Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is now 06:30 p. M. Welcome to the 09/23/2025 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for the meeting are in the back of the chambers and contain the procedures we will follow tonight. Please turn off all electronic communication devices or put them on an odd audible mode. Please do not engage in private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during public comment or on a particular matter, please fill out a green card and submit it to the secretary at the end of the dais. Thank you for your cooperation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Ms. Anderson. Present. Ms. Diedemeyer. Present. Mr. Gage.

Here.

Mr. Lampkin.

Present.

Mr. Marks. Present. Chairman Ritchie.

Present. And now if you'll please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance which will be led by Commissioner Anderson. Thank you Commissioner Anderson.

And

now announcements. Agenda items. Director Ngo, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

Thank you Chairman. Yes, there are a few agenda announcements. So the first one is there's an errata sheet for item b that has been provided to the planning commission and the public to revise the resolution page number six of the agenda, paragraph six, and page number one ninety seven, paragraph five. Items D and E will be presented together and acted upon together. And item E, the department conditions of approval have been added for both the tentative track map and the development plan. And copies have been provided to the Planning Commission and public for that. As well as we've received public comments and copies have been provided to the Planning Commission and the public for items E and F. And with that, I'll turn it back

to the chair. Thank you, Director Ngo. And now we'll move on to commissioner items. Do any commissioners have a general announcement not related to an item on the agenda? Okay, since there are none, we'll now move on to public comment.

This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any topic which is not on tonight's planning agenda. I don't have any green cards that have been submitted for public comment so we'll move on as there is no one who wishes to speak. 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 below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the commission votes on them unless a member of the commission or the public requests a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for a separate vote.

In that case, the balance of the items on the consent calendar will be voted on in summary motion and then those items removed for separate vote will be heard. Do any commissioners need any clarification on any of the consent calendar items?

Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from the minutes.

Okay, so we have a Commissioner Anderson recusing herself from the minutes because she wasn't present

at the last meeting. In that case, is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented?

I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the consent calendar as presented. Okay,

we have a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Dedemar. Madam Secretary please call the roll.

Ms. Dedemar. Yes. Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin.

Yes.

Mr. Marks.

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. And Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero, six to zero.

Okay. We'll now consider the public hearing items. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. We will first hear a staff report on the matter followed by questions of the staff by the Planning Commission. I will then open the hearing for comments from the public.

I'll provide the applicant or the representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant I will open the public meeting to comments by anyone who submitted a green card and 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 the purpose of rebuttal or clarification if necessary. Once all persons have spoken, I will close the public portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and final action. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the commission an appeal may be filed within ten days with the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Item B Director Null.

Thank you Chairman. Item B is environmental assessment and development code amendment for file number PDCA 25Dash002. A public hearing to consider a development code amendment revising and clarifying certain provisions of chapter two, four, and six of the Ontario development code. The proposed development code amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section one five zero six one b three and that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption. The application is city initiated and city council action is required. Principal planner, mister Gron will provide the presentation.

Alright. Thank you, mister Nao. Good evening, chairman and members of the Planning Commission. This is the second development code amendment for 2025 and it has three relatively simple areas or minor areas of modification. Primarily these revisions focus on amending our code to comply with the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000.

And then another section of our code we're revising to address development within the community commercial zoning district. So the RLUPA allows the planning director to make reasonable accommodations for religious activities. Under

this,

director can make an exception to the development code if applying a regulation would substantially burden someone's religious exercise. Unless the imposition of that burden is the least restrictive way of furthering a compelling governmental interest. So under that, the first section would be revising,

it's too far.

Revising table, the review metrics table that identifies the review body of a specific action. And then under this, the planning director would have the authority to approve the accommodation. That could be appealed to the planning commission. And then from there, it could be appealed to the city council. This section here further revises or identifies how our LUPA is applied.

Again, it's an exception to development standards for religious accommodation. And then lastly, it's a revision to table 6.01 which is commercial zoning district and development standards. The errata sheet that we provided earlier applies to this. But what this is gonna state is that development standards applicable to projects within the CCS which is the convention center support commercial zoning district within the Ontario Sports Empire may be modified subject to the minor alterations adjustments process under a certain specific section in our development code. With that, staff is recommending approval of this development code amendment. If you have any further questions, I'm available to answer them.

Thank you, thank you Mr. Gron. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners?

Mr. Chairman?

Commissioner Gage.

On the section comment you made about the development code could hinder religious expression. Can you give an example of what that might be?

I can answer that. And if need be, our assistant city attorney could clarify it. But an example for that would be if a church wanted to go into a zone that allowed for a theater use that was permitted by Wright. And we required a conditional use permit for that religious facility located in that zone. Then through our LUPA, we would have to treat the church religious facility equal to a similar assembly use.

So we would have to permit it by right basically. So with this, this will provide provisions for me to be able to review a reasonable accommodations request or another development standard that may hinder their ability to locate at that proposed location.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Are there any other questions of staff by the commission? Okay. As there are no further questions, I'll now open the public comment period. And we have two green cards for this item. So I'll ask Stephanie Castaneda to please come forward. And as you come forward to the microphone, please state your name and address clearly for the record.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Stephanie Castaneda and I urge you to reject item B. Voters elect our mayor and city council to make decisions that affect the public including the rules set in our development code. That is democracy and it is the rule of law. Item B would take the authority away from elected and appointed officials

and give

it to a single person, the city manager who is not accountable to voters. Development standards are standards for a reason. If they need to change, those changes should be debated and adopted openly in the public with input from the public. Granting unilateral power to modify these standards undermines transparency and public trust. Please protect our city's democratic process and remove this change from the development code. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll call Juan Munoz. And also please remember just to state your name and address for the record

because these cards don't have the address on them. So my work address is 46 our main office is 464 Lucas Avenue in Los Angeles, California. Good evening commissioners. My name is Juan Munoz and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local eleven, the Hospitality Workers Union. We strongly oppose item B, in particular portion three of the recommendation.

This proposal before you would allow the city manager to unilaterally change development standards in the Ontario Sports Empire area. That is deeply troubling for three reasons. First, variances and changes to development standards or discretionary actions that normally require public discussion, findings and accountability. None of that is outlined here. Second, there is no clear definition of public benefit to justify these changes.

Without that definition, this provision could be applied in unlimited ways. Finally, the city is claiming a CEQA exemption under the common sense exception, but modifying development standards could clearly allow bigger projects, including more height, more floor area, more impacts. To suggest that there are no environmental consequences to us is not credible. Our union and the community have weighed in on a project in this exact area which makes the timing of this item concerning. For all these reasons I urge you to reject item B and remove it from the development code update. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Munoz. And I do not have any other green cards for item B. So now I'll turn it over to Mr. Grown and Director Ngo to respond to these comments.

Sure. Thank you, Chairman. First and foremost, the Planning Department, as we mentioned at the beginning of the agenda items, we did revise the text to actually take out that language with regards to the city manager review and approval. And what we had mentioned is that it will be subject to the minor adjustments and alterations process under section 4.0202 subsection C of the development code. So we actually revised that and we're recommending that the Planning Commission recommends a city council with the revised resolution language.

Furthermore, just want to reiterate that this item isn't a labor union issue. It is a development code amendment and what we're proposing is in best planning practices. So what we are trying to create and develop within our Ontario Sports Empire area is a Main Street type of project that has mixed use uses. And with that, we are gonna provide a future development code amendment that provides the provisions of these minor modifications out of future planning commission. So you will be able to see that.

Additionally, what they were mentioning that the city should have the authority of reviewing and implementing development code standards. That is actually the job of the planning department and the appointed planning commission's responsibility to implement development code pursuant to the Ontario plan and implementing the development plan through that. So we are following the proper procedures. It's going be best planning practices to propose standards and minor modifications to these to create that sports empire and that environment that we are trying to create with that Main Street mixed use type of development. So with that, I'll answer any other questions that the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you Director No. Is there

any other questions of staff? Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you Mr. Chair. This question is for our Planning Director Mr. No. Can you explain a little bit more about why this amendment is being made and how it compares to other cities and our legal obligations and requirements? Are you finding that our Lupa is being followed by 100% as it currently stands? Or are you seeing that this amendment is necessary in order to make sure that we're compliant with the law? So

to start, I believe we are compliant. But in the case that there may be something that is questionable or in a gray area, the reasonable accommodation will provide us that opportunity on a case by case basis to analyze if the project meets some reasonable accommodation that we could allow for the Arlupa for a proposed church.

And if I may, the city is obligated to follow the federal law. The proposed ordinance is intended to clarify the mechanism by which the city actually executes it. These come up so rarely that there wasn't anything in the code that we could point to as it exists as to how how that process would unfold if there was a request by a religious institution for that sort of an accommodation where the zoning code actually says one thing, but because of our LUPA they would be entitled to a different treatment. So this this is supposed to codify a mechanism so that we could acknowledge that our LUPA part of the process that we do follow.

So would you say that what is being proposed is actually an improvement to what we currently have to ensure that we're in compliance with federal law? Thank you.

Are there any other questions or clarifications needed of staff by the commission? Seeing as there are none I'll now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. So is there a motion to recommend or not recommend to city council the approval of development code agreements?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner DiDemont.

This seems pretty straightforward to me and I appreciate the explanation by Mr. Ngo and Luke Counsel, it clarifies a lot of things for me. So I would like to, I move that Planning Commission recommend the City Council approval with the revised language of development code amendment file number PDCA25-two subject to the resolution.

And Mr. Chair echoing the same sentiments regarding the summary of this. I like to second.

Thank you. So prior to

the motion I just want to clarify that we are making the motion with the revised language provided to the Planning Commission. Correct.

So with that clarification. Thank you Director Null. So with that Madam Secretary would you please call the roll.

Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin.

Yes.

Mr. Martin?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Ms. Deidmar? Yes. Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is recommended to City Council six to zero.

Thank you. So file number PDCA 25-two, the development code amendment has been recommended to city council. Item C, Director Null.

Item c is environmental assessment and general plan amendment review for file number PGPA 23 dash zero zero three. A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Ontario plan '20 50 policy plan policy plan land use map to change the land use designation of approximately 5.3 acres of land located on Euclid Avenue about 300 feet north of Edison Avenue from mixed use to business park. The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with PSP 22 dash zero zero one for which an environmental impact report was adopted by the city council on 08/20/2024. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. This application is submitted by RCCD Incorporated.

City council action is required and prior to handing it over to our senior planner, we did receive one public comment right before the public hearing so that has been provided by the secretary. So you have that in front of you for the Planning Commission as well as we have copies for the public as well. With that senior planner Ms. Hutter will provide the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. No. The project is located near the North East Corner Of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. It is about 5.3 acres in size and it is designated as mixed use in the Ontario plan. The site is also zoned Euclid mixed use specific plan.

This slide is showing the proposed change in the land use plan and it would be going from mixed use here in the purple with the red dashed rectangle to Business Park here in the lighter purple. The current TOP anticipates this project site would result in 120 dwelling units, 34,000 square feet of office and 46,000 square feet of retail. And in conversion, in converting that this project site to Business Park, the development would be anticipated to be about 138,000 square feet of Business Park and the loss of the 130 dwelling units would be made up with the proposed general plan amendment file number PGPA 24 dash zero zero three regarding the Esperanza specific plan site. The sequel analysis for this project was conducted and it was concluded that the possible impacts of the business development, a future business development would be within what was anticipated in the previous EIR. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve file number PGPA 20 three-three, A general plan amendment to change the land use from mixed use to business park.

That concludes staff's presentation and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you Ms. Hutter. Do we have any questions for staff by the commission? Nope. As there are no questions I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please step forward.

And again, please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Chairman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jason Lee. Address is 8101 East Keiser Boulevard and I'm Hills. I'm the applicant for the project. I'm one thanks staff for their work on this project and if there's available for any questions.

Okay. Do you agree with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report? I do. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? That's it. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much And Mr. Now I will open the public hearing to the audience. I have one green card for this. Will Joaquin Castillajos please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening planning commission and community. My name is Joaquin Castillojos. I am here representing the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. We submitted the letter before the meeting in opposition to this project. I'm here today in concern of this project and representing a lot of community members who also reached out concerned about the prospect of a possible another warehouse coming into the community and we believe that this proposed general plan amendment is not in the best interest of the community and we are due to vote no on this item.

This amendment seeks to overturn the mixed use zone zoning to Business Park and when we hear Business Park we know that that means warehouse because that's what we've seen in any other Business Park zoning. And with Business Park zoning with a warehouse that means trucks and with trucks it means pollution and a higher impact to the local community and with Ontario already being classified as an area with high pollution rates, high rates of asthma. There should be another environmental impact report because this is a whole new project. Furthermore, this action raises serious legal concerns. The reduction of available dwelling units undermines Ontario's compliance with the regional housing needs assessment, obligation, and violate state laws such as s b three thirty, which is designated designed to protect against the laws of affordable housing because this project is gonna be removing the affordable housing overlay on the site.

Lastly, you know, just urge the city council to to give more time for this project to have a public review process and therefore making it go through a sequel process once again because it is a new project it will have different impacts and it does need another EIR to have true analysis of what this project might bring. We urge the city council to vote no on this and to delay until we have a new EIR and to continue to strive to align the established zoning and community vision with what the community has stated on the Ontario 2050 plan and not ones that create confusion and division And to remember that the decisions impact families and residents who call Ontario home. There are residential areas nearby that business park area that is being proposed and we need to continue to advocate for these residential areas make sure that they're not being disproportionately affected by industrial zones or business park zones. Time. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Castillo. I don't have any other green cards for this item. So with that, I would ask if the applicant would like to offer any clarification or rebuttal to the comments.

Yeah, I think from the perspective of our zone change, what we had done here was I had previously gotten the previous specific plan approved. We had gotten a large proportion of this as business Park. There are several Edison easements with some very large towers that run through this project. And subsequent to that we had worked with Edison to create a truck storage plan that we can store underneath these Edison lines. And with that truck storage plan that was previously approved, we thought that the best use for that property immediately on the other side of that truck storage area was for it to be business park.

So we worked with another developer to relocate the loss of units. So the units aren't being lost, just being relocated to another portion of Ontario Ranch, still staying within Ontario Ranch and maintaining that housing use within the business plan. So I think from our perspective we've kind of looked at it from that way. We've addressed all the environmental issues. The EIR was previously approved and we reanalyzed the traffic impacts as an additional study and provided that to the city to reflect that there were no additional impacts from traffic perspective changing it from mixed use to business park.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Any questions of the applicant from

Commissioner Dedeman?

Is it the intention of your company to operate this site once it's there you mentioned truck parking and so on. And so is it your intention to have this be warehouse?

Yes. Right now it's zoned as business it's going to be zoned as business park. We have a subsequent for a business park building. It's reduced size. Think it's the city allowed 138,000. I think we're about 100,000 square foot building that is proposed on this with the idea that the building face to the south to the mixed use area and then the trucks backed up facing the Edison easement. It creates And minimal

within the project site itself, you've got to deal with these big Edison towers and And so that could be considered incompatible with residential housing, could it not?

I think when we originally looked at this property and the city had done a general plan amendment quite a few years back, the consideration was that those weren't compatible uses. That the idea that having the power lines I mean, they're significantly large. They they buzz, and I mean they're a couple 100 feet high. The idea was that better use was to make those sort of warehouse buildings or at least allow for the business park use.

Okay, thank you.

Just any other questions before? One just clarification just to, so this for as far as SB three thirty, we are actually gaining other properties that we're not losing in other words.

Yes shifting the units that we would have had on this property when it was mixed use 130 units and shifting those to another property in the Esperanza specific plan. So we're within

compliance of SB 33 just to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Lee.

And that additional land is owned by your company?

No, it's a partner company of ours, a company that we've worked with.

But it's a fixed agreement

to It's do not yet. It's actually going be on your agenda item for your approval next.

Okay. Thank you. So I can provide clarification to the Planning Commission. As Mr. Lee was stating with SB three thirty there is a no net loss with regards to the dwelling unit.

So with the reduction of 130 we are required by state law to concurrently transfer those sites at the same Planning Commission hearing which is the next item after this after this item and with that we will be adding a 161 units to this other site. So we'll be in compliance with that. With regards to the other item that the public comment made with regards to affordable housing SB 166, we do have with regards to our Rina, our regional housing needs assessment, our affordable housing requirements per state law. So in total, the city was required to provide 20,854 Rina allocated units within this cycle and it's broken down into income categories. So there's lower income, moderate income and above moderate income and the city actually has a buffer for all of those categories.

So, within the lower income, we have a buffer right now of two zero nine. This site actually reduces that to by 64 so we'll have a buffer still of 145 which will be still in compliance with state law. The moderate income we have a buffer of four ninety one units. We're going to be losing 32 units. So we'll still have a buffer of four fifty nine units in that category.

And then the above moderate we're actually gaining 31 units. So from March, we'll have a new total of four twenty two. So we have a buffer inventory of ten twenty six above our arena obligations for a total of $121,880 dwelling units in this housing element cycle.

And just so everyone can understand when you say buffer you mean we're basically ahead of the game.

We have more units that are required

of us. That are required. Have more than what is required. Correct. Thank you.

And I think that from my perspective as well the 130 units we're losing here the project that we're shifting the two is proposing 161. So there's, it's not an even, it's an actually an increase of units there.

Okay. I appreciate that Mr. Lee. Thank you. With that, I'll now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lampkin.

I think some very good arguments were made regarding individuals wanting to reside next to power lines and I think that no resident wants to reside in an area where they're going to be hearing constant buzzing. So we have to find ways to make this use compatible. Also to the move from business park, from mixed use to business park, it's my understanding it actually significantly reduces the intensity of the use of this space. So with that said I'd like to make a motion that we recommend that City Council approves the general plan amendment found on PGP eight twenty three-three subject to the resolution and attached conditions of approval.

Mr. Chair I'd like to second that.

Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Lamkin and a second by Commissioner Anderson to approve, recommend approval to City Council. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Lamkin.

Yes.

Mr. Marks.

Yes.

Miss Anderson? Yes. Miss Diedemeyer? Yes. Mister Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is recommended to city council six to zero.

Thank you madam chair. I mean madam secretary, madam chair. Mixing your roles here. So thank you. So file number PGPA 20 three-three, the general plan amendment has been recommended for approval to city council and now we'll move on to item D and E. Director Null.

Thank you, Chairman. Items D and E are environmental assessment, development agreement review, general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, tentative track map and development plan review for file numbers PDA 20 five-three, PGPA 20 four-four, PMTT 20 four-eight and PDV 20 four-seventeen. A public hearing to consider a development agreement between the city of Ontario and GDC investments thirteen LP. An amendment to the Ontario plan 2050 policy plan land use map to change the land use designation from public school to medium density residential, an amendment to the Esperanza specific plan to revise various sections as described into the agenda to reflect the proposed change from school to r d seven row townhomes, A tentative track map for condominium purposes to subdivide the subject property into 28 numbered lots and 13 lettered lots. A development plan to construct 161 multifamily dwellings on 10.02 acres of land located South Of Chatham Street, West Of Clifton Avenue, East Of Amherst Avenue and North Of Eucalyptus Avenue within planning area 11 of the Esperanza specific plan.

The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an addendum to the Ontario Plan 2050 supplemental environmental impact report that was certified by the city council on 08/16/2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts and the applications are submitted by GDC investments thirteen LP and city council action is required for the addendum. File numbers PDA 20 five-three, PGPA 20 four-three and PSPA 20 four-four. And with that, associate planner Mr. Morales will provide the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nook. Good evening chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Tonight I'll be presenting the proposed project for Planning Area 11 of the Esperanza specific plan. The project involves a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, development agreement, tenant and track map, and development plan.

Together these items will transition an existing school designation into a future residential neighborhood. The project is located on the Southeastern portion of the city within the Esperanza specific plan. The project covers an area of 10.02 acres and is bordered by four streets. Chatham Street to the North, Clifton Street to the East, Eucalyptus Avenue to the South, and Amherst Avenue to the West. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded by established residential neighborhoods.

The Ontario plan adopted in 2010 created opportunities for school districts to identify and develop potential school sites throughout the city. On 05/25/2023, the Mountain View School District informed the property owner that it would not be move be moving forward with its option to purchase the site for an elementary school. And most recently on 09/22/2025, the district notified the city that this population was lower than projected and therefore the site was no longer needed. As of right now, we received 11 letters of opposition opposing the proposal. The main concerns expressed that the site was held in reserve for a future school, that the growth in Ontario Ranch has heightened the demand for educational facilities and that adding more housing could put a strain on existing resources.

In response, staff has indicated that the school district officially released the site in 2023 and that planning for school facilities falls under the district's jurisdiction. Additionally, the proposed residential use aligns with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The general plan changes the land use from public school to medium density residential supporting additional housing capacity in line with the city goals. The specific plan amendment updates planning area 11 to allow RD seven real townhomes and revising the standards and exhibits to reflect the 161 units. 10 to the track map 20730 subdivides the 10.02 acre lot into 28 residential number lots for townhomes and 15 letter lots for streets, parking, landscaping and open space.

The development agreement sets a ten year term with the five year extension. It ensures the developer builds the needed infrastructure and contributes funding for police, fire, and other services through fees and a community facilities district. The development plan includes 161 units, 69 being two story townhomes and 92 being three story townhomes. Parking surpasses requirements with 433 spaces available compared to the 414 required. Point of access is via Amherst Avenue to the West and Chatham Avenue to the North.

Additionally, the site features a central recreation area, three parklets, and a multipurpose trail along Eucalyptus Avenue. This is a two story transitional farmhouse style. It uses simple roof lines and board and batten siding paired with light stucco finishes, covered porches provide articulation at the street level creating a friendly and approachable feel. Here we see the two story transitional Spanish style. It includes smooth stucco walls, red tile roof lines, and arched windows.

Recess I'm sorry. Arch entries. Recess windows and small porches add depth and shadow helping the homes avoid flat facades. This is a three story farmhouse design. It introduces varied roof lines and vertical window patterns that help break up the taller facades.

The design also incorporates private courtyards and balconies, giving residents outdoor space even at higher densities. Finally, the three story Spanish style carries forward the use of stucco, tile roofs, and arches that consistent materials tied the three store buildings to the two story homes while details such as recess entries and balconies provide articulation across the block. The landscape plan emphasizes native and drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover to create shade in a walkable environment. The central recreational area includes a pool, spa, playground, shaded seating, barbecue areas, fitness space, and open lawns. Three smaller parklets provide additional neighborhood gathering spaces with turf areas, seating gathering spaces, and barbecue amenities.

Along Eucalyptus Avenue, a decomposed granite shell provides landscape pedestrian edge with a buffer from the street. The next few slides provide visual renderings. This view shows the Chatham Street entry with landscaping and monumentation marking the community's entrance. So for example, this is the view from if you're looking south from Chatham Street. Here's the Amherst Avenue entry designed with similar landscaping to give the project a consistent identity.

This view highlights the southern park view showing how open space is integrated within the site. The northern park view, again, illustrates the distribution of open spaces throughout the project. This view provides another angle of the Amherst Avenue, Chatham Street, showing the relationship of homes to the street edge. The pool rendering emphasizes the central recreation era as the community's heart and surrounded by landscaping and amenities. With that, the project's visuals are complete and I'll close with staff's recommendation.

Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the city council approval of the addendum to the Ontario plan 2050 supplemental EIR along with the general plan amendment, specific plan amendment and development agreement. Staff further recommends approval of a tenant track map and development plan subject to the conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. Morales. Are there any questions of staff by the commission at this time? Commissioner Gage. Yes Mr. Chairman.

My question is what's the staff position as far as thinking it's okay not to have a school in that location? I'll answer that. And analysis.

So the school, as Mr. Morales mentioned, the school district has full jurisdiction over their enrollment forecasting and originally when the Ontario plan was annexed into the city and the TOP was adopted, the NMC Builders Consortium worked with the various school districts including the Mountain View School District as well as the city to come into an agreement on a number of elementary schools which was six, two middle schools, and a high school to be located within the Ontario Ranch area. And at that time when they did those projections they were basing off of the density that was proposed at that time which was in 2015. So subsequently to that the densities that have been developed within this area and their current enrollment projections project that there's a there's a severe decrease in enrollment. So, as of just recently, April 2025, the Mountain View School District enrollment status, they reported that the within the district of the New Mala Colony there's a projection of a population of approximately thirteen fifty from TK to sixth grade students and two twenty seven middle school students.

So furthermore there are two elementary schools. One that has been recently constructed within the Park Place, Sub Area 29. I believe that's the Parkview Elementary. And then there's another elementary school in the avenue, the New Haven Elementary School that's under construction that should be open I believe in 2027. So with those two schools they should be able to provide 900 student populations for each school.

So they'll have an 1,800 limit. So they're well below that enrollment status at this point in time. So with that we believe that providing in 2023, the school district as mister Miles had mentioned, they exercise their option to to decline the option to purchase that. The city is in full support of that and with the proposed general plan amendment and we as mister Miles had stated, we believe this is best planning practices to provide some additional diverse housing opportunities. There is also I wanted to mention so I just wanted to mention within the Esperanza specific plan if you are or aren't aware, South Of Eucalyptus between Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue North Of Belgrade, that entire southern section of the Esperanza specific plan was developed with an age qualified resort community.

So families, couples that are at least a minimum of age 55 and above are able to locate and reside and purchase a house in this location. So with that, that kind of provides another additional information of why the school enrollment forecast decreased substantially in this area because there's I don't believe there will be any or very limited amount of school aged children in this entire community. So that severely decreased that school age enrollment. So I hope that answered your question.

Yes, for now.

Any

other questions of staff for the commission?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dieter Martin.

If

the site that was that the school was to be located on is not turned into residential housing, will it just be vacant?

Yeah, the property owner would, if it wasn't the school or the residential, would propose something different. It wouldn't be like a park, if that's what you're asking, because the surrounding communities have met those park requirements and they have built in excess of the park requirements. We would have to analyze whatever proposal that was at that time.

And is the school site, the proposed school site which has now been let go, is that in a location that would allow kids to walk to school? So if we lose this as a school site, are we losing the ability of children to walk to school?

No. So what we do with Ontario Ranch is we provide the pedestrian connectivity and multi purpose trails within all of our proposed development specific plans. And that's in purpose to not only provide active transportation and active recreation for our community but also safe routes to school as well. So all those have all these communities have like a landscape parkway, neighborhood edge, landscape areas as well as sidewalks and DG multipurpose trails as well to provide safe routes for our kids.

And the families that are currently living there in that site that was going to be served by the school, their children are all enrolled in other schools, correct?

Yeah. I'm assuming they're at the Parkview, the existing Parkview Elementary School that's located in the sub Area 29 Park Place Development. So

if we make this recommendation, then essentially there's no disturbing of the current conditions for families with school age children. They will just continue to do what they are doing right now.

Correct.

And what they have always done.

Correct. And then like I mentioned with the addition of the New Haven Elementary that should be opening up in a year and a half or so, two years. That'll provide another opportunity for the school age population to provide elementary school opportunity.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Cage.

I just have a follow-up question. How far away are those others two schools that you mentioned?

I would say probably within half mile to three quarters of a mile. The Parkview is directly west, probably I don't know how many blocks away, but it's within walking distance.

Okay. And also, the analysis that you quoted me, was that just the school analysis or has the city done an analysis as far as schools and enrollment projections?

That is the Mountain View School District's analysis. And we were provided that information from the New Model Colony Builders Consortium who gets reported monthly, biannually with regards to these projections. Now who is that? The builders consortium or the builders that came together and built the infrastructure on the East Side of the Ontario Ranch New Mono Colony. So they meet and they had that agreement done in 2015 between the school district and that New Model Colony Builders Consortium.

And that's where all those properties were set aside for the six elementary schools, two middle schools, and the high school.

Okay. And you mentioned to me there's two schools that are close that could have enrollments of 900 each. Did you get that figure from Mountain View School District?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Neault, was there an invitation extended to the superintendent or the school board to come and present to the parents that are possibly here opposing the project?

Yeah, we did notify them and unfortunately they weren't able to attend but they did provide us another letter just stating what we had already mentioned that the enrollments down and that they had declined the option to purchase this property back in 2023.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner.

Point of order. I would like to ask that the record reflect unless I ask now if any member from Mountain View School District is in the audience today. So while they are an elected body independent I'd like to ask that the record reflect that no one from Mountain View School District is present today at this hearing. Thank you.

Okay it's been noted. And with that I think we will move on to the public comment or the public hearing. So now we'll ask the applicant to please step forward. And please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. Dennis sorry, Dennis Moser, project manager for GDC Investments. As you heard, we're here today because the Mountain View School District decided not to build a school on this site. I think it's important to note that GDC has always been supportive of and cooperative with school districts. For example, GDC owned a parcel within the plan area that was designated for 300 to 400 apartment units and

city and worked with

the community college district to convey that parcel to the district for a community college, and we were building the apartments. With respect to this parcel, I think as has been noted, GDC has been a willing and active participant in that school agreement since 2015. And that school agreement provided an extended option period to

decide whether or not they were going to acquire the sites that were identified in that agreement.

GDC went beyond that when that option period came up, beyond that and actually extended the option to the school district district to give the school district more time to do its analysis and decide whether or not it would proceed. As you heard in the final analysis, actually in February '3 in an email and subsequently in May '3 in a written correspondence, the district informed us directly that they were not going to exercise the option and not build a school. Now, GDC would actually have preferred if they had exercised the option and acquired the site back in 2022 because we've had nothing but ongoing costs since that time. So we're here today, two and a half years later, proposing what we believe to be an extremely well planned alternative project. This is a project that provides much needed housing and exceeds all of the city standards for parking, common open space, private open space, amenities, and climate action plan requirements.

It's a project that's sensitive to and reflects the scale of the surrounding neighborhoods, a project that actually generates less traffic than the originally planned school and a project that has no other significant environmental impacts and has not already been identified as part of the general plan process. And finally,

finally, it's a project that has been supported by your development advisory board. So with that, we would respectfully request that you consider approving this project and sending it forward to the

general City Council. Process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moser. One more question. Just do you agree to the conditions of approval that have been set forth by staff?

We have. I mean, sure we prefer to have any conditions of approval but.

Before you go is there any other questions of the applicant from the commissioners? Thank you Mr. Moser. I appreciate you.

We have a follow on speaker for the applicant if that's acceptable. Oh, This is Steven Dewan who is a principal in the Vicinium Ligonier architectural firm.

Okay.

The architects on the project.

All right.

Good evening, Commission, and thank you for having us here tonight. My name is Steven Dewan, and I'm a senior principal with Vicinium Magnolia Architects. And I would like to mention that we have had the privilege to work with the City of Ontario since I believe about 1983. And we've done over 80 projects with you and your team here over those years and very proud of that work. We would like to just or I'd like to focus on a few finer points to the project and what it does.

Dennis and the planning group mentioned it. But we're very sensitive with this project in developing it. We went through many We worked with planning and our client to come up with what we felt is the best, most sensitive project. Some of the things that it does is the two story product along Amherst. It is reflective of single family homes in its scale, in its forms.

There's articulation. There's front door character. There's also porches onto that edge. Along with that, there's only eight building edges that face Amherst where Amherst has 15 building's perpendicular to the streets around the project, if they're a three story product, they then step down to two story edges all the way around to be respectful of the community as a whole. And there are no garages that face out onto any of the public streets.

So it's all internalized. The last point is there are two distinct building styles that are transitional in nature with the two building product types. And with that there's six color schemes that we can apply to each. Within that there's a lot there'll be a lot of variety with color and texture and everything else. You. Okay.

Thank you. With that I'll now open the public hearing. I do not have any other green cards for this item. So I'll now close the public hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and discuss.

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dinamo.

We had a number of public comments that came in very, very late and reading through them, most of them seem to be on the topic of loss of the school site. I believe that that question has been adequately answered by staff. And I note that no one is here from the school district to reiterate that that is the case. The project itself adds more housing, which is definitely a benefit. And I think on that it deserves to be passed because of that.

Okay, so do we have a motion to recommend the city council the approval or denial?

I can make that motion please. This is for item D. I move that Planning Commission recommend the City Council approval of development agreement file number PDA25-three subject to the resolution and the conditions of approval.

Chair, Okay. I second that.

Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Diedemeyer and a second by Commissioner Marks.

And a comment Mr. Chairman.

Okay, Commissioner Gage please.

Yes, This is very difficult for me because I think the city has a responsibility to provide, to do more investigation into what the enrollments projected to be and not just rely on the school district. And when the school district recommends 900 as a population for two of the closest schools, 900 is a lot for elementary school. And if that's what they're projecting, then that's not necessarily great either. The one thing that was brought out that makes sense is that the 55 plus community that's nearby has very few children, if any. So that's certainly a consideration.

I just think we have to be really cautious giving up our school that we had allotted from the beginning with the projection. It just, in my gut, it's hard to square the fact that the population of the students is down when we're, we keep increasing the density of the population in Ontario Ranch. So either our projections were way off in the very beginning or somebody's were whoever wanted more elementary schools. I just think we ought to be really cautious in the future with other elementary schools. And I don't know if this is going to pass today, but I'm not going to vote for it.

I think we should have the school district come in and explain their standing and have more information on it before we give up a school space. Once a school space is gone, it's really hard to get it back. And so at that point, and we've noticed that in Ontario that's built out, the old model colony, that there's no other place to put a school. You have to start going year round and do all kinds of other manipulations to make it work. And so to me the 900 population in two neighborhood schools there was, is kind of a giveaway that okay, that's not good and I'd really like some more information before I would vote yes on this.

And I'd vote for a continuance on this until we get more information from the school district and let them lay out what their reasoning is and so forth. That's my stand on it.

Okay, well thank you Mr. Gates. We have a standing motion by Commissioner Dedemeyer and we have a second by Commissioner Marks and that would be for the development agreement and whether we recommend or not recommend but the motion is to recommend. So with that Madam Secretary will you call the vote please.

Mr. Marks.

Yes.

Ms. Anderson.

Yes.

Miss Diedemire?

Yes.

Mr. Gage? No. Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is recommended to City Council five to one.

Okay, so file number PDA25-three the development agreement has been recommended to city council. And now I'll entertain a motion for the addendum to the general plan and the general plan amendment and the specific plan amendment. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lampkin.

I'd like to first provide a comment before we make a before a motion is made. Very similar to what my fellow Commissioner Gage was mentioning. We've been here before and as I've sat in this seat over the last couple of years, one of the things that is very disappointing to me is if the, when the school district decides not to build on a site, we have to remember that many of the parents who have come here to the City Of Ontario and some of which who are not parents yet and plan on becoming parents, they come here because they're told that a school site is going to be built. That's part of the decision making process. So along with the many things that Commissioner Gage had mentioned, it would be nice if we had a representative of Mountain View School District here.

They're under no obligation to be here. They are an elected body in themselves. They have their own public meetings where parents and the public can't attend. But it just would be nice so that we're not left almost feeling like we're kind of left holding the bag. And I think it also helped to have them provide an explanation to the residents because I feel like the ones who moved to the city of Ontario under the impression that a school site will be built, they're owed an explanation as to how this works. I think just that little bit of effort would go a long way.

Thank you Commissioner Hampkin. So with, I just wanted to add, I agree but in situations like this, I mean, just my experience with the school districts many times there's funds allocated for all kinds of other things but the demographics don't I guess don't appeal to them. So with Esperanza being just below their 55 and over I guess they're anticipating not having that many kids living there. So unfortunately we're at that mercy and we can't compel the school to say you have to build here.

But I

would add that we've heard from the developer that it's been ten years.

Exactly.

And ten years is enough for two children to go all the way through elementary school.

That's correct, yeah.

Ten years is a long time in the history of little kids.

It's a blink of an eye for

us, I parents, don't in any way mean to negate what Commissioner Gage's concerns are they're valid, but it's been ten years.

And that's understandable. With that, is there

Can I add?

Oh, sure. Commissioner Gage.

The public they can attend the board meetings at the school district. And that's very important that they really wanna voice their opinions.

Yes, of course that is an elected body. Are not, we are appointed not elected. So, but yes, the Mountain View School District is an elected body. So if anybody wants to attend those meetings they can make their voices heard as well. So with that, is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I wanna take this in two parts because one goes to city council and one we can approve. So I move that the Planning Commission recommend the city council approval of the addendum and the general plan amendment file number PGPA 20 four-three and the specific plan amendment file number PSPA 20 four-four subject to resolutions and the conditions of approval.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Dedemara. Do we have

a second? I will second that.

Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Anderson. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Ms. Anderson. Yes. Ms. Diedemeyer.

Yes.

Mister Gage? No. Mister Lampkin?

Yes.

Mister Marks?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is recommended to City Council five to one.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lampkin.

I would then now like to make a motion to approve the tentative track map file number PMTT 20Four-eight and the development plan file number PDEV twenty four-seventeen subject to the resolution and attached condition of approval.

Okay. We have a motion by commissioner Lamkin. Do we have a second?

Chair, I second that.

Commissioner Marks, thank you. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Miss Diedemann? Yes. Mr. Gage? No. Mr. Lamkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Miss Anderson?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to one.

Okay. Thank you. So file number PMTT 24Dash008 and PDEV twenty four dash zero one seven, the tenant track map and the development plan have been approved by the commission. The other file numbers have been recommended to be approved by city council. And with that, we now move on to item f, the long awaited item f. Director Ngo.

Thank you Chairman.

Mr. Chairman.

Oh, before we go on. Yes. You know what, let's, oh, go ahead. Before we.

Yes, I need to recuse myself because I live within a thousand feet of the project. Okay. I'm not going outside and I'm gonna sit outside. Not allowed to be in here.

Yeah, we're gonna call for. Okay. So we're gonna be in recess just for five minutes and we'll return. Thank you. Hello.

All right. I think we're well over five minutes, but thank you. I was waiting for my colleague Commissioner Gage but it slipped my mind that he's recused. So, with that, now we'll just move on to item F. Director Ngo.

Thank you, chairman. Item f is an appeal of the zoning administrator decision to approve a conditional use permit to reestablish all of Canning, a gift shop, and a type 21 ABC license for off sale beer, wine, and spirits, and establish a banquet facility with live entertainment, dancing, and a type 58 ABC license for caterers for the on premise consumption of alcohol beverages at a designated historic property, the Graeber Olive House Historic District located at 301315405 East 4th Street and 406 East Harvard Place within the LDR 5 low density residential zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section fifteen three zero one existing facilities. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts and the appeal is submitted by miss Kim Flores and associate planner miss Antuna who will provide the presentation.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Noam. Good evening Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. The project site is located at the Northeast Corner Of 4th Street and Columbia Avenue.

This two and a half acre site is comprised of four parcels and is surrounded by single family residential to the north, south, east, and west. The property is developed with warehouse buildings, commercial buildings, also the C. C. Graeber House and detached garage, all associated with the Graeber Olive House. Warehouse and a loading dock is accessed from 4th Street.

In July 2000, the Clifford Graber House and the properties associated with the Graber Olive House were designated as contributors to the College Park Historic District. On 10/20/2020, the Graber properties were designated as their own historic district and the Clifford C. Graber House and the garage were designated as local landmark number 99. The historic designation identified the buildings, landscapes, open spaces and equipment as contributors to the historic designation. In May, a conditional use permit application was received requesting to reestablish the olive canning operation and retail gift shop and to add new uses on the site including upgrading type 20 ABC license to type 20 to allow for the sale of distilled spirits for off-site consumption, to add a banquet and event venue with live entertainment and alcohol sales utilizing a type 58 ABC license, and to add a restaurant and wine bar on the property with a Type 47 and Type 68 ABC license.

The project site is located within the LDR 5 zoning district, which is residential zoning district and banquet facilities with live entertainment and alcohol sales are conditionally permitted uses on designated historic commercial properties and all zoning districts. The intent of the conditional use permit is to analyze compatibility with adjacent land uses, to mitigate potential nuisances with conditions of approval, and to ensure consistency with the Ontario Development Code and the Ontario Plan. On July 7, a public hearing was held and the zoning administrator heard staff's recommendations, applicants concerns, and public testimony regarding the CUP application. At that meeting, the zoning administrator continued the project to the July 21 hearing to allow staff time to review the applicants requested revisions to the conditions of approval. On July 21, the zoning administrator held another public hearing to consider the CUP, heard staff's recommendations with revised conditions of approval, also heard applicants' concerns and public testimony.

On July 31, the zoning administrator issued an approval for the CUP issuing decision number ZA 20 5025 with additional revisions to staff's recommendations from the July 21 hearing. The ZA approval included reestablishment of the Olive Canning operation. So while the Olive Canning operation and the retail gift can reestablish at any time and do not require conditional use permit review and approval, because the other new uses were being introduced to the site, all of the uses were included in the analysis of conditional use permit and conditions of approval were included for these uses as well. So conditions were added for the Olive Canning operation to be flexible to allow for the growth of and adjustments to the Olive Canning operation. Established hours of operation from 7AM to 10PM during the harvest season, allowed for additional staff on-site at any time for brining, curing, equipment repairs, etcetera, and also allowed for harvest truck deliveries to occur at any time during the harvest season.

It would also allow for the museum and tour to reopen and for tours to continue from requested otherwise. The retail gift shop included conditions regarding the upgrade to a Type 21 ABC license. The Graeber Olive House previously held a Type 20 ABC license which allowed for the sale of beer and wine for off premise consumption. The intent with the Type 21 ABC license to add the sale of distilled spirits was to do gift boxes with ingredients perhaps to make a martini gift set, and those distilled spirits would be sold within a gift set only, but the wine could continue to be sold individually as previously done. This also established hours of operations for the retail gift shop of 8AM to 10PM daily.

A majority of the analysis was done for the banquet and event venue. The applicant was proposing use of both indoor and outdoor spaces. Those outdoor spaces are shown here in light orange and the indoor spaces in light purple. The indoor spaces would require adaptive reuse of the historic building to accommodate an assembly use. The approval included conditions for the hours of operation for the banquet venue and that would be from Monday through Thursday 8AM to 10PM, and on weekends, 8AM to 11PM, with alcohol service and music ending at 10PM.

The approval also defined major events to limit the frequency of those larger events and the definition of those would be any event with more than 100 guests or that ended past eight p. M. And those would be permitted six times a month or eight times a month for those months with five weekends, but not to exceed a total of 72 major events per year. So with that, there would be no limit on events up to 100 guests and ending by 8PM. The approval allowed for the use of a shared parking scenario utilizing street parking surrounding the project site with an assumption of an average vehicle occupancy of 2.5% per vehicle.

Events with up to 150 event guests would then be permitted to utilize street parking. So with the parking analysis that was done which I will go into more detail in a bit, that would utilize 80% of the available parking surrounding the project site. Any events with more than 150 event guests would require a valet or shuttle service but those events should still not exceed 200 guests. There were also conditions related to site access, limiting all event access to 4th Street, and any access from Harvard Place or Columbia Avenue would be limited emergency access only. Conditions related to noise and live entertainment allowed for low prerecorded background music and light amplified music in outdoor spaces.

Dance floors, live bands and DJs are prohibited in outdoor spaces. Additionally, a condition of approval was added to require that a six to eight foot tall privacy sound wall be constructed along the north and west interior property line. And conditions were also included to ensure that the adaptive reuse of the warehouse buildings for event space included proper sound attenuation measures. There are also conditions related to event notification for anyone wishing to know events that were occurring in the upcoming season. So events would be posted either to a website or you could subscribe to an email to receive notifications and there would also be an on-site posting that would show the date, time and location of these events, number of guests and also contact information for staff should any issues arise during an event.

There would be a number or some sort of contact method to reach out to a staff person. The approval also included conditions for alcohol service when a caterer holding a type 58 ABC license is serving alcohol. So the police department included conditions related to security, responsible serving practices, and conditions when entertainment was present. The ZA approval did not approve the requested type 47 and type 68 ABC license and that's for the restaurant and wine bar because those are currently not permitted uses within the LTR5 zoning district. However, there was a condition outlining the steps needed if the applicant chose to move forward with that request in the future.

At both of these meetings and leading up to the meetings, staff received letters both in support and in opposition to the CUP application. So approximately two forty notices were sent out to the surrounding residents. And a summary of the responses in support of the project was a lot of support for preserving the Graber Olive House, the adaptation of a new business model on the site to encourage preservation and the adaptive reuse. And there was also some concern about potential overreach of some of the conditions of approval. Staff also received an online petition in support of the project with over 2,100 signatures, of which four eighty six identified as Ontario residents.

And again, the main reason of support was to preserve the Graver Olive House and to continue the Olive Canning operation supported by the new business with the banquet facility. The public comments in opposition raised concerns regarding parking, traffic noise, removal of camphor trees on Columbia Avenue, concerns about the hours of operation, and potential intoxicated patrons walking through the neighborhood after hours. Staff also received a petition in opposition to the project with 61 signatures representing 42 households echoing those same concerns. On August 8, staff received an appeal of the zoning administrator board. And we're going able sure sure able to to we're exemption.

So the Planning Commission will be considering three different options. I will be going over each of those appellant issues in more detail will and providing a response to each of those issues. In addition to a response that supports the conditional use permit as approved by the zoning administrator, Staff has also prepared modified conditions of approval for the Planning Commission's consideration. So the Planning Commission will have the option to either deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator decision the way that it was approved. They can also grant the appeal in part with modifications to the conditions of approval, which I will share with the commission, and this would approve the CUP with those modifications.

Or the commission can grant the appeal in whole and overturn the zoning administrator decision subsequently denying the CUP. If the Planning Commission chooses to grant the appeal in whole and overturn the zoning administrator's decision, the Planning Commission would have to be able to make the finding that one of these required findings is not met. These are the conditional use permit findings that are required for all conditional use permit approvals. Staff provided an analysis to support these findings and was able to make these with the conditional use permit as approved. If the commission so chooses to overturn the approval, I would ask that the commission identify which of these findings they are granting the appeal.

And these are the remaining two. Okay. With that, the first issue that was identified by the appellant was parking. The appellant stated that there is an existing shortage of available street parking and traffic issues, especially during school drop offs. A banquet event would exacerbate this issue during the week and create conflict for private gatherings and holidays on the weekends for the residents.

The appellant has requested that a shuttle valet service would be required for all events over 100 guests and that any events over 55 guests which would that would be consistent with the parking that would be available along the project frontage. Any events that exceed 55 guests on weekends and holidays also require a parking or shuttle valet service. Additionally, are requesting to expand the restricted hours for the existing permit parking areas. Staff's analysis regarding available. So for this specific site, utilizing the typical practice of square footage would not be appropriate since the intent is not to utilize the entire site at the same time.

So instead of utilizing the square footage approach, staff approached it at how much parking is available on the surrounding streets, and then that would back into how many people could be at any given event. Because this is a historic site and it is already developed, there is not an opportunity to construct additional on-site parking and there is street parking available surrounding the project site. Staff utilized a parking ratio of two and a half occupants per vehicle and this comes from observations from industry professionals and determined that the average vehicle occupancy for banquets and similar uses like a church service that typically there are two and a half occupants per vehicle that attend these events. And this then allowed us to determine how many guests the site could support. So with that, a parking inventory was conducted surrounding project site for the street parking on 4th Street and Columbia Avenue and Sultana Avenue.

The inventory determined that there are 91 street parking spaces available. There was also an observed parking survey completed, so there was a review to determine how much parking was actually available of those 91 spaces. The survey was completed on a weekday and a weekend, midday and in the evening, and it was determined that during a peak demand period, there were at least 77 street parking spaces available on those streets. So utilizing those 77 spaces and parking ratio of 2.5 occupants per vehicle, if 50% of those spaces were utilized, that would allow for an event with up to 100 guests utilizing the surrounding street parking. Additionally, the 80% utilization would allow for a 150 guest event.

So the appellant has requested that a shuttle valet service be required for all events with over 100 guests and those with over 55 guests on weekends and holidays and to expand those restricted hours for permit parking areas. For the request to expand the restricted hours for the existing permit parking areas, those signs are currently in place because of the conflicts with Chaffee High School and the demand that creates for parking surrounding the high school during pickup and drop off. So signs like that aren't typically put up preemptively, so there would have to be evidence of a conflict. If that were to occur in the future, the residents could choose to move forward with that request, but those signs would not be put up prior to the conflict being identified. However, the Planning Commission could consider modifications to reduce the size of the events.

So you could reduce the maximum size from 150 to 100 guests and then require that any events that exceed that require a shuttle or valet service, not to exceed a total of 150. The second issue is related to noise. The concern was that any music or amplification outdoors would be disruptive to the neighborhood and would exceed noise levels identified in the municipal code. They are requesting that all music and amplification is prohibited in any outdoor spaces. For the Planning Commission to understand our noise ordinance does have limitations in residential neighborhoods.

From seven a. M. To ten p. M. That level is 65 decibels, and from ten p. M. To seven a. M. That level is 45 decibels. A typical conversation would be about 55 decibels, and where a whisper would be about 45.

So as far as where that noise level is measured, that would be measured from the neighboring property. So if you're standing right next to someone speaking to them, the decibel level may be at 55. However, if you're 50 feet away and there's a block wall in between, that decibel level goes down quite significantly. The approval included conditions to prohibit live bands, DJs and dance floors to reduce amplification that would be difficult to control and then also required a construction of a six to eight foot tall privacy sound wall, so this would be a solid block wall that would additionally provide some buffering for noise. And also required that indoor spaces include proper sound attenuation improvements to ensure if there is a live band or a DJ in an indoor space that the building has been constructed with improvements to help buffer that sound.

If the Planning Commission would like to consider a modification to these conditions, they could consider that any amplification is prohibited in outdoor spaces and then also prohibit any use of audio or low prerecorded music in outdoor spaces. The next issue is related to hours of operation. Appellant argues that allowing events until ten p. M. On weekdays and eleven p.

M. On weekends would be disruptive to the neighborhood and is requesting that these hours are revised to Sunday through Thursday from 8AM to 9PM and Friday and Saturday from 10AM to 10PM. Staff researched similar venues in comparable neighborhoods and found that most of these venues have hours of operations that are consistent with the city's noise ordinance. Considering the city's noise cuts off at 10PM, there was a condition that was included to ensure that alcohol service and music, even in indoor spaces, is shut off by 10PM. So even on those events on the weekends where they're permitted to be on-site until eleven.

There wouldn't be any music or any alcohol service which would then in turn allow people to leave the site more dispersed over the hour from ten to eleven. If the cushion chooses to consider a modification, they could revise the hours of operation to Sunday through Thursday from eight a. To nine p. M. And Friday and Saturday from ten a.

M. To ten p. M. The next issue is related to the frequency of events and allowing up to 72 major events, how this would create issues with traffic, parking, and noise, and would, in turn decrease property values. The appellant is requesting that major events are limited to two times a month and that the definition of a major event is redefined to include those over 75 guests that have live entertainment and end after eight p.

M. Limiting major events to two times a month would severely limit the financial viability of the business operation, and staff has included conditions of approval related to the number of guests, live entertainment, and distributing these events throughout the year, so the events would be operated consistent with the requirements of the development code. And the operation would still remain subject to all applicable requirements of the Ontario Municipal Code. With that, if the Commission chooses to consider a modification, they could reduce the number of major events per month to four times a month and then also reduce the amount of people to 75 and add on the addition of live entertainment to be included as a major event. The next issue is related to alcohol service and the appellant is concerned that allowing on-site alcohol service would result in dangerous conditions for people walking or driving to school.

The appellant is requesting that alcohol sales are prohibited during school hours and that any future requests for an ABC license would require a notice public hearing. Conditions of approval have been included for those events where caterers holding a Type 58 ABC license are serving alcohol, so the police department has included conditions for security, responsible serving practices, and entertainment. And there are also conditions nearby neighboring schools with Upland High School and St. George Catholic School that are near restaurants and other venues that do have alcohol service, so prohibiting alcohol sales during school hours would be a precedent in the city. Additionally, a restaurant and wine bar with a type 47 ABC license were not approved with the CEP but it did include a pathway if the applicant chose to move forward with that request in the future and that would be to apply for a determination of use to determine that the restaurant is similar to a banquet use and then request either a conditional use permit modification which would require public hearing or an administrative use permit which would not require a public hearing.

However, an administrative use permit also has a streamlined process for revocation. If there were any issues to arise with the ABC license, it would be streamlined and a bit easier to revoke that if necessary. However, the conditional use permit modification would also require public hearing if staff chose to move forward with a revocation. So that's the difference between those two. If the Planning Commission would like to ensure that any future request for an ABC license requires a notice public hearing, they could choose to modify the condition of approval to remove the administrative use permit option.

Next, there were concerns regarding the right of way improvements and site access, especially with the use of street parking on the surrounding streets and the historic neighborhood, the existing condition. There were concerns that it may be dangerous, resulting in improvements in the future to address some existing issues. Additionally, there were concerns about access from Columbia Avenue and how that would increase traffic on that street. The appellant is requesting that access is limited to the site on Columbia Avenue to emergency access only. Conditions have been included to ensure that primary accesses from 4th Street and any secondary pedestrian access from Columbia and Harvard is for emergency access only.

And the zoning administrator decision does not include any public right of way improvements, so there were not conditions requiring any removal of the camphor trees or improvements to the curb at this time. If there were any improvements in the future, it would not be as a result of this conditional use permit approval, but that would still require planning department and potentially planning commission review and approval for compatibility with the historic neighborhood. The Commission could consider a modification to the condition of approval to clarify the intent of the condition related to access from Harvard and Columbia, and that's shown here. And finally, the appellant states that the project does not meet the criteria for the categorical exemption listed in section 15,301 related to existing facilities. They argue that a banquet facility or commercial business with alcohol service is not an existing use and is therefore not an existing facility, and that the neighborhood has not been used as the main source of parking for a commercial business and is therefore not an existing facility.

A CEQA requires public agencies to consider potential environmental impacts with any discretionary review and approval, and the Class I existing facilities exemption involves those projects with a negligible expansion of use and utilizes existing structures. So the site has been historically a commercial site and has been developed with warehouses and commercial buildings. The addition of the event venue with the conditions of approval that limit the number of events, the number of guests and noise and have conditions related to alcohol service would result in a negligible expansion to the existing commercial use of the site. So with that, that concludes staff's discussion on the appellant issues and the Planning Commission's considerations for modifications to the conditions of approval. Once again, the Planning Commission has three options.

They can deny the appeal and uphold the ZA decision approving the conditional use permit, can grant the appeal in part with modifications to the conditions of approval approving the conditional use permit, or you can grant the appeal in whole and overturn the zoning administrator decision denying the CUP application. This concludes staff's presentation. I am available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you Ms. Antuna. Before we go on, I was supposed to read the script so I apologize in advance for that. So we're already partially in but I'm gonna read this for the record so that we do know the procedures because this is a different procedure than regular public hearing items for agenda items. So I'm gonna read the script just bear with me.

Thank you. The city has received an appeal from Kim Flores of the zoning administrators decision on file number PUCUP25-one. This is the time and a place where public hearing to consider the appeal to hear testimony from the appellant, the applicant and members of the public and for the Planning Commission to render a decision on the appeal. Before I formally open the hearing, I will review the procedures that will be followed. Staff will review the history of the project and the reason for the appeal and provide a response to the appeal claims which we just heard Ms.

Antona provide. Then the appellant Kim Flores will be given five minutes to make a presentation in support of the appeal. The applicant Kelsey Graber will be given five minutes to make their presentation in opposition to the appeal. Then anyone in the audience who had filled out the green cards which I will be following will be given three minutes to speak in favor or opposition of the appeal and then the appellant will be given an additional three minutes to provide rebuttal or summation. Then the applicant will be given three minutes to provide rebuttal or summation.

City staff will then be given three minutes to respond to any new testimony or new information provided under the public testimony portion of the meeting. We will then close the public testimony portion of the meeting and the Planning Commission will deliberate on the matter and render a decision. The Planning Commission may ask questions of any speaker but the time spent in questioning and the time to respond to the question will not be counted against the speakers allotted time. So as we know the hearing is officially open. We just heard a brief, not really brief but a presentation from Ms.

Antuna and now we'll move forward. So the appellant Kim Flores will now be given five minutes to make a presentation.

Hi there. I represent 10 households, five of which have backyards at Budap 2 or near Graver property. Five others are either across the street or within the matter of yards from Gravers. We are all the uninvited guests to every event that they have. I've been an Ontario resident for forty years. I've lived in the College Park neighborhood for twenty. Before moving here, I resided three blocks just east of this in a home that my husband and I purchased right after his military stint from Fort Bragg. I ask for your patience. I am not familiar with city planning, resigning rules, applications, or cup appeals. I currently own a security company and am a full time grandma.

Before promotion to my grandmahood, I spent my career as a private investigator. I am familiar with how to gather information, but I may lack on where or if this information is applicable. I have a lot of information, so I hope that you have a lot of questions. I'm going to skip over to alcohol service during school hours. A wedding reception is considered a high risk event for according to the crash and injury data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

A study found that one in three late evening DUIs arrests within five miles of an event began at a wedding reception. Wedding receptions frequently feature open bars and celebratory drinking leading to higher rates of overindulgence. The average is one to two drinks per hour. We're talking five to six hours at a wedding reception, with some drinking more, some drinking less. Fourteen to eighteen percent of newlyweds get drunk at their own weddings.

A study found that almost a third of guests, twenty nine percent, consumed 16 or more alcoholic drinks during a wedding reception. Under the grounds for appeal of an ABC license, they list several reasons why a license can be denied. I'm gonna just speak about one. The premises, the venue or parking lot, our residential neighborhood is located within 100 feet of a residence and the applicant has failed to establish that the operation of the licensed premises would not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property or the residence. Yelma Bar Casino, the casino's liquor license has an exemption for two nearby schools which prevents them from serving alcohol before 5PM during the week.

Chapey High School sits less than thousand feet from this particular venue. They walk home through a residential neighborhood. The commercial uses that were used as an example around Upland High School all sit in a commercially zoned area. This is an LDR five. The kids who walk home from up in high school walk on busy streets.

They don't from Chaffee High School and the other three schools that were mentioned. I'd also like to take issue with the venues that the staff used and comparable with neighborhoods in finding reasonable operating hours. Operating hours go hand in hand with parking because the later they stay open, the the later they traverse through our neighborhoods. They park in front of our homes. They dis disengage their car alarms. They throw open our streets. They use our brushes as toilets. We know this to be true because there have been several events in our neighborhood. Christmas House was one of the examples that they used. It is a historic Victorian home.

Frontage is on Archibald Avenue. All of their music ends at 10PM, including weekends. They share property with five homes, six if you count the parking lot. They require shuttle if their guests are 50 or more. Darlington House in La Jolla. I'm not really sure why this one was used as an example. I might be mistaken here, but this venue doesn't appear to be an LDR five. It's surrounded by a senior home as well as condos or apartments. It's situated in every beachside community that parking sucks anyway. Okay, and then Upland Women's Club, they have parking permits, not for the residents, but for the guests.

It's to strongly encourage the guests to park within a certain area. I can speak more about this in my next three minutes if given the chance. I've got if you have any other questions, please. I've got answers. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Flores. So now we will give Kelsey Graber five minutes to make a presentation.

Hi, good evening. Sorry I'm a little bit nervous because this means a lot to us. My name is Kelsey Graber, I'm fourth generation along with my husband Robert Graber. We're here to continue to fight for our community and honor our family history and legacy that was left behind by my husband's great grandfather Cece Graeber. We are proud to say that we still currently reside in the beautiful city of Ontario, the historic district to be exact, in which Cece Graeber was heavily involved.

Unfortunately, sorry I try not to get emotional. Unfortunately after a hundred and thirty one years things have turned for the worst. We have been placed under filing for foreclosure just this month. Once we finally officially lose our property we will have absolutely no say in what happens with the property but again we are still fighting until the end to find a buyer to preserve and honor our historic district which leads us to tonight's hearing. A considerable amount of work and consideration went into the approved conditions.

They are extensive and hold us accountable to be responsive to any neighborhood complaints. We had initially proposed much later hours of operation and more frequent and larger events and we significantly scaled that back after listening to our neighbors concerns. We hosted an open house, spoke with neighbors directly, and of course attended two separate hearings. The result is an extensive amount of conditions that we compromised with the neighbors and city staff. We had to make sure that our catering partners and investors would still be able to justify the millions of dollars of investments into Graeber property.

Frankly, there's still some reluctance to move forward even based on the proved conditions with potential buyers because a lot of our competing venues do not have these same restrictions. And now there is an alternative with this appeal in which places unreasonable restrictions. We have shared the conditional use permit with interested buyers that they have wanted to move forward and they will not if you adopt those new conditions. The olive operations is not profitable enough to renovate and maintain the property which is why we are in the financial position that we are in today. The banquet operations is the best opportunity we have to preserve our family history and honor it to create that revenue.

But the limits proposed in the alternative conditions will not work for us. It will result in too few and too small events to create that revenue. Part of the reason we lost one partner already was due to the restrictions and financial challenges due to the limitations on number of events and hours of operation and we are about to lose any interested buyer who is willing to preserve our historic landmark. This is our last chance to have the opportunity to save the Graber Olive House and the Graber Olives brand. With all honesty, the faith of Graber's is in your hands.

We strongly request that you uphold the CUP as is. It gives us opportunity to prove that we can continue to coexist with the neighborhood with new business at the property. And if we fall short of our promises, we have noise complaints or parking problems, then the city has opportunity at any time to come forth and add conditions and restrictions after the fact. We must adopt the CUP as is. You're closing the door to the opportunity and closing the doors of Graber's forever. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Flores. Just you don't have to grab the mic. I know it seems like you know we don't hear you but.

Sorry I've done it twice and everybody tells me that they can't hear me.

Well yeah just. Yeah

because a lot of popping But on thank you, thank you. So I appreciate you. What we'll do now is we're going to receive comments and questions from any interested persons, people who have filled out green cards on this matter and the time for each speaker will be limited to three minutes. The speakers will be alerted when they have one minute remaining and their time is up. And I mean Ms. Flores will be asked to come forward again if we need to get any clarification from you. I mean I'm sorry Ms. Graver please forgive me. So the first green card I have is John Minook. Yes you are.

Yes thank you. I'm sorry I mixed up the names I said Flores and Graver sorry. And for all the people who are coming up to speak we'd appreciate you just giving your name and address for the record so that we can make make documentations as necessary.

Mister chairman, distinguished members of the committee. My name is John Minook. I live in the historic College Park District. I've been a lifelong resident of Ontario. That being said, I'm also a combat veteran. I'm a former police supervisor and a major accident investigator. I believe in our history. I've learned from those experiences the importance of knowing our history, of having a safe place to live, and doing our duty to each other. What we have to do for our community and each other. And I'm all for history obviously, but what this is being represented as is not what the reality is.

Alcohol sales less than a block from a high school. High schools, they have football games, children. We've had a number of fatalities. I've investigated fatalities and one of the main streets right there was closed off just because of another fatality right there at Princeton and Euclid. These things alone should be a red flag as far as what are we doing.

I agree. I want the gravers and I want you to obviously keep that preserve that building and the history there, but not in this current form. We're putting in a banquet hall serving alcohol right in a residential community, right next to a high school that has events throughout day and evening. It's just in its current thing, it is just not something that I could see as consistent with the character of that community and with being stewards of our community and our history. I request that you decline or deny the current conditional use permit and that you approve the appeal in full.

Thank

you. Next up we'll have Robert Graeber. So

my great grandfather came California in 1892 and two years later he started our family business, the Grape Olive House in 1894. I wanna do everything I can to continue, to honor and preserve what my great grandfather started here in Ontario. We are the oldest existing olive canning facility in The United States. We want to continue to preserve our historic property because it is the core of the historic district as stated in the agenda packet. To see this redeveloped into homes would be devastating to our family and the community, especially the historic district.

I don't think anybody wants that. I don't wanna see apartments built there. We need these conditions to remain so that we can continue the Gray Olive House legacy in the historic district and we really have, yeah, we just, it's not good. I don't know, sorry, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Grave. Next up we have Robin Nelson. Again please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Robin Nelson. I live at 303 East Princeton Street in the College Park District.

Thank

you. My husband and I moved to the College Park neighborhood ten years ago to raise our children. We love the historic homes, the tree lined streets, the walkable blocks, the general peacefulness. We also loved the Graber Olive House. We took many walks there to visit their gift shops and to tour their canning operation. We have fond memories and wish it was possible to bring it back. However, what's being voted on tonight is not to bring back the gift shops or the canning operation. Currently, are no plans to reopen the Olive House to the public. I believe the deadline for reinstating the Olive Canning has already passed and the developer who initiated the CUP application has already dropped out. What's really being voted on tonight is not to save the Olive House.

It's to allow an unknown future developer to convert the Olive House into a wedding venue that can operate in a low density residential neighborhood seven days a week, morning to night, with alcohol sales music, all without having on-site parking. The parking lot would be on our quiet streets and we would be the uninvited guests. There's nothing about this CUP that benefits the residents of College Park. We'd pay the price by losing our peaceful evenings. We'd pay the price by having drunken guests wandering and driving our streets.

We pay the price in depreciated property values due to being located so close to a business like this. I would also like to note that the vast majority of those individuals who signed the online petition to support the COP do not live in the College Park District and they would not be impacted by this wedding venue. Those of us who filed this appeal all live very close to the Olive House, several of us sharing walls with it. We would have our lives directly affected. In preparing for appeal, I researched the Padua Hills wedding venue in Claremont, which the original applicant for the CUP, the developer Gerald Tessier, also owns.

I pulled the police reports and received over 300 pages of police calls related to that wedding venue from 2010 to 2025, which I submitted as part of this appeal. The police reports detailed drunken fights between wedding guests, DUIs, car accidents, domestic abuse, guests in the parking lot breaking beer bottles One

minute remaining.

Smashing a car windshield, and engaging in illicit activities in their cars after events. Now imagine this happening when the parking lots are on our neighborhood streets. Would anyone on this board want this adjacent to their homes? While I have sympathy for the financial plight of the gravers and realize they need to find a way to sell property, the burden shouldn't become the community's responsibility. I realize that the city wants to avoid the possibility of having a vacant nuisance property on their hands, but the solution shouldn't be one that damages this unique historic neighborhood. Ideally we would love to see the city purchase the property for a heritage park and community center which would benefit the community and residents of Ontario as a whole. I implore this board to reconsider the significant impacts the CUP would have on the College Park neighborhood and vote to deny it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next up we have Christine Seimer.

Hi. Good evening, everybody. My name Christine Seemer. I live at 1136 North Columbia Avenue. My property is half an acre and it extends from Columbia Avenue back to the Graver property.

We are separated by a chain link fence. And it is like that because my grandfather was a son of Cece Graver and I grew up in this neighborhood. And it's nothing like it was, I'll tell you right now. The backstabbing and the hate is there. Let me point out that the main appellant, the name that's on there, she held a meeting in the neighborhood on 06/21/2024 and made a presentation to other neighbors that included things on the Graber property like a distillery, a stage for live entertainment, car shows, oh, weddings, all the things that they're fighting this for.

They wanted to do themselves, and they did not own the property. The Graber family didn't even know this was happening. They held this meeting behind the back of the family. I'm sorry. I'm very emotional about this because I look at this as malicious this appeal is malicious jealousy that they could not do what the family is trying to do.

They are trying to make them lose this property to foreclosure, and God knows what they have planned then. It's malicious. So I want you to take this appeal and look at it for what it is. It's an attack on this family and this historic preservation. They don't want it to happen.

One minute remaining. They want to see this family fail. They want to see this business go under, and then they can do whatever the hell they want. I I have a term for them, but I'm not I'm gonna be nice. I'll also say that the one of the people's husband was bragging to me about how he tried to buy the back to turn it in for parking for his tenants. That's behind me. That's in that's in an undeveloped land. He wanted to have a back access to his property and have parking. Do I want that behind me? Hell no.

They wanted to break up the historic land, and this is way back like in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty. This harassment has been going on for years, and don't listen to them and and I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kathy Walters.

Thank you. Kathy Watros, 420 East Princeton Street, Ontario, California. I'd like to say though that my parents lived at 119 since 1971, so I've been in the area for quite a long time and seen a lot happen including when we first moved in in 1971, it is common knowledge that my family did their due diligence as anybody that moves into any housing district, whether it's a historic district or whatever it is, should be doing. You should be doing your due diligence. The Graeber Olive House, as they're saying, was an established and very productive business doing amazing.

They are an amazing business. They have been. They're highly respected, highly regarded. I went there every Christmas. But when you move in, like I live pretty much behind them, I knew that they were there when I purchased that house down the street from my parents. You also know if you do your due diligence that there's a high school there. It's a very large high school. Everybody knows that. That high school has traffic, it has noise, it has littering, it has since 1971. It's only magnified each and every year.

I find it very ironic that we're complaining about Graber when we have a hellacious problem with the high school. We have them speeding for the police officer. I wish you'd help us with them speeding up and down our street. I've asked the mayor several times to look into that, but nothing happens. So, and then no one's mentioning, we're so concerned about alcohol. I'm a retired nurse. All of us in our community and on the street, we have kids, we have families, we have grandkids. We're very cognizant of everything going on. We don't want anybody hurt ever. I run to every traffic accident on the Corner Of Sultana And Princeton because we can't get a four way What do mean?

But anyway, nobody's mentioning the liquor store on the Corner Of 4th And And Sultana. It's been there for years. It sells alcohol the minute it opens. Are we gonna shut that down? Are we gonna shut down Gloria's? It's close by. They can go in there at lunch and get margaritas and drive drunk. Are we shutting down El Pascor on the Corner Of G in Euclid? We need to look at the big picture. These people are being harassed.

It's not fair. It was we all came and we said what we had to say on the seventh and the twenty first and it was vetted and looked at and approved. Please deny this appeal. Please let this family get on with their life and do what they're trying to do. They're only trying to modernize and upgrade their business to the times. They should be allowed to do this. I'm so offended we keep having to come and fight for them. They want to move on with their business. Please, please let them move on with their business. Time. Thank you.

Next we have Jackie Gonzalez.

Good evening, and members of the planning committee and fellow residents. My name is Jackie Gonzalez. I live at 119 East Princeton. Unlike the first speaker, I am stating my residence because I think it's important. We've had a lot of misrepresentation during these hearings.

We have people submitting letters using both their married and maiden name. So it's gotten very frustrating. I'm here today to voice my continued and unwavering support for Graber Olives, a historic property that represents generations of hard work, tradition and community pride. The Graber family is trying to preserve that legacy by partnering with a new investor, but they're being obstructed by individuals whose actions speak louder than their claims. Kim Flores and her associates continue to waste the city and residents' time.

They bring nothing new to the table. No facts, no fresh insight, instead they recycle the same arguments. And quote city codes as if the city isn't already familiar with its own regulations. It's performative, not productive. What's worse is the hypocrisy.

I've included photos with my letter that I submitted online to the planning department from a gathering we had in my backyard in June 2024, where Kim Flores and Mary Rivas presented the exact same development plans that the new investor and Graeber Olives proposed and received approval for. It wasn't just your usual presentation, oh no, we had easel boards, we had whiteboards, we had pictures and we had a laundry list of what they were suggesting this property should be used for. The current opposition, their current opposition is not only contradictory, it's self serving. They're using zoning codes and procedural tactics to block protect the public and let's call it what it is, unethical. I recommend the three residents that are about to speak in opposition to review the documents and understand who they're aligning themselves with.

I'm angry, actually I'm pissed because I was lied to and manipulated last year. I engaged in good faith believing we were working towards a shared goal. Instead, I watched as the trust was exploited and the Graber family's future was put at risk. These actions reflect a lack of moral compass and frankly, karma has a new way of catching up with people who operate this way. Graber Olives deserves better, our city deserves better, I urge you to see through the noise, recognize the value of their partnership efforts, stand up for their integrity, transparency, and the preservation and growth of our community's legacy. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Gloria Jones.

Hello. My name is Gloria Jones, and, I am currently on the board of Ontario Heritage. I would like to, to reaffirm that our mission goal is to preserve, protect, and promote. That is our mission statement. And so I'm speaking on behalf right now of the historical validation of The Graber Olive House is Ontario's oldest continuous business doing dating back to 1894.

Its historic designation acknowledges its fundamental role in the city's development, particularly the agricultural heritage heritage as a model colony. It's a tangible link to the past reflecting the pioneering spirit of early residents like Clifford C. Graeber and the industrial industrious nature of the community. The Graber Olive House is more than just a building. It represents an unique and long standing tradition of olive curing.

The family's distinctive process of allowing olives to fully ripen on the tree before curing them in vats is a celebrated part of California's agricultural history. The site's historic status ensures this legacy is not forgotten. By preserving the Graver Olive House and its operations, Ontario affirms its commitment to its roots. That right there, that's a really, really important statement for me. It shows that the city values its history, its unique character, and the stories of the families and businesses that built it.

The property with its original buildings and mature trees stands as a reminder of a different era and enduring legacy of hard work and quality craftsmanship. I personally I worked probably six, seven, eight years prior to 2019 during the Christmas season at Great Brawl Fowse, I have seen so many neat things there and I became

One minute remaining.

I became so so attached to Grape Rolle Fowse. And I don't wanna go there. I passed by there today, and it's just it really hurts my heart. It really, really does because this is something that the city this belongs to everybody. Graver Olive House belongs to everybody, and I want this appeal denied. And I want Kelsey and Robert to continue a fourth generation of operation and with their kids hopefully. And you know, I didn't announce my address is 649 West El Morada Court in Ontario. And again, my name is Jones. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Andrea Pavilla. I believe that's how it's pronounced.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Andrea Povallo.

Povallo. I live at 311 East Princeton Street. I'm not part of the historic district. I'm just across the street from my neighbors who live in that. We're just one house over from one of one of the other participants who is not who who wishes to appeal this.

I have lived in this our home for over seventy years. I think that kind of gives me the historic precedence in here. And I thank you for acknowledging the historical event of that. Anyway, however, having observed all of the hours and days and weeks of research and work that my friends and neighbors have done to save our the peace of our neighborhood from the worst horrors of the original CUP and arrive at some sort of agreement with the city, working with the city to get some restrictions on some of these things so we could be safe. I support your ask you to support the appeal.

If I had my way, all all red all buildings of bill buildings in a residential low residential neighborhood should be residences. Okay. The Grayboro Olive House. I've been here, like I said, over seventy years. That was the the Olive House was never a problem.

However, this is not about the Grayboro Olive House. It's not about resetting up the Grayboro Olives. If they want to, they could have done that by now by setting up a GoFundMe and having all their supporters all their supporters send them money. But, no, they let their trees all die, and they let their their place rat infested pallets there, homeless people on the property. Just let the place go to, you know, what in a high gone. And and we had the neighbors have to tolerate that.

One minute remaining. What they

want is they wanna have a a banquet facility with alcohol, and we have endured the horrors for the last several years of the of the music and the noise from those noisy parties. I you could hear it two blocks away. The plates on plates on our tables rattled from the noise. And I mean to tell you, and it would go on and on and on. I'd call the police, and they'd come out and be quiet for ten minutes.

I called the police again another ten minutes. I don't I you're you're the city is not gonna enforce that if if okay. What I was gonna say, I I our our our friends bet to try and figure out what to do with the graver property with the city, what hadn't been able to figure out. They were just merely trying to be nice and come up with some suggestions that might work in our neighborhood. And as far as I'm concerned, they're using our neighborhood as collateral damage.

Collateral damage Time. Today, and

that's some way to treat your residents and taxpayers.

Thank you. Next up, we have Josie Taylor.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Commissioners, staff, and residents. My name is Josie Taylor. I am a property owner on E Street, not that close to the property, but still in the same community. I my daughter lives on E Street in another historic district, and my other daughter lives on La Deni, another historic district. So we are invested in this community.

I am a realtor. I am a director of my local association. I am a director for the California Association of Realtors, and I am a director for the California Regional Multiple Listing Service. I have 41 in this business. We all know that Graver Olive has been a part of the community since 1894 over a hundred and thirty years not just making world class olives, but shaping the very identity of Ontario itself.

Let's be honest, the Graver Olive Company was here long before any of us were here. Before today's homeowners, before most of the city itself, the Graver family was here building something that has become part of the cultural fabric of this community. People have chosen to live here in part because of the charm, the history and the character the Graeber Olive House has brought to the neighborhood. Generations of families have visited, taken the free tours, shared memories of walking through doors. Even developers know the value.

They appreciate its legacy even as they consider their options for the land. Why does this matter? Today we're at crossroads. There is over two acres of land zoned LDR five, meaning five units per acre, about 10 homes roughly. But with SB nine, the California law passed in 2021, that could be double 20 lots with

the lots splits

And add the two additional allowed units per lot allowed by SB 9, that potentially could become 60 total housing units as long as they meet the architectural guidelines. So let's be clear, if we don't choose to preserve what we have, we open the door for major development. The choice is in front of us today. If it's not a developer, it will be an event operator. There's the good news is the chosen event operator has strong history with very few if any complaints.

They are conscientious, respectful and committed to working with the community but they also need every hour currently allowed and every event currently allowed in order to make this property financial viable. Let me tell you why we should choose preservation. If we choose to support events, keep the olive company in operation, maintain the treasured community asset, and ensure the property continues producing all its tours and history just as it has over 100.

Thank you. Next we have Josephine Taylor. Josie Taylor and Josephine Taylor. I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Well that makes one less card. I appreciate it. Okay, so next we have Zora Walters. Walters, I believe. Please forgive me for the mispronunciation.

My name is Zohra Walters and I live at 1150 North Columbia Avenue where I've lived for twenty three years. I appreciate the changes the planning department has offered based on our appeal. The proposed limited parking hours, major events, and noise regulations are much needed to secure the peace in our neighborhood. I still do object to an event venue in our area as the parking study as well as the study of other event spaces is not extensive enough nor does it adequately address our needs. The other venues that were compared were in business parks, on-site parking, or offered valet parking.

Most of the comparisons were made with hours of operation. For our situation, this has to include the parking issue because we are being asked to provide that for the venue. A reduction to 50% is appreciated. However, the parking study looked at our neighborhood during the quietest hours, not the peak school hours. If this is to go forth, it is only fair that the school and parents or PTA are interviewed and allowed to give their opinions.

They may not live in the area, but they will be impacted and the shut study shows no evidence that this was done. There is also no explanation of how parking will work with street sweeping and trash days. The parking assumes people will only park in specific locations relying on us to call the venue or police every time they do not. It does not take into account the traffic increase on our streets as people in Ubers unfamiliar with the area drive up and down looking for parking or rides. We've recently had an example of this with the road construction and car show.

Both have increased the traffic in our area on our street, and I have witnessed people speeding and running the stop sign on Columbia and Princeton. This makes walking at night dangerous. We've had to go into the street to direct traffic to exit our driveway. Cars have parked in front of our house and blocked our driveway by about three feet. And this has just been a few weeks of road construction detours and one major event in downtown. The curbing on Columbia One minute remaining. Is for 11 spots. The curve is about eight to 12 inches. Cars would have difficulty opening their doors. Guests in dress shoes are unlikely to walk in the dirt indicating that they will park elsewhere or the venue will eventually demand lighting and sidewalks that we do not want.

Creating a parking lot out of our neighborhood will increase the noise of people coming and going after the event ends, car alarms, people vomiting, having sex, public urination, and trash. There is nothing in the proposal to say how this will be handled. Unlike with the high school, we did not choose to have homes with this added venue. We chose to live here with the high school. This event venue puts too much stress and disruption on the neighborhood and needs needs more investigation before continuing. Please accept this appeal. Also, my husband was the one to mention the distillery to the neighborhood group and he was shot down immediately. Nobody liked ideas that were put forth were offered as options that we could debate on later. Time. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm having trouble reading this one. I'm not sure if that's an S or Alyssa. Okay. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. I don't have any speech or anything. I just I live on 418 East 4th Street, so we're directly the I'm

I'm there

gonna all the time. And I mean, with the the high school students, like, there's no trash. Parking, I we never have problems on the street. Like, I mean, it's just a great facility, a great place. This is historic.

It would, yeah, it would not only break our heart for like the community to do something like this, but it's important to keep tradition in Ontario. People seem to come from far and want to celebrate it. Yeah, it's a place where we can celebrate beautiful occasions like weddings and birthdays and reunions. And I think that this is a great place to be doing something like that. Yeah, there's always, I mean, like they said, I think that like if an event happens and there's problems, then we can kind of correct it as we go.

But it would just be a beautiful thing if I think the historic Graver House was in place and stayed around. And like I said, I think it's I don't know. It's just I just hate to see it go. And I support it. And I hope it stays around. Thank you.

You. And the next card we have is for Maria Ispuro. Yes. Sorry if I mispronounced your name.

Good evening. I didn't prepare a speech. I wasn't prepared or was planning on speaking, presentation before this one freaked me out because no offense to any developer still here, but that could be us. If we do not support Graver, that's my fear. I live in 412 East 4th Street, which is right right between Sultana and Columbia.

So we're right there. We deal I've lived there eighteen years with my family. Never, never in the eighteen years we ever seen drunk people, trash, sex, never. I'm all about data, so I'm interested if you have the data in regards to how many times cops have been called. I've never seen cops being called in the eighteen years I've been there.

So again, that's something for you guys to ask. But again, seeing the developers with the townhouses, I don't want my neighborhood to be like that. So if we don't support and approve this, that's what my fear is. Again, I've heard some opposers, oh well, maybe they could do a restaurant and things like that. Well, if you have the money to support them and do that, by all means, go ahead and invest it yourself.

Or if the city's gonna do a park, by all means, we're in support. But we do not want apartments. We don't want townhomes. We want the Graber's. And hopefully, you guys could see residents supporting this and for all the, I'm empathetic in trying to understand the opposing people, but at the same time, what are the solutions? If they don't have money to support the Grabers, then you can't restrict these people. Businesses can't run with all these restrictions. I'm in business as well. And you guys need to make sure that you give them a viable solution. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, we are completed with the green cards. And now we'll move on to the appellant Kim Flores, you're going to be given three minutes to provide rebuttal or summation.

Great, thank you. I've never shown interest in purchasing Graver Olives. I was invited to a meeting and somebody, I don't know where that came from. We can, I don't know how we can prove about sex in cars in front of our homes, but I'm not lying? Back to the venues in comparison, not one single venue that was used as a comparison for the operating hours has the parking situation we face here.

Hundreds, some drunk guests, that leave the facilities are not meandering through those quiet residential streets. Additionally, these are not streets where hundreds of children walk to and from school. Chaffee High School, and I talked about the proximity to that, has 3,000 plus students. Edison and Vina Danx add 700 to 600 each respectively. We're talking about upwards of 5,000 kids, most of which walk east into our neighborhoods, their neighborhoods, an LDR five.

They're not walking on a busy street like Upland High School. All the businesses that were used in comparison sit in a commercially zoned area. This is an LDR five. The city states that it would set a precedent, an unwarranted precedent if we don't allow alcohol service during school hours. The precedent that's being made is that alcohol service is now being served in an LDR five. The liquor store mentioned by somebody doesn't sell liquor. They sell beer and wine. They don't drink on premise. They buy it and they go home. We're talking about a banquet facility where people will be sitting for upwards of four to five to six hours in consuming alcohol.

Then leaving that venue and walking through our streets to cars parked in front of our homes. One minute. Are a residential neighborhood with a historic Our windows are single pane. Some of us like me can't aren't allowed to put in double pane windows because of my historic status. I have to put up with the noise. Noise is inevitable. It's going to happen. We're asking that you reduce the hours so that it's conducive to an LDR five. 11:00 at night means those people will now be meandering through our neighborhood past eleven, getting into their home, getting into their cars. Ten, 10:30.

It it it I I'm I own my own business. I understand. COVID almost killed our business. I never asked my neighbors to bail me out. They're not asking for support. They're selling their property to an unknown buyer. I wish we could support them. I wish we can continue with with the olive cannery. I really do. History is important to me. A banquet facility, I don't see how it fits in an LDR five. Please offer me one example of a

Thank you. And now the applicant Kelsey Graber will be given three minutes for the purpose of rebuttal or summation. I

think that the city did a really great job of the last city hearing working with the neighbors and working with us and vice versa, working with them as far as parking, noise, frequency of events and hours. We've been reassuring our neighbors and reminding them the drastic measures we're willing to implement. And we've done as best as we can already, not once, not twice, but now for a third time. And I just want to reassure everybody that we've already made the compromise and already worked with the city and the neighborhood. And also I don't think we're gonna be able to, I mean I don't think we're gonna, we're not gonna have, I've never heard of a wedding taking place during school hours.

So I don't understand that point. There's really no argument there. And thank you everybody for coming down here for your support and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Kreiber. Now city staff will be given three minutes to respond to the new testimony or any information provided under public testimony. Testimony. Ms. Antuna.

Thank you, Chairman. As staff previously stated, extensive analysis was done with the previous conditional use permit review and approval. So that analysis has been provided to the commission for review. Staff staff upholds those recommendations and we look forward to your consideration.

So just to provide some additional clarification on some of the comments that were made with regards to the alcohol potential on premise consumption and for the off sale of alcohol within the gift baskets and such. So the police department did review this project. They provided extensive amounts of conditions in association with those. And those conditions required are things such as lead training for the staff of Graber Olive, whether the gift shop and or for on-site consumption, security personnel with regards to the banquet and or wedding ceremonies, and other performance standards that would help mitigate some of these concerns that the public had brought up. Additionally, with regards to the parking, as mentioned provided in the staff report, there was a parking observation study that was performed by our traffic engineering team with the city staff that was done during weekday and weekend typical peak times of twelve to 1PM and then six to 7PM as well in the evening.

And those observations and those One available parking numbers were provided just to provide that analysis and justification of there's sufficient parking for whatever the Planning Commission would like to entertain. There is sufficient parking to support the proposed businesses. And with that I can answer any other questions that the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you Madam Secretary for holding the boss accountable. Okay so that concludes the public hearing portion of this meeting and I'll now entertain any comments or questions from the planning commissioners. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lam.

Some of the questions that I'm going to ask were already answered. I feel like I was preparing for a dissertation when I was doing this. This is probably the most, not really complicated, but detailed issue I've probably dealt with here as a city planning commissioner. Identified six areas after reading through every single letter, I read every single one. Every single email, every single response, even with some new information that I found out today.

So I'm going to start with the staff. My question for staff pertains to parking and traffic. How is the there was a complaint, this is something that was not mentioned, it was mentioned in the letters. There was an issue with high curbs and narrow streets. How was the city ensuring ADA accessibility given the high curbs and narrow streets?

So there was a potential condition that was provided by the traffic engineering department or the engineering department with regards to sidewalk that would be required along Columbia if warranted. And with that, if that was required, the city staff would work applicant with regards to meandering and making sure that those trees are preserved in place. But sidewalks were a potential condition of approval.

So is it included as a part of this you as the zoning administrator, was it included as a part of one of the conditions? Yes. Okay. How would the city this is pertaining to the noise in the hours of operation. How would the city monitor and enforce compliance with the noise ordinance?

There is a condition related to revisiting the CUP application and that's standard for any CUP application that includes alcohol from the police department, they include something about doing annual check-in. So that would be something that we would be pulling police reports to see if there were excessive noise complaints that occurred during that time and that would be considered during their annual review. Additionally, we would be relying on the residents to call in when there are concerns regarding noise to help monitor that activity as well.

Is an annual review the only option we have or could this be done every three or six months?

The commission does have the option to consider that and include that as a modification.

Bear with me one second here. My next question is in regards to alcohol and safety. Are alcohol service conditions tied to licensed vendors only?

Yes. So the conditions would apply whenever there is a caterer that holds that type 58 ABC license and they would be getting essentially a day permit to for that specific event. There is a limitation to how many of those permits would be issued to a particular caterer per year. My understanding that's somewhere 30 a year.

So you said type 58? Would it apply to type 47?

Yes. If there were any future approval of type 47 there would be conditions in place for that as well.

And a type 68 as well?

Correct.

There was I guess some complaints about or some concerns about lighting and public safety. What plans exist to improve the lighting along Columbia Avenue and the surrounding streets if any?

Currently there are not any projects to improve the lighting in those areas.

Could lighting upgrades be made as a condition of the conditional use permit approval? Is that possible?

No, that wouldn't be. There would probably be no nexus for that. That would be more of a city capital improvement project. Okay.

And then I think you already covered my question regarding the oversight. Just bear with me one second here. Guess I'll go ahead and ask this next one this genuine ignorance. Is there a such thing as a trial conditional use permit? Has something like that ever been tried where there is a two to three year a trial for two to three years and then that would be implemented and then revisited after the third year?

The planning commission could provide a condition that automatically we could come back to review the conditional use permit at the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission so chooses, like you mentioned, six months or a year. And we can provide that as part of the conditional approval.

My last two questions are regarding the historic preservation and the economic value that we have to our city. My first question is what would be the likely outcome of the site if the conditional use permit is denied and foreclosure proceeds from your perspective as the city?

So obviously we wouldn't know what the future holds but with all the state legislations that's recently been passed that's taken away local control and provides a lot more ability for higher higher density housing or more increased density of housing, that would be the likely possibility that someone would want to develop it with more residential units and or multifamily type of development.

And I will add that the property is designated historic so there would be a significant level of environmental review that would be required. There is a process in place for demolition of historic structures but that would also add to a potential developers cost.

Thank you for that. And then my last question for staff in regards to historic economic value is how does this decision tie into Ontario's historic preservation goals?

Certainly adaptive reuse is a significant goal and preserving historic buildings and historic neighborhoods throughout the city has been a top priority for the city council and it's included as goals and policies in our general plan. So certainly the preservation of the Graver Olive House is something that is in line and the adaptive reuse of these buildings would also be in line with the city's goals.

Thank you. And Mr. Chairman going reserve the rest of my time for the appellant.

For the appellant? Want Yes ask

I have questions for individuals who came up and spoke. I think two.

Okay so you specifically want to speak with the appellant?

Mr. Chair if it's at your pleasure I just want to make sure that if anybody had any additional questions for staff then we can just use this time for staff and then move on to the those who came up and spoke if you have questions afterwards correct.

So yeah, so after we go through if anybody else has any other questions of staff regarding this then afterwards we'll let you speak with the applicant or the appellant if you want to do that if that's okay with staff I think or as attorney, city attorney.

If the commission has questions you may ask them.

Okay. Any other commissioners have any other questions of staff at this time?

Yeah, I do.

Commissioner Didemard?

I am perplexed by this. I see both sides of the question here. We have heard a lot of testimony about, backed up by studies of parking and noise and all of that. And I appreciate the scientific approach that the planning department has brought to this. At the same time, I'm not sure that it is perfectly analogous.

I don't know how resolve that. I understand that a parking study is a parking study, but this is a unique property. How relevant is a parking study that isn't just like this facility? Don't know how to resolve this. Can you help with that at all?

Yes. So the occupancy per vehicle, and I think that might be where your question is stemming from. So that was based on similar uses. So banquet uses, things like maybe a church service where people are going to a site for a dedicated period of time and they're usually traveling together and they leave together. So that's where that 2.5 occupants per vehicle number came from and that was based on observations from industry professionals.

So there is not a dedicated ratio that has been identified for banquet uses. So this is the best practice is to utilize the 2.5 occupants per vehicle ratio when calculating what the parking demand would be.

So it's our best guess? Correct.

Based on industry professionals, yes.

The Planning Commission deals with this whole topic of parking in historic neighborhoods all the time. There's not adequate parking in historic neighborhoods for the way families for the number of vehicles that are currently associated with most families. The historic neighborhoods were built when we had one car garages and sometimes two car garages. But now we've got three, four, five vehicles per and has city staff been out doing just a count, a simple count of how many cars are already on 4th Street, on Columbia, on Princeton, on Harvard, which is walking distance to this proposed venue.

Yes, that was the observed parking survey that was completed. So that was specific for those streets and actually counted the number of cars that were parked on those streets.

At the various times that this shows. So that's hard data that we can depend on. Correct. And what time of year was

it done? That was done in June. The school was not in session during that time.

School is not in session when most of these things going be held anyway. That's all I have for right now. Something else might come up. Are

there any other questions of staff by the commission? Okay, seeing none and Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Manook, if you can please come forward please. Thank you.

Thank you for returning. I'm only asking you these questions because of your background and your potential expertise in these matters. My first question for you is I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on whether or not a structured solution like valet parking, capped attendance and resident only parking zones, would that ease some of your concerns?

Yes, that would. Parking is one of the larger issues because there's already traffic there. And then just seeing the amount of collisions that happen there, reported usually. That's

one of the

main concerns for me is the parking and the traffic.

And I don't know if you've given us any thought but are your concerns primarily the everyday operations or just the large event operations?

I haven't given much thought to day to day operations. But as far as the big events that would be my concern because obviously the school they're going to have events also simultaneously whether it's summer or in the fall, whether it's football games at night or graduation ceremonies in the spring.

Okay.

Regarding alcohol use, would your concerns about alcohol be lessened if the alcohol service was limited to private invitation only events with professional vendors?

I couldn't really comment. I don't really understand fine points of what that would mean.

Okay. And then you did hear me ask earlier about shortening the amount of time that we're reviewing some of the complaints. So my next question for you is with the trial period with like measurable enforcement, if we did like a trial period, would that make the conditional use permit more acceptable to you?

Problem. Okay.

And how do you feel about the impact on the historic preservation piece after hearing about what could potentially happen to the property should nothing happen with the property and they're not able to continue operating?

Well I don't know if

there's other options if the city could assume that. Obviously that's a big unplanned budget item if the city were to take that over and create it a park or any number of things. I don't know enough to really comment on it. That would be something that would be great. I'd like to keep history of it. It's not a matter of I don't like the Graver Olive House. I have nothing to do with this. I'm actually late to the game here. My issue is maintain that history. It's a very integral part of Ontario in that history.

But this is it's a wedding and banquet facility with alcohol on a street that I live on. So I already know what the traffic and kids are like, and I already know what we're asking for. The fatalities I've investigated in your school, one block from schools, even the one that happened right there, those weren't even involving people that were drinking and now we're bringing extra congestion, extra opportunity. You already have teenagers who aren't really thinking in their smart, their right mind and paying attention to what's going on. And now we're adding more to that and throw in some alcohol. Just, that's my

Sherry, if

I may, I think at this point that the questions should be clarifying rather than adding to the testimony overall. If we could perhaps wrap it up at this point.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Also for the reminder. That was my last question for you Mr. Monook. I appreciate that.

Don't anybody to quorum on that. Was just my opinion.

Mr. Chair was my last question for Mr. Monook.

Okay. Any other

questions or? I wanted to call have Zora Walters

return. Okay, thank you sir.

Thank you Mr. Madok.

Chair, if we could actually just direct the questions if the planning commission has questions of the applicant and or the appellant.

Don't think it's We normally don't have

We shouldn't be having a conversation between public

comment. Distinction,

yeah. Public comment portions we just hear the comments. Correct. Not necessarily speak to

anybody other

than the appellant and the applicant.

So I appreciate the clarification. And I'll go ahead and withdraw my questions for Ms. Walters. As I stated in the beginning, this is a very unique situation. We don't run into this that often but I'll go ahead and withdraw my question.

Thank Alright. You With that I think we're still in the process of comments and looking for a motion but I think we've heard a lot of information and I think we're getting close to a decision as far as what I'm perceiving. One of the things I just wanted to add to this is my personal anecdotal experience because I live on 4th Street as well further down. But both my sons did attend Chaffee High School for four years each. I've been there for the football games.

I've been there for graduation. My parents have had to park half a mile away just to get to the graduation. So I understand it was almost better just to walk from my house. But there is always going to be the issues but we have to balance this also with the historical significance of the Greenbrier Olive House. As far as in my what I think in my personal opinion, the historical significance is kind of a very important feature for our city.

And I'd hate to see something like a historical landmark like that be abandoned and given up to something else like a multifamily or low density residential for that matter. If parking is an issue then park is gonna still be an issue I think. That's the bane of being a planning commissioner as we always have issues with parking. As far as what I feel as far as alcohol consumption, when I was in high school, I wouldn't go to somewhere like this to get alcohol. I had my places where I would go.

I don't want to say anything other than that but there is we've always had discussions like this and if I recall correctly we had the discussion of Gloria's in particular which is also a historic landmark with the outdoor seating and people were concerned with high school students going there. If you look at historical cities, if you look at very successful historical cities, they have tables right on the outside. Public comment is done. So this our time. We're not taking any further comments.

I appreciate you being here but public comment period is completed and it's done. These are just our comments. So please if no other comments are being accepted at this time, I appreciate it. So but this is my personal experience and growing up and living on 4th Street myself for twenty eight years. So I do see the historical significance of Greybrier Olive House.

I don't want to see it go by the wayside because we've seen what has happened to small business owners because of the restrictions of COVID because of all these different things. People have suffered a lot. And I think the historical significance of this property is really important. So I'm looking forward to any other comments from the Planning Commission. Mr. Chair.

Yes. I share a lot of your comments. I am in agreement. One of the things that I'm finding as time goes by when people ask about what Ontario is known for and we talk about some of the historic significance of Ontario. The follow-up question from the person that we're normally talking to is, well show me, where is it?

And I think like in the last five years we've had several sites. The General Electric Hotpoint factory gone. We can tell the story but we can't point to it. It's gone. The Fallas Brothers department store gone.

The Sunkist factory, gone. The Fallas house, gone. The General Electric headquarters where the museum is now, part of that, I would hate to see another historic landmark lost, something so significant as the Graber Olive House due to just the inability to run it because the conditions are just so restrictive. We talk about Hotel Royale, the Casablanca Hotel. Those are two other landmarks that we lost.

Even down to the little golf shop located down in Creekside, same thing. We're losing a lot. And I don't want to get to a point where we're so restrictive that we're losing all these things. On the other hand too, I think appreciate that. That was the fifth time by the way.

So if you can please just turn it off. I appreciate it, thank you. Getting back to my thoughts, I also don't want the community to think that this is the Graver Olive House versus the neighborhood. And what this really is about is just finding a balance. We've had we've heard a lot of passionate support from people who are for and against it. And as you said, we tend to be the bane of matters like this because we have to make a decision. So I just want to share those comments as we have this discussion.

Thank you. So with that we're looking for, oh would you like to comment further? Okay. Commissioner Deana.

Have been studying this a long time. Like Gloria Jones, I'm a member of Ontario heritage. I've lived in Ontario for sixty years. It's an important city to me. I agree with all of you that we need to have adaptive reuse.

I'm on the planning commission. I believe in adaptive reuse. But if I take a step up farther I look at this more objectively, the proposal that's before us right now is not to revive the olive business. It's to have a brand new and it is adaptive reuse. I agree with that but it's to have a brand new use for this property that we don't that that for the residents in the area doesn't fit well with their lifestyle, with their living.