our community has fundamentally shifted in these past four years. So look at what a realistic updated safety analysis would have to account for today. The Kimberly-Clark disaster right here in Ontario, a fire that completely destroyed that 1.2 million square foot warehouse on Merrill Avenue, right down the street from this project site. That's 175 firefighters who for 12 hours fought to contain it. It triggered severe air quality alerts and put the lives of the community right by the warehouse at risk. And let's not forget the ongoing Boyle Heights crisis, which is still burning and releasing toxins into the community for a week now.

Just a reminder.

So a 2022 EIR could not possibly analyze the cumulative air quality impacts, toxic runoff risks, and massive strain on our local fire infrastructure that these recent catastrophic events have brought to light. Pushing forward with a technical memo instead of a fully updated recirculated EIR ignores the physical reality of the dangers that these mega warehouses pose to our community. So do not allow this outdated environmental report to dictate the safety of our city in 2026. Prioritize our history, our safety, and the voices of Ontario's community over the tiresome logistic expansions. So I recommend denial for PSPA 25-006. And I hope you got the gist of that. Thank you.

All right. Next, Ana Gonzalez.

Good evening again chair, commissioners and staff. My name is Ana Gonzalez and I'm here representing the Ontario community and the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. I'm here respectfully asking you to oppose agenda item PSPA 25-006. The proposed amendment to the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan that would reintroduce approximately 71.6 acres of land into the logistics development area at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus and campus. This proposal represents yet another expansion of warehouse and logistics land uses in a region that has already borne a disproportionate share of the environmental and public health impacts associated with the goods movement. While the staff report emphasizes consistency with the existing business park and industrial designations, consistency alone does not make this proposal a good policy. The question before you is whether expanding logistics development onto land currently protected by Prop 70 and specific plan agricultural overlay serves the long term interest of Ontario residents. I believe this proposal does not. First, the amendment moves the city further away from preserving remaining open and agricultural land. The agricultural overlay on Prop 70 land was created for a reason, it was intentional. And removing that protection should require a compelling public benefit that has not been demonstrated. Additional logistics development means additional truck traffic, air pollution noise, and wear on local infrastructure. Communities throughout the Inland Empire continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation. Residents living near warehouse corridors already face elevated concerns regarding diesel emissions, respiratory illnesses, and quality of life impacts. There is very little mention in this proposal of how you all will abide with the new warehouse laws such as AB 98, SB 415, and housing up zones SB 330. Ontario's economic future should not be limited to an endless cycle of warehouse expansion. Land is one of the city's most valuable and finite resources. Preserving opportunities for diversified open space and agricultural healthy food growing uses provides greater long term resilience than dedicating more acreage to logistics facilities. There's also potential sightings of burrowing owl, that's not being addressed in the EIR. A new EIR must be circulated before making a decision, and I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Alec Aragon.

Good evening, planning commissioners and staff. My name is Alec Aragon, and I'm here to address item E, PSPA 2506. I'm here to ask this commission to vote no on this amendment, or at the very least, remove this item from tonight's agenda until the community is given the proper time and opportunity to provide proper, timely input. This amendment proposes turning 70 acres of land at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Camptus Avenue into the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan. The commission is being asked to restore a planning framework that could be used to facilitate future industrial development on land that many residents believe would remain protected for agricultural and open space purposes. These agricultural overlays exist for a reason, to protect and preserve our community's farming heritage and green areas. Pushing out agricultural uses to expand an industrial park directly contradicts the purpose of designating these lands as protected in the first place. Once we have paved over this preserved farmland, it's really, really difficult to get it back. Furthermore, residents deserve a clear explanation of why this land is being returned to a logistics-oriented plan. How is this action consistent with the original preservation goals? In addition, I'm deeply concerned by the claim that this massive land use change introduces no new significant environmental impacts based simply on a technical memo attached to a 2022 environmental impact report. Replacing over 70 acres of protected agriculture with industrial logistics, Undeniably impacts our community's air quality, traffic, and noise levels. Relying on an old EIR for a new 71 acre industrial expansion sidesteps the transparent environmental review the public deserves. The community must have a real voice before our protected agricultural lands are stripped away. I urge you to listen to the residents you represent. Vote no on item E today or postpone this item so the community can be properly consulted. Look at all these people who showed up to oppose this item. A yes vote would demonstrate the lack of consideration for the voices who took their time to be here. There is no rush and the more public input, the better. Thank you for your time.

Joaquin Casillas.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Joaquin Castillos. I am with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. We organize here in the community of Ontario. I represent community members living across the city. And I urge you today to oppose the proposed rezoning of Prop 70 conservation land for for the inclusion into an industrial specific plan. This proposal raises serious concerns, serious environmental justice concerns for the residents of Ontario and the broader Inland Empire. For decades, our region has carried a disproportionate burden of Southern California's good movement industry Communities have been asked to absorb warehouse after warehouse, increasing truck traffic, diesel pollution, noise, and other environmental impacts while receiving few of the benefits. As a result, Inland Empire residents continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation and face elevated rates of asthma, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and other health challenges. The rezoning of Prop 70 land represents yet another step towards sacrificing open space and community resources for industrial expansion. These lands were intended to be protected and conserved, not converted to accommodate additional warehouse and logistics development. Once this land is developed, it is gone forever. It is also critical that the Commission consider the cumulative impacts of this proposal. This project does not exist in a vacuum. Ontario is already home to a vast network of warehouses, distribution centers, truck routes, road infrastructure, and freight corridors. Residents are already exposed to significant environmental burdens from existing industrial activity. Adding more industrial development, especially on land originally designated for conservation, compounds these impacts and further concentrates pollution in communities that are already overburdened. Beyond its conservation value, this open space serves as important climate and public health function. Preserving this land helps maintain the natural carbon seek that can absorb and store carbon emissions in a region heavily impacted by transportation and industrial pollution. Open space also plays a critical role in combating the urban heat island effect by providing natural ground cover vegetation and cooling benefits that help reduce extreme temperatures. In a region where residents already face increasingly dangerous heat events, protecting remaining open space is an important climate resilience strategy. At a time when cities across California are looking for ways to preserve open space, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse emissions, and protect public health, this proposal moves in the opposite direction. Open spaces provide critical environmental benefits. The question before you is not whether Ontario will continue to grow. The question is whether that growth will come at the expense of community health, environmental protections, climate resilience, and commitments made to preserve public lands. Residents deserve thoughtful planning that prioritizes their well-being and the long-term sustainability of their community, not another expansion of industrial development into lands that were intended to remain protected.

Randy Beckendam.

Good evening again. I'm Randy Beckendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation, also a local regenerative farmer. Our nonprofit has been involved with these Prop 70 lands from the beginning. It's going on 40 years. These lands were purchased with the public trust. That's why we say they're owned by the people of the state of California. The county is just a steward. These lands were supposed to have been conserved under a permanent conservation easement the moment they were purchased. From the beginning, the county has been in violation of the public trust by failing to put permanent conservation easements on these lands to this date. That's 38 years of violation of the public trust. Two bills were passed to enable, they were smoke screens, but the language was to enable the diverse Prop 70 lands to be consolidated. And some valiant attempts were made to consolidate the lands, but when that fell apart, So here we are today. Both of those bills required that within two years of the passage of the bills that permanent easements would be placed on those lands. The county has ignored those mandates. So they, they're in violation. This land is not due to be developed. We just heard no immediate plans. Normally, A zone change comes when a developer buys a land, petitions for a zone change, and then it's granted or not. This is still Prop 70 land stewarded by the county. There's no reason to change the zone on it from agriculture to industrial. There's no imminent plans for development. So this makes no sense at all. And we, as you've heard, we're fighting to get easements on those lands so that they are preserved for agriculture, for food production, for this area. Even this concept of consolidation, those lands are incredibly valuable right where they are, even though they're not contiguous. They can be conserved as agriculture right where they are in perpetuity to serve the city. I urge you to vote no on this. It makes no sense.

Tina Silva.

Good evening. If I could just ask a little bit of a favor. I don't know if you're all looking down at your phones making notes about what our community is telling you, but really if you could just pay attention to us that would be awesome. I ask that you postpone this action on this item tonight. This proposal may be described as a planning amendment, but its consequences reach far beyond a map change. Reincorporating more than 70 acres into the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan could put this land back on a path toward future industrial development. What makes this property different is its history. According to the city's own records, Proposition 70 funding was used to acquire property in this area for agricultural preservation purposes. Residents have every reason to question whether placing this land back into a logistics-focused planning area is consistent with the original intent of preserving agricultural resources for future generations. Many people understood these lands were meant to remain protected in perpetuity, not gradually shifted toward development oriented uses. I'm also concerned that the environmental reviews being relied on dates back to 2022. We're in 2026. In the last four years, South Ontario has seen substantial growth, increased truck traffic, new warehouses, and significant changes to the surrounding environment. Has the environment changed since 2022? The answer is clearly yes. The commission should ensure that today's decisions are based on today's conditions, not assumptions made four years ago. Before moving forward, the public deserves a clear explanation of how this proposal aligns with the original Prop 70 preservation objectives, what future development opportunities this amendment could create, and whether the environmental analysis adequately reflects current conditions and cumulative impacts. For these reasons, I respectfully request that this item be continued until those questions can be fully addressed and the community has had a meaningful opportunity to participate in this discussion. And since I have 30 seconds left, we are a community of immigrants, Spanish-speaking people. So they... They deserve the dignity that I get when I'm standing up here. Translation services. I understand there's a new law coming soon. I can't wait till it gets here because I think 68% of Ontario residents are Latin or Latino. Thank you.

Chris Robles.

Good evening. Once again, I'm here tonight on item E because it's more than just a technical amendment. It's to the specific plan. It's about the future of 71.6 acres of land that is to be preserved under prop 70. We're talking about Ontario's, even though it's called the Chino agricultural preserve, it's Ontario. and whether the public is receiving a full and transparent discussion of what is transpiring here, which it is not. So let's be clear. You're being asked to place 71.6 acres back into the South Ontario Logistics Center's specific plan. And the staff already has said, and they will say it again right afterwards, that there's no warehouse being proposed. There's nothing like that being approved tonight. And I'll grant that's a technical truth, but it is missing the point altogether. as has been brought up by others, this is being pushed through rapidly with no necessity other than people are eager, eager to try and take this land away from the preserve. That's the point. Major industrial projects do not appear out of nowhere. They move forward one planning decision at a time. That's what this is. So tonight's amendment is going to restore the planning framework that makes future industrial development possible. That's just not routine housekeeping. That is a major land use decision. Once the property is placed back into an industrial specific plan, The argument later will be that the future development is simply consistent with the adopted plan. I mean, literally, and I've been to farmer Randy's farm, the cart, the public will then be told that the larger land use question was already decided. And this is why the commission must address these issues now, not after the groundwork has already been laid. The land was not treated like ordinary vacant land when public resources were used to acquire it and preserve it. It should not be treated like ordinary industrial real estate now. The city is relying on an environmental impact report, as you already heard, from March 2022, more than four years ago. And as has already been said, things have changed significantly, and I don't think anybody can argue that. The question is not simply how old the EIR is, it's really whether it adequately reflects current conditions and cumulative impacts now, and it doesn't. So before recommending approval, the commission should insist on clear answers. How does this amendment honor the original Prop 70 preservation purpose? What future? Thank you.

Next is Marty McBride.

Good evening Madam Chair and Council. During the staff presentation for this item on the agenda, it occurred to me to ask myself, why is Ontario practicing legal contortionism to conform land use to proposed present or future development plans instead of exercising its authority to demand that those development plans instead conform to protected land use restrictions and designations? There's an old saying that the way to eat a whale is one bite at a time. Development in Ontario similarly occurs in small steps. Each decision by staff, this commission, and the city council to rezone, reassign, do land switcheroos, and legal legerdemain. do nothing but pave the way to use prop 70 land for purposes outside of their original protections granted by the state of california for the good of its people today's decisions and this decision in particular will affect what will happen tomorrow. And while you may see a simple individual decision, each one is another step to eroding and ultimately removing protections from these lands. For the majority of Ontario residents, this is happening without their knowledge and consent. And while there is no harm in taking additional time for you to take additional time to inform the city residents, answer their questions, and provide clarity, there may very well be significant harm if you approve this amendment before the public truly understands its long-term consequences. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue this item, thank you, and direct staff to provide additional information regarding future development potential, environmental impacts, and the relationship between this proposal and the original proposition 20, preservation objectives. Thank you.

Adrienne Rios.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Adrian. I'm an Ontario resident. Everyone has a speech tonight, but I'm just going to wing it. As an Ontario resident and an aspiring farmer, I'm here to advocate for the preservation of the 71 acres of farmland that is currently proposed to be developed. While I understand that no future development is currently planned, I urge you to please close the door to any future projects like warehouse industrial projects that may come onto this land from that zone change. I'm here to advocate for the preservation of that farmland. As an aspiring farmer, it's really difficult to find spaces on where to farm in Southern California, and Ontario is a very hostile city to agriculture. There are no single acreage being planned to be saved for farming specifically. It's all planned to be paved, to be concrete. So I please urge you to really close that door to those future developments. I believe... that farming and agriculture is so critical and it is not understood like in these meetings, in these rooms, because it is a different world when you step outside. I don't want to live in a world that is a concrete jungle. I want to live in a world that is green, that has life, that there's birds that sing, that kids play, that I don't have to advocate to just breathe clean air. It's crazy that we're even having these meetings that really just are prioritizing profits and business plans and monetary gains when there is This planet that we all share has so much biological diversity that needs to be protected and respected. And we're in this room talking about future sites that will completely destroy that. It's illogical to me. I also want to point out that this site is historically burying our habitat. And while it is a species of listed concern, it's not federally protected yet. But I also want to highlight that this land can produce nutritious food for our benefit as human beings. But also want to highlight that the planet we share and the animals that share this planet with us are co-inhabitants, matter, and the entire environmental integrity of this area is on the line when projects like this come into hearing. So I just really want to urge you to please listen to the voice of the people. It feels like I have to fight for a right to clean, to breathe clean air. when I really shouldn't have to, when none of us should have to, it makes no sense. So please listen to the voice of the people and protect our environment for our social and environmental wellbeing. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no more green cards. I would, oh, pardon me. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Karen May.

Apologies, I was working and could only come late, so I apologize for being late. And I'm sorry I missed the staff presentation. But we know what this issue is about, right? We know that decisions are often made before meetings like this even happen. And that's one of the big concerns that I have, These plans were developed without public view, outside of public view. And there is a growing cohort of Ontario residents that is starting to pay more and more attention and realizing what is going on here. And it's very, very concerning. And we're concerned about democracy in our city. We're concerned about transparency because This is a very consistent refrain. You have heard over and over and over and over again that this community wants to preserve the Prop 70 land, does not want it rezoned for industrial, even if they say it's light industrial and it's gonna be just a little business park in transition from the mega warehouses to the Grand Park. We want that transitional space to be preserved for sustainable agriculture and regenerative farming. That is the buffer that we are asking for. And we want that codified. We want the conservation easements on that land. We do not want it rezoned. We want more transparency. We want an opportunity to discuss these things. I do not think that this is an ethical process. I don't believe that the EIR is current and appropriate. More time is needed to go back to look at the cumulative environmental impacts of what this rezoning would do. The people are speaking here. It's clear. I mean, come on. Who is listening? Who is listening to the people? Who is listening to the residents of this city? Is it gonna be a one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, zero vote? That is my prediction because we consistently come up here and talk about what we want, talk about the plans, talk about our objections, talk about transparency, and these votes go forward. And I am really, really tired of it. Excuse me, I'm getting a little bit emotional because this land needs to be preserved. It should not be rezoned. We need to keep it for sustainable agriculture as Prop 70 intended. Okay, let's talk about it after the meeting. Let's get some meetings on the calendar. Time. Thank you.

And for the record, I would like to note that we did receive a communication from Karen May just before the meeting started. All right, Commissioner Noe, do you have any comments?

Yes, so there's been a lot of items that have been brought up with a public comment, so I'm going to do my best to cover them all. In addition, we do have our environmental consultant that can go into more technical detail with regards to the technical memo that was performed and it is a valid and appropriate CEQA process that we went through and that it went through the formal process of actually analyzing the environmental impact report and making sure that it is um still consistent and it doesn't have any significant environmental impacts and that other studies that weren't required in 2022 they did perform those studies such as the um the crotch bumblebee that wasn't part of the 2022 environmental impact report but i'll let that uh our environmental consultant go over any other technical um with regards to the CEQA process that we went through. But to start off, I do want to mention that the public comments that have been made on multiple occasions did talk about the zoning doesn't need to be done at this time. What I want to mention and re-mention in our staff report and some of the public comments I've made is that the general plan, which is our guiding document, the Ontario plan, the land use designation for this property is currently designated as industrial and business park. And with California zoning laws, it is the city's duty to make sure that the zoning, which would be the specific plan amendment, is consistent with our general plan, which is our guiding document, which provides that vision and what the council and community envisions for this property. So it is already designated as industrial and business park. We're just making the zoning consistent, which would be the specific plan in this instance. In addition, someone brought up about the ag overlay and that intent for the Ontario Ranch area. Just to remind the Planning Commission and the public, when the city annexed the Ontario Ranch area in 2010, we made a agricultural overlay to allow for the existing farmers to continue the use of their properties as agriculture prior to them wanting to sell. and redesignate that property. So the agricultural overlay zone was intended and it's being utilized today by current farmers and such to be able to utilize the property for agriculture, dairy, and other farming type of uses that they could actually utilize their property as it was prior to the city annexing that and changing the general plan to what it is today. Additionally, with regards to Prop 70, it's been brought up many times. Tonight, previously, at both Planning Commission and City Council, that is a process that the county has to go through. They did approve a land plan. We did make our Grand Park master plan consistent with that plan earlier this year. We continue to work with the county. Currently, the property is still within the Prop 70 land. At the time that the county wishes to sell that land and transfer that Prop 70 land to other areas such as possibly the Grand Park. At that time we will work with the county to make sure that we meet all the legislative requirements for processing and easements that are gonna be transferred to those particular properties. But I just wanted to mention again that that is a separate process that the city will continue to work with the county and to make sure that we're doing our part to make sure that the spirit and intent of that Prop 70 is followed. Someone mentioned AB 98 for this property. It will need to be in compliance with AB 98 at the time that the development plan, if it does propose a industrial distribution warehouse, we will work with the applicant at that time to make sure that all state legislation including AB 98 is abided by. Let's see. With regards to the CEQA, like I mentioned, the technical memo is in compliance with CEQA. What we did do is hired our environmental consultant who actually did the previous EIR and did a technical memo. They analyzed every single section of that EIR, like I mentioned, to make sure that the proposed specific plan amendment is still in alignment with that environmental impact report. And like I mentioned, the additional studies and or surveys that weren't performed previously, they performed those studies and that is part of the technical memorandum. that's before you tonight. With regards to fire, those are unfortunate events. Unfortunately, that is not a CEQA item. We made sure through an air quality standpoint that the construction as well as the operation meets those air quality standards, and if not, then the statement of overriding considerations were previously adopted with the environmental impact report that was previously certified. And with regards to the proper notification, I'd like to reiterate that we did follow proper notification requirements per our Ontario Development Code. We openly would like public participation and transparency. So we did follow the proper notification process. We did advertise in the newspaper and then sent it to the 600 feet around the property that meets our development code requirements. So I believe with that, oh, someone mentioned I'll reiterate, a pre-construction survey is a mitigation requirement. Someone mentioned that there's burrowing owls that are on the property. So at the time, if a project comes before the city, that project will have to meet the mitigation requirements of the EIR, as well as the technical memo that's associated with this project. prior to any grading activities they will have to perform a pre-construction survey that's our typical mitigation requirement to make sure that if there are any habitats such as the burrowing owl that we take proper precautions and meet whatever requirements of the environmental impact report and the mitigation monitoring reporting program that was adopted and we will meet all those requirements if and when those surveys are done and if there are habitat then we will be able to mitigate that at that time. And with that if there's additional technical studies I'd like to ask the environmental consultant to actually provide any reassurance that the SQL process that we went through and the findings of the technical memo were done appropriately.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Carrie Cano. I'm an Environmental Planning Project Manager with Kimley Horne & Associates. We prepared the original SOLC-specific plan EIR a few years ago. Additionally, the City of Ontario hired us to prepare the consistency memorandum for the project you have before you this evening. I am in agreement with Mr. No's assessment of the consistency memorandum. So just to provide a little bit of clarification, the purpose of the consistency memorandum was to take a look at the project that you have before you tonight, so reincorporating the 71 acres into the specific plan and make a determination as to whether or not the development build out scenario associated with reincorporating those acreages back into the specific plan boundaries were adequately assessed in the previous environmental document. So as Ms. Vaughn's presentation identified, the re-inclusion, if you will, of those acreage does not propose any greater or more dense development potential scenario than what was previously analyzed. Essentially, just reincorporating the boundaries into the previous specific plan area. And when we prepared the prior EIR back in 2022, we determined that obviously all of the impacts were adequately assessed at that time. One of the additional steps that we did do in preparation of the consistency memorandum that you have before you this evening is to look at the various new pieces of legislation and regulations regarding development that have occurred since 2022, since the certification of the environmental impact report originally. And it was determined that those additional regulations and guidelines didn't create any or warrant any greater impacts than what was previously analyzed. So I just want to clarify that the the development of this 71 acres was fully previously analyzed. This is not new development that was not anticipated. Additionally, development of this project site was also actually contemplated as part of your top, as part of your general plan as well. And happy to answer any additional questions as needed.

I have a question. It was mentioned that Ontario's the most polluted city in the nation. Do you have any response to that?

I don't have an understanding of where that came from. We analyze impacts on a project by project basis. So I can't comment on whether or not the city of Ontario as a whole is the most polluted city. I have no basis of information for that.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Yeah, Commissioner Hagman.

Just to clarify your tactical memo, we heard a lot of concerns tonight about air quality and biology impacts. Am I correct to assume your tactical memo covered both of those items?

Yes, and keep in mind, everyone, essentially what the determination is is that if the project gets approved and, I don't know, six months, 16 months, six years down the road, a site-specific development application comes in, that site-specific development application would be required to adhere to all of the mitigation measures. site-specific development application, I mean on this additional 71 acres, would be required to adhere to all of the mitigation measures in the previously certified environmental impact report. It would be required to adhere to all local, state, and federal regulations enacted at that time, and it's also required to adhere to all the mitigation measures in your approved top plan as well, or top EIR, I should say. We're not saying that no mitigation is required for the development of the site. We're not identifying that there are no impacts associated with the development of the site. What the consistency memorandum identifies is that development of this additional acreage was previously contemplated and adequately analyzed as part of the prior EIR.

Thank you very much. That's all my questions, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you, Ms. Connell. There was several comments regarding burrowing owls, and then we also learned through staff that there is, I guess, crouching bees have been identified in the area. Hopefully I said that correctly. Can you talk a little bit about the programs that are in place here in the city of Ontario for relocating or co-locating any habitats that are found in areas that are proposed to be under development and how unique such a program is to this region?

So the relocation is done on a project by project basis, Commissioner. So it does depend on things such as the quality of habitat on a specific parcel. The number of, let's say, owls, right? We'll specifically talk about owls. The number of owls found on a project site. It's always meant to be that you find as similar of a habitat as possible to the existing habitat in which the owls are found. I will say that the SOLC EIR, the original EIR, which any future development projects in this project area would be required to adhere to, are required to perform pre-construction surveys. So no less than 30 days from someone putting a shovel in the ground on any of the project sites within the area, a certified biologist has to go out to the project site and assess whether or not not only suitable habitat, but actual potential you know, living owls are on the project site. And then, uh, their protocols identified, uh, by CDFW that are required in order to find, you know, remove the owls and provide suitable habitat. But that is done on a project by project basis, depending on the circumstances of the project site.

Thank you, Ms. Conner. Specifically, I recall a presentation that was done by Mr. Rudy Zeledon earlier, about two years ago, regarding our relocation program. And it's my understanding that it's a fairly unique program to maybe all of California. Maybe just the region, but a majority of California. So I was hoping that you'd be able to shed some light on that program and what it does for communities or habitats like the Burrowing Owls, such as what happened near the airport.

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to speak to the program itself. I myself am not a certified biologist. I'm a CEQA generalist. But I do know that any future development projects would be required to adhere to all protocols required at that time.

Thank you. if you want, Commissioner Lampkin. We've gone through some of this process with regards to our Ontario sports empire. So just in general, if burrowing owls are found, then the project applicant at that time, it was the city, worked with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and that's the jurisdiction that is in charge of habitat in the state of California. In that instance, once we found the burrowing owls on site, we worked with them, got an incidental take permit with regards to relocating. So we had to find proper habitat in a different area, as our consultant had mentioned, and we had to confer or coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and to make sure that all measures were done appropriately, have a certified biologist that, there's only a couple that I'm aware of that are specialized in the relocation of burrowing owls. So we worked with one of them and to make sure that all the appropriate measures were done to make sure that the new habitat would meet certain standards and guidelines and that once we were ready to relocate those burrowing owls that we were done appropriately with regards to those standards. set by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. So that hopefully answers a little more about your question.

Yes, thank you.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yeah, just continuing on this burrowing owl theme, I just remember that process that we went through for that. But I had a question just regarding that. As far as the land use right now, there's no agriculture there? It's just right now?

There is a current agricultural use on the property.

Okay, and is there any mitigating efforts that they've made if they found any burrowing owls? I don't know if there's regenerative farming. Do they do mitigating measures? If they find burrowing owls, do they actually take the time to relocate them?

I believe there's certain measures with regards to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, but the measures that we're talking about are mitigation measures for a project specific.

So, for example, if we go in and grade the field, then we'll make sure there's no burrowing hours before. Yes, the pre-construction survey. But as the existing use goes, if they find a burrowing hour, is there any... specific plan or thing to relocate those owls if they find them on site, or do they just leave them and not farm that area?

I would have to defer that to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Just a question that popped up, I thought about it.

And I said, you know, we went through extensive measures, I remember, to relocate those boring owls that were found on the end of the airstrip. Correct. And I'm just wondering if those same measures are being taken by everybody else that's considering this land use.

Whenever there is a project that has mitigation measures, they are required, and we will require them to abide by those mitigation measures. So the pre-construction survey will be done prior to the issuance of grading permits, and within 30 days of actually moving dirt, because you can't do it too far in advance, because then it will expire that survey. But yeah, we'll make sure that all those mitigation measures are followed.

Also now, there's one thing that came to mind while they were mentioning the fires and the warehouse fires. Everybody's been smelling that fire from Boyle Heights. I actually worked in the area. It's way worse over there. But as far as Ontario goes, I seem to recall we had a manure fire. And that was pretty bad as well. So that use was agriculture, right? I mean, for the manure. And it's in Ontario Ranch. Yeah, it's Ontario Ranch. So the manure was burning for a week, I think, as well. So longer than the warehouse fire. And I think a lot of firefighters. But just something that came to mind. But that smoke can't be good for us either. I mean, as far as fires go, right? Because burning manure is not really healthy for us. Are there any questions? Well, yeah, I'm just wondering. I mean, I'm just trying to recall these. I'm sorry. You're right. As far as point of order, excuse me. But I was just trying to bring to mind certain things that were brought up. But other than that, I think that's pretty much it. I guess the question would be if manure fire is worse than warehouse fires or paper product fires, I guess.

I couldn't personally speak to which would create greater admissions.

Yeah, it's just something that came to mind, but thank you, I appreciate it.

Any other questions from Commissioner?

I have a question of staff. There's farming going on on some of the 71 acres that we're talking about right now. Correct. My question is would that be allowed to stay if nothing is done?

Yes, they're a tenant. I believe there's certain agreements with the county, who is the landowner, to be able to utilize that property as agricultural purposes. Like I mentioned previously, there is the ag overlay that was adopted, so they are allowed to continue those agriculture uses until that land is sold, I guess. and changes hands that the county wishes to move forward with that. At that time, then that's a tenant-landlord ratio at that point, yeah.

So does it change? Right now we have it zoned as industrial, but we're proposing a new zoning to it. Does that make any difference as far as the agriculture that's going on there now can stay if they don't sell it?

That's correct. So currently the general plan land use is industrial and business park. Even though the specific plan is, if the planning commission recommends the city council that they approve it and it's adopted, that ag uses and the ag overlay still pertains. It's when it wants to transition to a different use, then it would have to abide by the specific plan and or the zoning. for that property. In this case, it would be South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan. Could the city zone it as an agricultural area? If that were the wishes of the council and who makes the policy and the final decision.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Marks, did you have something?

No, nothing.

Madam Chair, I just had questions for the staff.

Yeah, please.

And ma'am, Ms. Kona, environmental specialist, thank you very much. I just feel bad you're standing there the entire time if we don't have any more questions for you. So there was a comment that the state placed the land under a permanent conservation easement. Are you aware of any instances where the state has weighed in on the allowable uses for the land or the sale of the land?

So they would have to, so the county would have to follow all the Prop 70 legislation. So the land plan, which is the guiding document, my understanding for Prop 70 land, that was recently approved by the state within the last year of my understanding. So yes, they did take into account what was being proposed and they approved that land plan and how to dispose of it. So it's up to the county and the affected jurisdiction, which would be the City of Ontario in this case, to work together to make sure that if they process the sale of the land, then that transfer of the acreage, the 71-ish acres, would be transferred to a different property, and then that easement for the conservation of the Prop 70 lands would be placed on those affected transferred properties.

When you say they took it into account, you're referring to the state?

State, yes, and then working with the county who was the jurisdiction in charge of the Prop 70 land plan.

Okay, and then just in general, are you aware if, you may or may not be aware, whether or not only a select group or individuals were allowed to purchase the property, or was it potentially open to anyone to purchase for any use?

That I do not know.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I am going to close the public meeting, the public comment period, and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Anyone like to speak? Commissioner Lamkin?

This is the discussion portion and I do wanna speak. We heard a lot of testimony here and I'm grateful for all the residents that came out to speak. I do have something that I do want to mention. Many times we're up here taking notes and now everybody's looking at their phone. I have a lot of notes and I'm listening at the same time. because I truly do care about your concerns. And so if you see me looking down, I'm writing notes and I'm trying to keep track of everything. A lot of people spoke today. Some of the comments involved the fires, the warehouse fires. And it seems to escape a lot of people that the one here that everybody brings up, it was intentionally set by a person. intentionally set criminal behavior. I bring that up because in comparison to the other warehouse fire that's occurring in Boyle Heights, I am one of those individuals who have to address that and has been addressing that for the last couple of days. going to the evacuation centers, responding to calls for service three blocks away, and knowing the effects of that fire. I know what that feels like. I spent all day today at City Terrace Park with the Red Cross, with those residents who had to evacuate. So I could see the juxtaposition between the two. But also, two days ago, I had to respond to fires in open land, Whittier Narrows. And I had three deputies stuck behind the fire lines and trying to ensure when they actually could not evacuate, 20 patrons and 14 park staff could not evacuate Clay's shooting range because they were stuck behind. a fire that started in open land. So I see fires starting everywhere, whether we're talking about vegetation, agricultural land, or warehouses. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's accidental. So I'm a little torn in regards to which one is better in preventing fires and which one is more fire prone. I went to two fires just in the last three days and the other one was on Kalima Road in the skyline area of Friendly Hills near the city of Whittier as well. So I'm a little torn. These are things that I experience probably on a weekly basis now. Some of you guys know that I'm one of the individuals who spent almost half of 2025 dealing with palisades, eating fire and everywhere else. So in terms of, Whether or not you're being heard, I hear you. I heard all the comments, but I thought it was important just to note that in terms of swaying or trying to figure out where I sit on this, I see it either way, either way, whether it be open land or warehouse, and I still have to deal with it tomorrow when I go back to work.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

I appreciate all the residents that spoke today regarding this. My bottom line is what's better for this whole community that we built? an Ontario ranch, which we called the New Model Colony, which used to be called the Ag Preserve that we annexed to our city back 20-something years ago, 27 years ago. You know, I was actually on the planning commission when we wrote up the specific plan and we had all that agricultural dairymen mostly. telling us they wanted it to be as high density community as possible so they could sell their land for the highest price as possible. And then we had other people wanting a whole different community, a balanced community of residents and commercial and industrial. And, you know, after hearing the people tonight, You know, I'm for moderation and, you know, I don't know what's better for Ontario Ranch, more industrial or warehouses or an agricultural overlay zone to stay agriculture in some part of it. I mean, I don't know that more warehouses and industrial is right for the community in Ontario Ranch, the residents that live there. I mean, we should be thinking about the people that live there and what kind of community we're building there. I mean, there's gotta be some limit to these things and have some balance to it. I'm gonna vote no on this.

Any other comments or discussion?

Commissioner Ritchie. Just one thing I wanted to add. Thank you everyone for coming out and your voices were heard. For those of you that did send correspondence, we read your comments and we go through everything and we evaluate everything. I just wanted to remind everyone, we're not elected officials, we're appointed, we're appointed by council. You do have elected officials and I wanted to remind everyone, whatever the decision is in this case, this is a recommendation to city council and I encourage you to let your voices be heard at the council meetings in which they will make the final determination on this. But I too agree with Commissioner Gage. I feel like there is certain things that do need to be taken into consideration as far as the expansion. And when I got on the commission, I think I'm the second longest after Commissioner Gage, this historical place that we live in is real special because it's a new development colony that that came into existence but it's also somewhere where we had the dairies and the history uh preservation i think i think in a situation like this it it does uh create kind of a quandary for where we have to say okay we have existing uh logistics center we have existing warehouses is is this the right fit for that area uh where we're gonna have an agricultural that's in the middle of a bunch of warehouses, and I'm not sure if that's good. But either way, I think whatever the decision is, the final decision, this ultimately goes to city council and they're the ones that are elected officials. And I think if anything, we just make the recommendation and allow them to bear the burden of the final decision. So with that, I just feel it's one of those things where I think we should probably either look for a new EIR or also just take into consideration all the people that are very passionate about this and at least table this for a while so that we can work things out. So I'm in agreement. I'm thinking I'm going to also vote no on this with Commissioner Gage.

Could we please have a motion, and I don't think it's proper to be announcing the vote that you're going to be making.

Well, this is the discussion time, so we are able to say where we're leaning.

I understand that, but I think announcing the vote that you intend to take is not a proper action.

Okay. Well, if no one else wishes to speak.

Is there a motion from a commissioner so that we can proceed to a vote? Does anyone have any other comments they'd like to make?

All right. Madam Chair.

Mr. Commissioner Lamkin.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to make a motion that we recommend denial of the specific plan file number PSP. Hold on a second. Point of order, Madam Chair. We've seen throughout the discussions a lot of applauding, and we normally do not allow that. um so i'm going to ask and this is also helpful for us so we can hear each other and we can hear the discussion so if we can please hold our applause um i i want to just point that out um so i'm going to make a motion that we recommend for denial of the specific amendment file number psp a25-006 until we can Discuss further the matter of the EIR that was dated from March 1st, 2022. Receive more clarification on why another EIR was not completed and also to ensure that we are in compliance with AB 98. I feel that I need more information and I need more clarification. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there a second to the motion?

Yes.

Thank you. Now, I want to get some clarification from council on exactly what a yay or a nay will mean.

Certainly, and actually that was my question to the person who, Commissioner Lampkin, since it's your motion. So I think I heard two things, one was recommend denial to the city council and then it also sounded like you were asking for more time. So is your motion to send this up to city council recommending that council look at certain items or is it to basically continue it and bring it back here? So I think if you could clarify what your motion would do.

I want clarification on the EIR. It is dated since March 1st, 2022. I'm kind of hearing on the two, I guess, your comments, I'm hearing kind of something similar. Clarification and more time, in my opinion.

No, I was just trying to understand. It's your motion, so it's the pleasure of the commission. So in this instance, if we're starting from a blank slate, you would have either a motion that would send this to the city council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve this item, Alternately, there would be a motion sending it to the city council to deny this item. I see. Or the third is, I just want to see it here at Planning Commission one more time, and that could be a motion as well, right? So I think I heard a mix of two, so I think- Thank you. Whatever it is that the commission is looking for, you would make your motion accordingly.

I would like to make a motion that we, in this case, if we are asking for more time and bring it back before the commission, then we would table it, correct?

Continue it.

Or continue it. Continue it. Okay, thank you. So I would like to modify. Real quick.

Oh, sure. There hasn't been a second to the motion, so.

Yeah. So we still have that motion, but just a couple of clarifications. So before you guys make, and since there hasn't been a second, it would be appropriate to call the environmental consultants to provide the clarification of utilizing the environmental impact report that was done in 2022, if it's still appropriate, how it hasn't expired pretty much. It's still pertinent to study, to analyze. The use hasn't really changed since 22. The additional technical studies that they performed were done because the CEQA Laws change, like I mentioned, the crotch one will be wasn't endangered habitat endangered species previously. When it was done in 22, but since then, it has become part of the sequel analysis and they prefer they perform that that survey. Second, if the commission still wants to recommend denial to the city council, I would just like the commission to provide the findings, the reasons of why you want to recommend denial so we can make sure that we address the findings of the resolution appropriately per what the planning commission wishes.

Yeah, I understand. A denial would definitely require that we have a finding, but I feel that since there are still portions of this that we don't understand, and I believe the environmental specialist did come up and attempt to address why the EIR dated March 1st, 2022 was still valid. However, I still feel like there's a need to continue so we can kind of further understand what's happening here. So with that said, my motion is to continue this item and bring it back before the commission at a future date.

And what would be the wording of that, please?

Exactly how Commissioner Lampkin had mentioned. It's just continue the project to a date uncertain and then we'll re-advertise it. if you could just provide what clarification, I guess, so we can make sure that we address that properly in the following staff report. And just to make sure that our environmental consultant can address whatever issues or information that you want.

So the first one is to clarify why the EIR for March 1st, 2022 is still valid. The second one is compliance with AB 98. And there was also a mention of compliance with SB 14. I don't know what year SB 14 we're referring to. I'm sorry, there was a comment. okay um well we'll get to that unfortunately i can't take any responses from the audience but it's in the record what was stated earlier i'll i'll state it like that um that it's in the record and i would like um some answers as to whether or not we are in compliance with the senate bill that was mentioned by one of the residents in their comments

And then I'll just make a quick note before I hear whether there's a second or not and whether there's a vote. I just do wanna notice that there are six commissioners here this evening. So in the event that you deadlock, that just means the motion fails and then all of you all have the opportunity to keep talking and figuring out a solution that works for the full commission or a majority of you tonight. But I just wanted to get that out before we did a vote and we end up with a 3-3 potentially.

Okay.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Lampkin to continue file number PSPA25-006 to a future meeting. Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second that, yes. Okay.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Hagman?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Ms. Dietmar? No. It is continued to an uncertain date, five to one.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And that concludes the business portion there. We had one subcommittee that met. Does anyone want to give a report from the Development Code Subcommittee meeting on June 10th?

Oh, did you want to go ahead? Madam Chair, yes. The Development Code Subcommittee, we met on Agenda Item C, I believe it was. I'm sorry, D, thank you for the clarification. And essentially, we just went over all the information that was presented by staff tonight, and we approved the item, so I think we can move forward. Thank you. Okay.

And there was a, the Historic Preservation Subcommittee did not meet this month, so. Correct. Since there is no more business to come before the Planning Commission, I declare the meeting adjourned.

Bye.

Thank you.

. . . Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.