Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There it goes. Good evening. It's now 6.30 p.m. Welcome to the November 25th, 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 a non-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 is absent. Ms. Ditimar is absent. Mr. Gage?

Here.

Mr. Lampkin? Present. Mr. Marks?

Here.

Chairman Ritchie?

Here. And now we will do and have the Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led by Commissioner Gage.

Please join me in pledge to our flag. I pledge allegiance. One Nation.

Thank you. Director Ngo, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

Thank you, Chairman. There are a few agenda announcements for tonight. So item B is being pulled, and we're gonna go ahead and continue that indefinitely, and staff will re-advertise the public hearing for that item when it comes forward for the Planning Commission's review. Items D, E, and F, we have received public comments, letters on these, and copies have been provided to the Planning Commission, has been made available to the public. and will be entered into the record. Additionally, an errata sheet has been provided to the Planning Commission and the public for item E, to revise the project description, the recommendation action, and the environmental review sections. Lastly, there was a typo on the agenda for item F, and when that item comes about, I will read that into the record with a revised project description at that time. With that, I'll turn it back to the chairman. Very well.

And now, is there any commissioners with, any commissioner items? Do any commissioners have any general announcements not related to an item on the agenda? Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Lampkin, go ahead.

I just wanted to take a moment to express condolences for our Hamburg Police Department. Over the last month or two, we have lost two law enforcement officers, one of which was out of San Bernardino County, the other out of our Hamburg Police Department. And I think this latest one, it hits hard in the same manner, but I think what makes this one unique is that he had such a had only been on with Long Beach Police Department for a year and then transferred to Alhambra Police Department and just arrived there just eight months ago. I think what struck me in particular is that we were just through social media liking a post from Alhambra Police Department congratulating him on transferring to the agency. And it was just very surreal to return to that same post as the latest post as the news announced his passing. someone who we have once applauded for making the brave decision to take on this profession. And then later to realize that in one of his first pursuits, he lost his life. But it accurately illustrates the dangers of this profession. As a law enforcement officer myself, keenly aware of how lucky I am to have made it 20 years at this point. And so to see somebody who was the next generation of law enforcement officers coming through and to lose his life in such a short time, it was especially heartbreaking, especially with the ups and downs we've been experiencing in law enforcement over the last couple of years. So I just want to make sure we Take some time to acknowledge their passing, acknowledge their death, and in one case, acknowledge the murder of Andrew Nunez as well. And if everybody could just join me in just a very brief ten seconds of silence in their honor. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampkin. And again, we appreciate your service as a deputy sheriff as well and all law enforcement officers. And is there anyone else on the planning commission that has any other announcements not related to an agenda item? Okay, seeing none, we will now move on to public comments. This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any topic that is not on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. So we have green cards for the public comments. Each person wishing to speak will have up to three minutes to make a presentation. The Planning Commission is prevented by state law from taking action on any item that's not been placed on tonight's agenda. The Commission may, depending on the public's request, direct staff to place an item on the next Planning Commission agenda. If you wish to speak, please address the Commission from the podium and state your name and address for the record. And now I have Randy Beckendam, I'm sorry.

So Chair President, I just wanted to clarify, these are for non-agenda items?

Yeah, it says public comments. Okay, cool. It's not a non-agenda item. Thank you.

Well, good evening, commissioners. I'm Randy Beckendam, Executive Director of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation, otherwise known as SCAF. Would you like my address? One, okay. So I'm here to talk about the proposed business part. We had a scoping meeting this past week, and a very informative staff did an incredible job. But before I get into that, I have some background to those comments. So the Planning and Conservation League in 1988 sponsored Prop 70. And Prop 70 has a long history. We won't get into those details. But the one item that the county has failed to do, so they've been in violation of the public trust for 37 years, is to put permanent conservation easements on those Prop 70 lands. And so the Planning and Conservation League wrote a letter to the county on that matter. This letter, and I have copies for you, was dated 2006, 19 years ago. And to this day, the issues on this letter have not been addressed. So now fast forward to today. These Prop 70 lands, you probably can see this from there. These color-coded ones, the ones in Chino got sold. And these are all warehouses now. And when they sold those, they bought worthless land in Prado, land that would have been open space in perpetuity anyway. But they designated those acreage to be Prop 70. So that's an issue that is not on the item for today. So there's 200 acres remaining. They're all in Ontario. This proposed business park is it butts up against two of them. So this one here, and this is the business park, 189 acres. This Prop 70 piece was the topic of a consent calendar at the city council meeting. So there's a pathway has been paved by this. My time is running out. So in a nutshell, we're proposing that this these Prop 70 lands be consolidated where they want to put the business park, and put the business park north of the Grand Park. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beckenham. Next up, we have Chris Robles.

Good evening.

Thank you commissioners.

I came today after a long day out getting prepared for the holiday and didn't have anything specific to prepare to speak on, but something troubles me and it has been troubling me since I've moved into Ontario. I attended the scoping meeting on Thursday last week along with others. And I've been to many of them. What troubles me is, although the staff's very respectful and answers our questions, it's the process that's very disrespectful. The city follows the letter of the law as much as they have to. But this is a city of 185,000 residents and a budget of $1.65 billion. While other cities throughout California are engaging in a robust manner with their citizens, even setting budget amounts aside for citizens to make specific decisions about the use of those funds and how they want to see them in their own neighborhoods, the city does not do that. And it's time for this to change. That's what I have been pushing. and have been trying to address best that I can. But when you get an agenda on a Friday night and especially before the holiday, and this happens with city council agendas, especially when there's the 4th of July in particular, it's very difficult for even myself, let alone others in our community here to digest the vast amounts of information. The two weeks ago, the agenda for the city council was 3,600 some odd pages. There's no way the council members even read it. I know. No one could have read it. They got briefed, but they offer no briefing to the community. This is ridiculous. I say all this here because I'm very frustrated. It's a public forum. And you're our first line of defense. You live here. You're residents. Council members have been here for 30 years. It shows. It shows. They don't listen. They don't care. I get arguments from staff because the council can't do it. But sometimes the council will even do it. Just arguing back at me. And it is so disrespectful that Other agencies that I visit have commented to me how shocked they are at how counseling staff deal with me in particular, but staff of the public in general. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Mr. Rowland.

Seeing as I don't have any more green cards for public comment, we will now move on to the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar will be enacted by one summary motion in the order listed. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the commission votes on them unless a member of the commission or the public requests a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for 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 have any clarifying questions? I know we had a quorum in the September meeting, barely, and Commissioner Marks wasn't here. But because we barely have a quorum, now he can't abstain himself from this vote. So in this case, his vote will count towards the consent calendar approving the minutes. for September 23rd and October 28th meeting as written, and he has had a chance to review those minutes as well. So Madam Secretary, or I'm sorry, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented?

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent calendar as it is written. Okay.

I'll second.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Gage. Madam Secretary, can you please call the vote?

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

Item A01 is approved four to zero.

Okay, and now we'll move on to the public hearing items. We will now consider the public hearing items. The procedure for the public hearing is 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 their representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant, I will open the meeting to comments by anyone in the audience who submitted a green card. Each person will be given three minutes for this purpose. After all persons have spoken on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for the purposes 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 10 days with the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Director, no. Item B.

Thank you, Chairman. So item B is environmental assessment and development plan review for file number PDV25-001, a public hearing to consider a development plan to construct a 139,605,000 square foot self-storage facility on 2.15 acres of land located at 936 East Holt Boulevard within the industrial park zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15332 infill development of the CEQA guidelines. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts This application is submitted by Cherry Mao Public Storage. This item was continued from the October 28th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting and staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this item indefinitely and we will re-advertise it for the new public hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Because this agenda item will be continued indefinitely, I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. If there's anyone wishing to speak on this item, you can come forward now or reserve your comments for when the item will be heard. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Okay, seeing none, I will now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for a motion to continue. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gage.

Yes, I'd like motion to continue indefinitely the development plan file number PDEV25-001.

Okay, do I have a second?

I second that.

Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Gage and a second by Commissioner Marks. to continue the PDEV 25-001 indefinitely. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin. Yes. Mr. Marks. Yes. Chairman Ritchie. Yes. It is continued four to zero.

Okay, thank you. The file number PDEV 25-001 is continued. And now Director Ngo, item C.

Thank you, Chairman. Item C is Mills Act contract review for file number PHP25-015, a public hearing to consider a Mills Act contract preservation agreement for 1,245 square foot French eclectic revival style single family residence located at 214 East Rosewood Court, a designated contributor to the Rosewood Court Historic District within the LDR5 low density residential zoning district. The contract is not considered a project pursuant to section 21065 of the CEQA guidelines and the application is submitted by Octavio Pinheiro and city council action is required and principal planner Mr. Grant will provide the presentation.

The city participates in Mills Act program, which is the single most important economic program in California for the restoration and preservation of historic buildings. It was originally acted in 1972, and the Mills Act is a contract between the local government and a historic property owner where the property owner agrees to do a list of qualified improvements in exchange for a potential tax reduction in their property. Government code sections listed here on the third bullet outline the required provisions of the Mills Act, including what properties qualify for the program, what are considered qualified improvements, and other required contract provisions. The third bullet identifies California revenue and taxation code requirements and the method the county assessor will use to calculate property taxes for those properties with an approved and recorded Mills Act contract. Ontario has had a MILZAC program since 1977 and currently, 1997, and currently has 86 current MILZAC contracts. The local government is given authority to cater the program to their city as long as it complies with the previously mentioned government code sections. In order to be eligible for a MILZOC contract in Ontario, properties must be designated contributors to districts or designated local landmarks. Qualified improvements are those that preserve, protect, restore and rehabilitate historic properties. Improvements are completed over a 10 year period and the contract does not expire unless a notice of non-renewal is requested by the property owner to the city. Milsack contract applications are collected throughout the year with the July 1st deadline and they're brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council as final approval. This year we received one application for a Milsack contract for the Clayton K. Close House, which is a single family residential designated as a contributor to the Rosewood Court Historic District. Excuse me. The applicants are proposing both interior and exterior improvements as part of the contract. Exterior work includes windows and doors, door repair, replacement or repair of damaged wood siding, exterior paint, landscaping, and concrete repairs throughout the interior, and then interior improvements include electrical. Total potential savings are based upon the estimate over a 10 year period. Reduction in city revenue over 10 years, the city receives roughly 16.8% of the general property tax levy and the cost improvement ratio is for every $1 the city receives in property tax revenue, approximately $8.11 of private funds are being invested into the historic resource. The proposed Mills Act contract would bring the city's total to 87 contracts. A summary of the average annual tax savings and estimated cost to the city is listed on this page. It should be noted that the estimated cost to the city in the form of a lost property tax revenue is less than 1 100th of 1% of the annual general fund expenditure for the current fiscal year. and in exchange for that, over four million is being invested into the city's historic neighborhoods. The Mills Act is a financial incentive to property owners to improve their historic properties and a tool for the city to encourage appropriate maintenance and repairs to historic properties. With that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending the City Council approve the Mills Act contract for PHP 25015. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer.

Thank you, Mr. Gronk. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? No? Okay, as there are no questions, I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to come forward. Is the applicant here? No.

Yeah, they'll be here for the city council.

Okay. All right, with that, is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? I'll open it to public hearing, public comment. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Gage.

Yes. Well, it's a great thing that we're talking about the 87th Mills Act in our community. The fact that this Mills Act helps people put money to rehabilitate, restore, do important improvements to these historic aged properties that will deteriorate if that money isn't put into those properties. And it's not just one home, but whole neighborhoods could deteriorate. We're not just losing the tax money, but we would be making a real monster out of neighborhoods if nobody puts money into them. This Mills Act really helps people to put money into them in lieu of paying some taxes, but they actually put more money into the property than they're saving on taxes, so it's not a giveaway either by any means. I always want to mention it's not just the actual money they put in, but as we all know, you have to keep up with the Joneses and your neighbors. There's a lot of neighbors putting money into their historic properties to keep up with the ones that are on the Mills Act that are putting money into their properties. It's just a total win-win situation for a whole community to have. vibrant, historic neighborhoods and not deteriorate everyone. So I'll definitely be voting for this and if there's other comments, so be it.

Do we have any other comments? Mr.

Chair, I just want to just second some of those comments. It's always nice to be able to reflect on the history of Ontario and what makes Ontario unique. A lot of cities are in a position where they have to say it used to look like something or it used to have a certain aesthetic or a certain feel or a certain atmosphere. And we're very fortunate to have people move into the city of Ontario who are really interested in keeping up some of those characteristics that make our city very unique. So with that said, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend the council the approval of the Mills Act contract file number PHP25-015.

Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Gage. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Marks.

Yes.

Mr. Gage? Yes. Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Chairman Ritchie? Yes. It is recommended to City Council four to zero.

Okay, thank you. So file number PHP25-015, the Mills Act contract has been recommended for approval to City Council. And now item D, Director Ngo.

Thank you, Chairman. Item D is environmental assessment and specific plan amendment review for file number PSPA 25-005. A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Meredith International Center Specific Plan to establish a mixed-use overlay district, Planning Area 3A, on 25.38 acres of land located within a portion of Planning Area 3, Planning Area 3 Land Use District, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard within the Urban Commercial Land Use District of the Meredith International Center Specific Plan. Staff has prepared an addendum to the Meredith International Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the city council on April 7th, 2015. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts and the project is city initiated and city council action is required. And our associate planner, Ms. Aguilo, will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. No. Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. The project is located within the Meredith International Center specific plan as shown in the red outline. The specific plan is bounded by 4th Street to the north, Vineyard to the west, the I-10 freeway to the south, and Archibald to the east with a flood control channel traversing a portion of the specific plan. The new amendment will establish a new mixed use overlay district within Planning Area 3 as shown with the yellow outline. The project site is bounded by Planning Area 4 to the north, which is the Paseo's apartments, the gas station in Hyatt Hotel, which is currently in construction to the east, the 10 freeway to the south, and the flood control to the west. And the new mixed-use overlay will encompass the entire Planning Area 3, which is 25.38 acres. As shown, the existing land use plan for the Meredith International specific plan includes industrial to the northwest, mixed use overlay for planning area two, which is the Vineyards multifamily residential apartments to the west, luxury car dealerships adjacent to the Vineyards apartment along the eastern portion of planning area two, the Paseos apartment to the northeast, and the remaining vacant portion within the specific plan within planning area three. The specific plan amendment will establish a mixed use overlay district planning area 3A within planning area three, urban commercial land use district. The proposed overlay will allow a mixed use development that could include up to 1400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial retail uses. The intent of the SPA is to establish a criteria for future development projects that are distinguished, high quality and provide opportunities for high end dining, retail and resort style residential living. In addition, the amendment will ensure greater consistency between the specific plan and the TOP. The proposed SPA will amend the land use plan and include the development standards for the mixed use overlay planning area 3A. Overall staff recommends the planning commission recommend that the city council approve the addendum and approve the specific plan amendment pursuant to the staff report and the attached resolutions. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Avilo. So are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Okay. As there are none, I will now open the public hearing to the audience. Is there, I don't have any green cards on this item. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Please remember you have three minutes.

I'm Thomas Meshagan, Jr. Which address would you like in the city of Ontario? We have numerous in our family business. I grew up at 1921 South Magnolia Avenue. I have to say I'm completely against it. With terms like luxury automotive dealerships, you've got a redevelopment project called the Ontario Auto Center. If you're going to pack in more people, I go by there on the bus all the time. Archibald and the 10 Freeway is a nightmare right now. So you're going to have a bunch of people getting on and off the freeway during banker's hours. It's the worst thing you can do. I know Meredith is just the name on the place. You don't need to impact more. 1,400 residents. The area doesn't need 1,400 residents. Luxury dining and this and that. No, no. As a resident here all my life, I'm completely against it. It's environmental damage. The impact is irreversible. You're putting a bunch of residents next to the freeway. I mean, take all the car traffic. The feasibility studies. It's terrible, so I'm against it. As being a lifelong resident in Ontario, California, I'm completely against it. despite the fact there's three open seats right now. It's like the whole thing with LAFCO. So, you know, everything's always a yes vote in this town, so I'm against it. And I speak for basically anybody who's off of Dolomite Street, west of Archibald Avenue, because I go door knocking on my neighbors. And so I'm representing that area for my subdivision. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please again state your name. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Chris Robles. I actually live near here and didn't realize this was on the agenda. And I have a couple of questions. So first, was there notice sent to residents in the area? And then the second is, is this the property that IKEA wanted and we're going to build on? I'm just curious on those two things. And the mixed use, that's what we've always wanted over there. We ended up with a whole bunch of warehouses we didn't want. This sounds, and I'd like more information, but this sounds like what we expected originally. The problem, though, is with the traffic in the area. At the scoping meeting, I discussed with staff the fact that there's a truck route on Vineyard that really doesn't need to be there. In fact, we were all told as residents when the Meredith warehousing was going in that the trucks would be predominantly or made to go on Archibald. And that has not happened. In fact, today I came out of my complex and there's a truck parked. right where it shouldn't be, you can't see coming out of it. So although there are some businesses that might require trucking further up in Rancho Cucamonga, they still can have access through Archibald and then through the side streets where there are no residences. So those are big issues. The trucking and the trucking on Vineyard, this, although it's on the Archibald part, will affect everybody on, all the residents that are off of Vineyard. And this has already been a negative impact on us, and we are very concerned about it. But again, if this is mixed use with restaurants, shopping, dining, that kind of thing, and even with some of the housing, that's not that bad, and more of what we were looking for. Unfortunately, this is the last piece of that property. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robles. Okay, we don't have any more green cards, so I'll now turn it back over to staff to respond to any of the questions that were raised during public comment.

Yeah, so the first item was if it was noticed. Yes, we did notice this to meet our development code standards, the public hearing notice requirements. This was a former potential IKEA site. This was the property that they were interested in. And then with regards to traffic impacts, as we stated, The addendum addressed all environmental impacts which included traffic. The original specific plan environmental impact report analyzed 480,000 square feet of urban commercial which included 400 hotel rooms on this property. So the proposed 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial retail is less than significant certified environmental impact report with regards to all impacts, including the traffic impacts.

Okay. So with that, we will now close the public hearing and turn the matter over to the Commission for deliberation. So is there a motion to recommend to city council the approval or denial of the addendum to the IAR or file number PSPA25-005, the specific plan amendment?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes. Well, I'm for this development, mixed use. There's so many new apartment dwellers right on Inland Empire Boulevard, all fairly new apartments. Of course, the big vineyard apartment, luxury apartments. And this will help service their retail needs. And I think it's a good addition to this area. We can talk about traffic, but it'll also have a lot of local people going locally on that same street instead of getting on the freeway and going elsewhere. I'll be for this and I'm glad to see this instead of another warehouse or big box item there. It services the residents that are there.

Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Any other comments? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Napkin.

It's always nice to hear when residents in general just say things are developing in a way that they had hoped or expected. I remember 17 years ago coming to Ontario and hearing that there was supposed to be like class A office buildings there, much like Century City. As we all know, we went through a very bad economic downturn, which led to many changes happening for many cities all throughout Southern California. I think that this project is actually going to certainly aesthetically add value to this area in terms of it being empty for a very, very long time. It would be nice to see it complete. Whatever the plans were for IKEA, whatever the reasons were for them not going through, it's all public information. I actually like the idea of seeing something like this instead as well, a warehouse type building. But I think that my colleague, Mr. Gage, said something that people should know about this type of development being mixed use. And there was a term that's now being used, an urban mixed use development. Is that, yeah, it will keep people local and give another amenity to people who wanna shop and live and play right here in the city of Ontario and not get on the freeway. For anybody who's ever gotten on and off the freeway at Archibald in that area, I mean, as you guys know, it's massive, it's vast, it's a very big intersection. I remember when people were expressing concerns about traffic in the past. Inland Empire Boulevard, in particular, was very much underutilized, in my opinion, for the size that it is today. I was around when it was just a few lanes, one or two lanes going in each direction. And now, with the Vineyard Apartments, it looks like it's almost being used appropriately or being used in the way that it was built out for capacity. And I feel confident that this new project will be appropriate for that area and bring Empire Boulevard and Archibald to its full use and what it was designed for and including that exit as well. the direct result of future planning, good future planning and foresight. So with that said, I'm gonna recommend to council the approval of the addendum to the EIR and the specific plan amendment, file number PSP825-005, subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

Okay, so I'll take that as a motion. Do I have a second? I second that. Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Lamkin, And a second by Commissioner Marks for the recommendation of approval to City Council. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampton? Yes. Mr. Marks? Yes. Chairman Ritchie? Yes. It is recommended to City Council for approval four to zero.

Okay, thank you Madam Secretary. The addendum to the EIR and the file number PSPA 25-005, the specific plan amendment have been recommended for approval to the City Council. And now item E, Director Ngo.

Thank you, Chairman. Item E is environmental assessment and development plan review for file number PDV25-007. A public hearing to consider a development plan to construct a 226 room hotel totaling 183,609 square feet. That includes 158,272 square foot hotel and 25,337 square foot of commercial retail uses. on 3.41 acres of land located south of Riverside Drive and east of Hellman Avenue within the CCS Convention Center Service Commercial Zoning District. Staff has prepared an addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the City Council on July 16th, 2024. The proposed project is located, sorry, The project is submitted by Ontario Ranch Hotel LLC and principal planner, Mr. Grahn, will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Now. All right, this is a general location map to show you where the hotel will be located at. It's gonna be south of Riverside Drive, within the limits of the Ontario Sports Empire, and it's directly east of ONT Field. You can see that being developed on the left side of the screen. There's an overall site plan for where the hotel will be located. It's located in the extreme southwest corner of this block, right at the corner of Hellman or what will be, I believe, South Champions Boulevard or Champions Way. And then C Street is the east-west street to the south. And then parking to the north and to the east of it. So there's a blow up of it. It'll show you that the main entrance to the hotel is gonna be located on the north side of the building. Entrance to the conference center will be located on the east side. Access to the site is provided off of the three major streets surrounding it, both including Hellman, A Street, and C Street to the south. On the first floor, you'll have guest services. It'll have all the other amenities, including a yogurt land, a restaurant, Legends Attic, which would be like a sports museum, and then a conference center. It's a roughly rectangular-shaped building with an open courtyard in the center, and that center includes pools, open area, grass area for the guest use. Guest rooms are located on the second through the fifth floor. Again, this is a dual brand hotel for Aloft and Residence Inn. Aloft, I believe, is on the west side. Residence is on the east side of the building. But second through the fourth floors, they're roughly all the same. The big change comes with the fifth floor. which includes a rooftop deck, a rooftop bar overhanging the west elevation, looking out to O&T Field, gives you views of the mountains to the north, and a nice amenity for guests to relax at. Elevations provide a mix of materials including stone, wood, stucco, metal siding, a metal veneer. At the rooftop deck, you can see there in blue, this is the top elevation here is the north elevation of the building. You can see the entrance to the building on the south, on the first floor. The bottom elevation is the west side of it. It's going to be facing ONT Field. Again, you can see that the rooftop deck on the rooftop bar there on the screen. These are the east and the south elevations. The top elevation here is gonna be the east elevation showing you the entrance to the conference center on the first floor. And then here on the bottom it shows you the south elevation with the Legends Attic there on the first floor. The southwest corner of the building has a circular shaped digital billboard that'll be there, being able to provide noticing and advertising for different events. This is an example of the architectures provided to us initially. It shows the digital billboard, originally came in as a four-story hotel and was revised to a five-story. If you look between the original elevations and what they gave us on these, there's a lot more articulation in the building plane, both vertically, a lot of movement in and out, a lot of movement horizontally that shows changes in the roof line, a lot more interest, a lot more visual interest in it, a lot more variation in materials. This is a perspective that shows you the central courtyard, shows you ONT field to the top of the screen, and how it's gonna relate to the parking areas and the surrounding uses. General landscape plan shows you how the parking lot and the landscape are provided around the building. Something to keep in mind is the environment we want to create for pedestrians as they're walking along the west side or the south side of the building. This shows a typical sidewalk. That's not what we want. We want something that's going to create more and inviting atmosphere for both people utilizing both the restaurants and the cafe there and interacting with people on the street. So the design of that isn't what we have here, but we're working with them through the plan check process to revise something that's more appropriate for that site. This is the interior courtyard showing the pool and the grass area and other guest amenities. And this shows the entrances to the site. On the left side of the screen is the conference center. On the right side of the screen is the entrance to the hotel. And with that, as part of the project, environmental review, we prepared an addendum to the site. There was an addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Empire Environmental Impact Report. which is certified by the City Council in July of 2024 and is prepared for the Ontario Ranch Hotel. And as documented in the addendum, this application introduces no significant environmental impacts and all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of approval, a condition of project approval are incorporated by this reference. And as such, the addendum concludes that no additional environmental review is required. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the addendum to the Ontario Sports Complex EIR, and then consider and adopt a resolution approving the development plan for PDEV 25-007. This concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Vaughn.

Mic on. Thank you, Mr. Grahn. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Gage?

Yes. Who do you imagine will, what customers do you imagine will go to this hotel? You want to try it?

I think there'll be a mix. I mean, I think families and athletes that will be enjoying utilizing the sports empire fields that the city's building adjacent to the stadium, in addition to people that are out visiting family members and or on business, but maybe want to enjoy a minor league game and such. Those are the types of customers that we're anticipating enjoying the hotel.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions of staff by the commission? As there are no further questions, I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please step forward. Is the applicant here? They're not here.

They're here in the back. They don't want to come up.

Oh, they don't want to come up.

They don't have any comments.

Oh, no comments. Oh, I was going to ask if they agreed to the conditions of approval. So we're under the assumption that you're going to agree to the conditions of approval presented by staff? Okay, for the record he says yes, okay. With that then we'll now open the public hearing to the audience. I have green cards. This name is a little hard to make out but I know the first name is Tommy, the last name I can't. Oh, okay. Please say your last name, I just can't read it by the way.

Tommy Meshaken Jr. again. Now, I'm totally against this. All my neighbors are against it. We didn't want this sports complex. I've lived in a micro hotel before in Ontario Middles for four and a half months, two years ago. So I know the kind of traffic that comes through here. It's a bunch of parents that sit down in the lobby, drink while they're supposed to be chaperoning the children, running up and down the hallways, knocking on doors, and that's your sports complex, despite the fact that you're festivals. and a bunch of other environmental damage. And the truth of the matter is, it's a water fight between Ontario, Chino, and the Chino Basin Water Master, and I was on the name on that. So I know what you're doing since you got your little water treatment plant, plus you want to build the bridge. I don't know where A, B, and C Street is, but I know I live south of Chino Avenue and west of Archibald, despite the fact I grew up in South Ontario, which was a former agricultural preserve. And you, sir, Mr. Lampkin, have you ever been to Century City before? You know about the Twin Towers, right? Oh, yeah.

Of course, gender fire.

But the thing is, we don't want this here. In spite of all the 12 different EIRs that were at the city clerk's office that just magically disappeared, you're putting in two more parking structures. I can see the second one getting built. So I ride by there all the time. I've walked up and down Ontario Avenue. In fact, one of the houses you tore down on Ontario Avenue was designed by Stewart, and that family's history has been here longer than I have. So I feel it's totally disrespectful. All you want to do is build, build, build. And I see those sewer lines are running down there. We used to call that street Bum. That's called Vineyard Avenue, south of Chino Avenue. It was just running more sewers down there. It ran the water on our properties back in, what, the late 90s? So that wasn't very fair to anybody. And despite the fact you have no traffic plan whatsoever, so when you have your little Fourth of July event at the Westwind Park, The freeways, the side streets just lock up. Despite the fact you got the Kaiser Hospital right there, Vineyard and 60. So you have an ambulance going down the street. How do they get to the emergency services?

One minute remaining.

Okay. Thank you. Next we have Jordan Sisson.

evening chair jordan sisson i'm a land year sequel attorney address 3993 orange street riverside i'm here representing united here local 11. we were the author of that four-page comment letter on this item um we'd like to notify the city that um we're an active litigation involved in this very project with the city unfortunately this relates to the city's february approval of the land sale Therein we have alleged in our lawsuit violations of the Surplus Land Act, the Development Code, as well as CEQA. Now, as a threshold matter, my client has significant interest in this matter. They represent thousands of members of the hospitality union, including roughly 200 citizens of this very city. If you consider also those who work in the city as well as those who live, it's about 500. So they have a significant interest in public interest standing to raise these issues. Tonight you're being asked to approve the CEQA environmental review. Unfortunately, the city's already pre-committed to this project, contrary to CEQA. This happened when the city authorized the sale of public lands in February. In February, in short, we urged the city to pause, to reach out to the Community of Housing Development. That's the state agency that raises and enforces the Surplus Land Act. We specifically asked pause. Unfortunately, the city approved it, saying that economic opportunity law trumps the Surplus Land Act. In March, we notified the city of our potential litigation and identified how HCD rejected similar arguments made by Moreno Valley. We also notified HCD about the potential violation, and they reached out to the city in March saying, hey, we want to talk about this potential notice of violation. Despite all of this, in April 4, the city closed escrow on the land sale. unfortunately because there wasn't our ample warning hdd eventually issued a notice of violation to the city this is in june 18th of this year and on page two of our common letter we have an excerpt i just want to read exactly what it says and this is hdd's letter to the city the city i have paused and consulted with HCD upon receipt of Local 11's letter and again when HCD reached out to schedule a meeting. Instead, the city moved forward with the disposition. This is bureaucratic momentum, and I use that term because that's what the courts have used. When you have approved a project or taken actions to approve a project before the CEQA review, that is pre-committing the project. Tonight you're asked to review the CEQA. The CEQA document admits that there are more GHG emissions, but it's not adopting more mitigation. There is more mitigation, unfortunately. you've already pre-committed. Additionally, it doesn't address why there's no CU being required. I thank you for your time. I request that you please look at our letter, and thank you so much, Chair, for your time.

Thank you. Next, we have Chris Robles.

Good evening again. Looks like I am busy on this agenda. I won't even begin to talk about the hot mess of this entire project, not even the hotel, the whole mecca, tourist mecca, and that's not my language, that's the staff's language, that this whole thing is, and the wasted money that should be in our neighborhoods, not in one location in the south of Ontario where most residents don't live. I'll speak specifically about this hotel. Here's the problem. This hotel, there's been this shell game. I don't know what analogy to use. But it's been disingenuous, the way the city has dealt with the community. So at first, we were dazzled at a scoping meeting with all these pictures of what could be. And then all of a sudden, this gets approved. And I'm learning from the previous speaker that it was pre-approved. That's kind of absurd. And the way it was approved was 146, I think, I can't remember, rooms. And then all of a sudden, on a consent calendar, the city council approved nearly doubling it to these 226 rooms. The parking structure doubled as well. And the amount of money being wasted on this whole thing is, and I get that the hotel is a private project, Nonetheless, this thing is way out of line, was not truthfully disclosed, no transparency to the public. So now, all of a sudden, it's coming back again in this bizarre thing of moving it somewhere else on the property. Once again, you're the first line of defense for this community. These things should have been worked out before. It is clear that this ego project of the city council has been pushed through at their urgency. And they cut a deal with the Dodgers. So they have to overspend. They have, again, consistently at council meetings, are overspending on this project in order to meet a deadline that they agreed to. Or this city is on the hook for a whole bunch of money. So now we're shuffling what goes where. None of this was disclosed to the community at the scoping meeting, nothing. This is just absurd. I would ask you to put the brakes on this so that the community can have the input, as I was saying at the beginning of this meeting, where the community's actually consulted and asked what they'd like to see, not told here's the pretty pictures and then, you know, who's gonna be against some, oh yeah, that all sounds good. except that they're never told what they're missing. Only these pretty pictures. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robles. And that concludes the public comment period. I'm sorry. Let me find my place here. Okay, I'm gonna turn it over. I'm not sure that the applicant wants to step up and offer a rebuttal for the comments, but you have an opportunity to speak if you'd like to offer any comment. So I'll turn it over to staff to respond to any of these comments, please.

Sure, thank you, Chairman. So the first item that I wanted to clarify, so the item that Mr. Jordan had brought up was, the Surplus Land Act and the litigation. So it is ongoing, that is a separate matter, but that is not pertinent to tonight's item. The city continues to work with HCD as well as the party that's litigating against the city with regards to that matter. And with regards to the environmental impacts, so the original environmental impact report did contemplate a 100-room hotel. It did contemplate 10,000 square feet more of commercial. So when we did the addendum, we're analyzing the increase of hotel rooms of 126 rooms with the reduction of the 10,000 square feet of commercial retail. And as Principal Planner, Mr. Garan stated, the addendum, specified that all the environmental impacts, including traffic, air quality, all the categories of the CEQA, they were all less than significant. All the mitigation measures of the original certified EIR are a condition of approval. of the project so they will have to still continue to abide by that i do also want to clarify that the council never approved of the hotel that's what this item is today before tonight before the planning commission and it was never pre-approved as the the public commenter had mentioned so with that i'll be happy to answer any other questions that the planning commission may have

Any other questions or clarification from the commission staff?

I have a question. There was a comment about the scoping meeting for the project itself. I assume, since we're at this stage of the meeting, that this was the scoping meeting for the entire sports complex. Can you shed some light on or compare and contrast what was shared in the scoping meeting versus where we are today?

Yeah, I think during the scoping meeting, they show certain conceptual site plans, and it's just that. It's a conceptual site plan to illustrate what the potential project could be. They provide a certain amount of square footages, kind of what they're, is anticipated that could potentially locate here. But through the development review process, through our entitlement review process for any future phases within the Ontario Sports Empire and the surrounding mixed-use areas, they will go through the proper entitlement processes for whatever's being proposed at that time. So there might have been some slight modifications, but for the most part it is substantially in conformance with what was previously reviewed and certified.

And I think I know the answer to this, but that is to suggest that it did reflect in the initial scoping meeting that there would be a hotel, but nothing more in that particular area.

The original environmental impact report did contemplate a 100 room hotel. So this hotel is increasing by 126, so a total of 226. So that's why we did perform the addendum, just to substantiate that the environmental impact report is still in compliance with the certified EIR with the reduction of the 10,000 square feet of commercial uses.

Right, so essentially what you're saying is with the reduction in the commercial use, but the increase in resident capacity for the hotel, that's why it's reflecting less than significant impact. Correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions of staff or clarifications? Okay, so as there's no one else wishing to speak, I'll now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gage. Yes. Well, I'm glad to hear from the citizens and their comments and others, anybody that comes up. love to hear what they have to say. I don't always agree with them, and sometimes I do agree with them, so that's how that works. One of the comments was, why are we building in Ontario Ranch? People don't live there. They live in northern parts of Ontario, I guess, the rest of Ontario. I think it's important to have improvements down in Ontario Ranch. Last time I heard, it was a pretty significant amount of people that live there and are forecasted to live there in the future. I'm glad to see that this area is developing. You know the this whole sports complex and this hotel will service youth sports eventually also and You know, I have parents all the time asking what hotel should we stay in? We're we're in the Ontario soccer fields or the Norco Soccer fields. What's a good place to stay? certainly You know, it's good that we're improving and getting to have these improvements to our city. And it does help for us to make it economically viable. And that means we can do other things too. So there's a lot that goes into this. You know, every improvement isn't bad just because it's an improvement. This will service the Ontario Ranch area. And I don't think private enterprise would be building a 126 room hotel or increasing 126 units to 224 or whatever it is if they didn't think they could fill it. So there's certainly a need for it. And to have people come to Ontario and spend their money, that's okay too. So I'll be for this, but I'll keep listening to those citizens. It was good suggestions that we listen to the citizens and that we should talk to the citizens and get input from the citizens. That's that.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments?

Go ahead. I agree. It's important for us to hear from the residents and I certainly understand where the concerns are. This is new for the City of Ontario. I look at this from two different perspectives. Over 10 years ago, constantly hearing from residents down in South Ontario that they feel like they have no amenities down there. Back when South Ontario stopped at Riverside Drive, that's what it seemed like. And then from there, it was just nothing but farmland, houses kind of scattered throughout. And there are many residents in South Ontario who felt like anytime there's a development, there was an opportunity to add new amenities. Many of the residents that reside in South Ontario, they don't patronize businesses in North Ontario or downtown Ontario. For various reasons, one of which is that I'm aware of in talking to the neighbors and residents in that area is they go to Eastvale and they spend their dollars in another city. So that's the first thing I consider when I think about how important this project is to this area and its significance and the value it adds to residents' lives. The second thing that I think about is the fact that as a deputy sheriff, I have one of those weird roles where I'm actually, I worked for a significant amount of years in Parks Bureau. And so I've had an opportunity to not only patrol but interact with residents who come to sports complexes all throughout Los Angeles County. I've had an opportunity to see where they succeed and the different ways that they fail. And one of them is because people who come to these sports complexes They come from far and wide and they wish they can stay locally and come to the tournaments that are continuing throughout the weekend at a lot of these facilities. A lot of the regional parks in Los Angeles County don't have hotels near them. But people want to come to them more frequently. So that's the second thing that I consider. I do envy and get jealous when I see the successes of other sports complexes all throughout Southern California. And always wish that we have something like that here in the city of Ontario because I also see the camaraderie that is built around those sports complexes. So those are two perspectives that I have. I'm open to hearing other comments from my colleagues as well on this particular issue.

Thank you. Commissioner Mark, do you have any comments? No. Okay. I just wanted to add one thing from the way I, this is anecdotal of course, but we do have a 6,000 seat stadium coming in. There's no question that we're going to have visiting teams from other states coming in to play ball outside the area. And I'm sure if someone has the means, they'll be able to follow the team if they'd like. And it's nice to know they can catch an Uber from the airport, go to the hotel, and not have to rent a car. They just stay there. The game's taking place right across the street, and that's kind of a really convenient thing, I think. The other aspect I'm looking at is all the other fields that are going in, like you said, the youth leagues, or I think Mr. Gage made the reference to the youth leagues. And I do have a... a friend that uh... he's a veteran he retired and he lives in alaska but his his son plays travel ball baseball and he's going all over the country and it'd be nice for you know uh... some of the uh... picking up an ontario team and him and you know the travel ball coming out and maybe he'd be in the area and i could meet with him. He'd have a hotel right next to the field. He could stay with his family. So I see a lot of good things in this. And just the anticipation of getting this ball field going and all the good things that are happening in that area. Because we have to remember, you know, it was a dairy. So do we want it? Yeah, I mean, the cows aren't there anymore, so it's just a field. So now it's a matter of... moving forward and I think this is great progress.

Go ahead. I would like to add something. We have to think about the revenue that it would generate for the city. So it's something even bigger to think about as well. That's really important putting back into our city.

Okay. Thank you. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to, sounds like approve. But is there a motion to recommend approval or denial?

Mr. Chair, because of all the statements I made and some of the ones that my colleagues have shared, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend to Council for approval the Development Code Amendment to file under PDC 825-00. You guys are actually making the action. I'm sorry about that. They're making the action. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. We're taking the action.

Yeah, it's with us. Right.

I said I recommend approval. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve the addendum to an EIR and development plan file number PDEB25-007, subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

Okay. I'll second. Thank you. So we have a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Gage to approve this item. Madam Secretary, please, can you call the roll?

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie? Yes. It is approved four to zero.

Okay, thank you very much. So file number PDEV25-007 is approved. Moving on. Director, no. Item F, apologies.

Thank you, Chairman. Item F is environmental assessment and development code amendment for file number PDCA25-003. A public hearing to consider a development code amendment revising and clarifying certain provisions of chapters 2.0, administration and procedures, 4.0, permits, actions, and decisions. 5.0, zoning and land uses, 6.0, development and subdivision regulations, 7.0, historic preservation, 8.0, sign regulations, and references to reference G, the landscape design and construction guidelines of the City of Ontario Development Code. The proposed Development Code Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines, and this application is city-initiated, and city council action is required. And Principal Planner, Mr. Grahn, will provide the presentation.

All right, good evening again, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. This is the third Development Code amendment we're processing this year. The first one was over the summer where we addressed a lot of changes in Development Code-wide. The second one we did had to do with our LUPA standards and making sure we were consistent with those. So this is the third. There'll be a fourth that's coming as an emergency ordinance to address ADU. requirements that go into effect on January 1st, but that's going straight to council. So this development code amendment, again, is the third one, and it covers a lot of different sections of the development code. So the first off is amending chapter two of it, which addresses the administration and procedures of the development code. And within it, there's a review matrix that identifies what authority there is for approving, how to process applications, whether it's city council, planning commission, development advisory board, and so on. So under this, it's under the minor adjustments and amendments section within the CCS district, which is the Convention Center Services Support District, within the Ontario Sports Empire to allow the planning director to have discretion to approve minor modifications, and those are appealable to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The amendment chapter four follows along in that in the minor adjustments, alterations. It's identifying again that within the convention center support district that the planning director has the authority to approve either a minor reduction in the minimum setback or to approve an encroachment into a setback for like say an overhanging balcony.

And those are approved administratively.

The next chapter, chapter five has to do with a lot of general land use provisions. And in that, table two is a land use, or table five is a land use matrix. And what it does is identify what uses are permitted and conditionally permitted or not permitted throughout the city. It's an exclusionary code, it's not listed, it's not permitted. So under that, the city is in the process of reviewing plans for reviewing a proposal to develop or relocate the city yard. and within that we want to relocate the household hazardous waste and a waste transfer facility as part of that. So here it identifies that those uses are allowed within the CCS district or the civic district only when they're part of a publicly operated city yard facility. The second part of this deals with food service and drinking places, and it's pretty much cocktails, bars, lounges, and so forth. If they're located within the Ontario Sports Empire, ancillary to a restaurant or concession use, they'd be subject to an administrative use permit, not a conditional use permit. It's approved administratively, has the same conditions, it's just approved by staff rather than going through the Planning Commission. The next has to do with establishing entertainment zones. And these are used, developed throughout the state. A number of communities have them. What it does is it allows for patrons to purchase alcohol or to-go drinks at one location, stay in a designated area, and move around in a common area. So the city is proposing to establish an entertainment zone out by the arena. It's between the arena and the ADEPT complex that's being built. And what it would do is create an area, an open plaza, a courtyard, where people could buy drinks from some of the local restaurants, or restaurants would be located there, and then mingle in a common area. As you can see from the exhibit on the bottom, it's a relatively large area, but people can buy to-go drinks, enjoy them outside, plazas, sidewalks, not really streets, but driveways and common areas within this development. It requires them to submit a management plan, and that'll be reviewed and addressed administratively by staff, but this allows the entertainment zones to be established, and depending on the success of this, we may see those other locations throughout the city. Could be down at the sports park, could be in downtown, but really it depends on how successfully this one operates. The next change has to do with revising our standards for two unit projects. SB9 was approved several years ago and allowed subdivision of a single family lot to develop a second unit or a second house and then sell that off separately. We restricted that specifically to the LDR5 zoning district, which is a low residential zoning district. We had an applicant who lived in one of the, I believe it's the residential agriculture zoning district that wanted to do the same thing. He gave us an example where HCD had given a letter that they had provided for Placer County that identified that with any district or any zone that predominantly allows a single family residential, should also allow the subdivision subject to SB9. So we've revised our code here that pretty much any single family residential district that permits single family as a primary use and excludes multifamily could then also be subject to SB9. We have four districts that it could apply. It could be the residential agricultural, rural estate, residential estate, and the low density residential ODR5. And we don't name those specifically because as codes change, maybe we'll come up with another district and any district again permits single family primarily and excludes multifamily would then be allowed under this. Changes to the sign code, it really has to do more with making so that when we review sign programs that we can make sure that they are internally consistent, they're not detrimental to public health. They're not material interest to properties improvements in the vicinity and we would pay attention close how they relate to that property and properties around it. And it's more just creating consistency between our code and the different sign programs that we have. And then there's a section that really has to do with a lot of minor text edits. And this is the last section. So the first part on here is again addressing changes to our sign code where it establishes consistent size for menu boards. The second one here is for under hotels, motels, or residences to revise it so they're not subject to a conditional use permit process for upscale hotels. Meaning if it has an upscale restaurant, where we know it's gonna be something that's gonna be supportive, it's not gonna be a smaller short-term rental or, I mean, we want an upscale, we want something that the commission can support, that we can evaluate, and it's more to make it so the CUP is not required, no market analysis is gonna be required for it. The third pride on here is revising our code so that these two internal tables are consistent, it's not a really big thing. The fourth thing on here is mitigation fees. So historic preservation requires a mitigation fee to be paid a lot of times as a condition of approval, and it's specified in our code that it's paid prior to the issuance of building permits. What this change would do would be allow that if there's a demolition associated with it, that they can pay, create an agreement between the city and the developer for a delayed payment of that fee. It doesn't change the fee, it just allows it to be paid later on, but it's not prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. And then lastly, it's just referencing our landscape design guidelines so the standard is consistent and that irrigation and landscaping in SC areas is completed with the easement. And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. We're recommending that you recommend to the city council approval of development code DCA 25-003. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer them.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Gronk. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lampkin.

Earlier in the presentation, you brought up SB 9. And I just wanted to get clarification that we're leaning on this idea that the state has been very clear that any development codes or ordinances that prevent the addition of an ADU, or I'm sorry, prevent the construction of multifamily housing, the city cannot prohibit it. Is that what we're leaning on? I just wanna make sure I understand.

SB9 relates specifically to single family lots.

Okay.

And allows it to be subdivided, provided it meets certain criteria in terms of size and so forth.

Perfect.

but this means that with any zone that primarily permits single family as a primary use, but then excludes multifamily, can be subdivided. They can still do ADUs, junior ADUs, other ADUs as they please, but it's just consistent with SB9.

Okay, great, thank you. I'll make sure I get clarification on that and fully understand it. Mr. Director, you had something to add?

Yeah, just to clarify a little bit further. So SB9 is that urban lot split. So it would allow for the subdivision land or up to four units. So two primary units and two ADUs to be developed on what was previously a single family lot.

Okay, great. And then I just want to explore this, I guess, this incident where a letter was presented from Placer County. I want to understand that process a little bit better. How did that go about? Was this something that, was this a letter that was presented in another project that they were working on? They wanted to do something similar in Ontario, and then if so, is this something that went to litigation, or is there a case law behind it, or is this something where this was just simply a policy brief, policy review type thing, and then we realized that we were deficient?

Yeah, so when it was brought to our attention, what Principal Planner Mr. Gron had mentioned, that ATD did render a decision on it, and in Placer, if I remember right, it was basically a zone that allowed for one it was like our Ag residential zone, which allowed for one unit to be built on that land, and that since it allowed for that one single family unit to be built, then we couldn't exclude ADUs, or SB9, sorry, from being utilized on those properties. When we got that, we confirmed with our city attorney's office and made sure that before making this change that we would be in compliance with ACD and that legally we'd probably be binded to make these changes. So that's why we are bringing it forward.

And when we say in compliance with ACD, it's because they came to a formal decision that is now codified into law, or is this more of a case law kind of situation?

HCD is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing a lot of the housing laws at this point. And so when they send out a letter to another jurisdiction, for example, it's common for other cities to sort of take a cue. They're the regulatory body, so they may interpret the law differently than maybe the local jurisdictions are. So it's sort of a signal and a cue that, hey, at least this regulatory body is interpreting things a certain way. Do we agree with that or not? And so it's an opportunity to sort of keep up with what the agency is doing. And so it's common to look at what other entities have received from HCD as you're thinking about your own city.

Perfect, and because they're a regulatory body, just very briefly, I don't want to go off too much into a tangent. Do you see their changes? Do you see their decisions changing as HCD's body changes over the years? Do you see them changing their opinion or it just becomes that is the movement forward from that decision on?

I think it's not unusual to see that the interpretations are evolving continuously. There's new legislation certainly in housing every year and probably changes in personnel along the way as well.

Okay, thank you. All right, thank you Commissioner Lampkin.

Any other commissioners have any questions of staff? I had a question on the mitigation fees. By changing our rules of paying the mitigation fees up front, doesn't that encourage more demolition of our historic properties, make it more convenient?

It wouldn't make it more convenient as was stated by the presentation. It already went through the environmental review process. Typically, if we're demoing a historic structure, it would go through an environmental impact report. The mitigation measure, we'd still be in compliance with it. We're just entering into agreement if they're requesting, and we'll do it on a case-by-case basis, and record it against the land to delay this payment. It's not gonna reduce the payment, and it shouldn't encourage more demos of it. because they still have to go through the environmental analysis to demo a potential historic structure. So they have to go through that whole process and the environmental analysis, public hearings and such. It's just that... on a case by case, we may delay, if we agree to, a payment of that. And at the time that they pull those, the building permit and or grading permit, within that time frame, we'll still assess the value of that historic structure at that time with the proper codes.

Okay, thank you, and I had a question about the waste transfer part. Does that still come to the Planning Commission when we change waste transfer areas?

So this would be a city project. So it wouldn't have, we wouldn't have like a development plan review for our city yard facility. It would probably be a capital improvement project that's performed by Public Works and OMAC and such. But as Mr. Garan had mentioned, we're going through the environmental review analysis of a potential relocation of our city yard, which would be coming forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for the necessary general plan amendments and zone changes and the environmental impact report associated with the project.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Any other questions or clarifications needed from staff? Okay. In that case, I will now open the public hearing to the audience. And will Andrea Romero please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Andrea Romero. I live in Long Beach. Good evening, Chairman Ritchie and Commissioners. My name is Andrea Romero, and I'm a proud member of Unite Here Local 11. Local 11 represents over 32,000 members, including hundreds that live and work here in Ontario. We urge you to vote no on item F, the proposed amendment on Ontario's development code. Among other changes, this amendment would remove the conditional use permit requirement for full service upscale hotels located in specific planned areas. That change would limit the city's ability to decide whether a particular hotel project is appropriate for its location and how best to condition approvals to reduce impacts on nearby neighborhoods. The amendment would also exempt upscale hotels from important existing regulations, like the requirement for a market feasibility study, the prohibition on extended stays beyond 30 days, and other rules designed to ensure hotels are economically economically viable and compatible with community needs. These are not small technical adjustments. They are big changes on how Ontario evaluates and regulates hotel development. No environmental study has been done to assess the effects of this significant policy shift. Instead, the city is claiming a common sense CEQA exemption a narrow provision that applies only when it can be said with certainty that there are no possibility of environmental impact. That's a very high bar. and it hasn't been met here. Removing oversight and loosening restrictions citywide would easily increase traffic, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Under CEQA, even a reasonable argument that impacts may occur is enough to defeat the exemption. It appears that this amendment could be a response to a lawsuit against the Ontario Ranch Project, a lawsuit that the city failed to follow its own development code. To the extent item F is being proposed is response to the lawsuit. This type of ad hoc rewriting of the city's development code for signal project is not consistent with the zoning practices. This commission has the responsibility to ensure Ontario's development code promotes fair, transparent, and well-planned growth. For all these reasons, please vote no on item F for, or at least the very least continue it until full environmental review and public analysis can be completed. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Just under the wire. Very well done. Okay, next we have Jordan Sisson.

Thank you, Chair. And I'll be brief. I'm not going to repeat what a local 11 representative already said. But I do request that this body ask for clarification. Staff report was over 1,800 pages, released Friday, obviously very difficult. But specifically on page 1189, there appears to be a typo. Again, as you heard this upscale exemption, as I read it, says that it's an exemption for upscale hotels from the requirements from 5.03 subsection 250. Those are the specific regulations. regarding hotels that apply generally the way that it's currently drafted it suggests that an upscale if it meets it would be exempt from those regulations but not necessarily from the conditional use permit requirement in certain zones such as the ccs during the presentation you heard again maybe it's a mistake or Again, clarity is really required. Is this exemption intending to exempt from even the conditional use permit process if it's a full-service hotel? That's a big difference, because there's a conditional use permit, which is discretionary, and then there's the regulation, the supplemental regulations. I cannot tell from the presentation whether are not this full-service hotel matter is going to exempt full-service hotels from the regulations, specifically under subsection 250? Or, as it sounded like, is the city trying to say that if you are a full-service hotel, you don't need a CUP at all? Clearly the way it's currently drafted, specific plan errors suggest that those would not really require CEP. But as we heard earlier, it sounds like if you're a full-service hotel, regardless, it may potentially be allowed. So if you could ask for clarity, appreciate that. Thank you so much, Tom. I'll submit with that.

Thank you, Mr. Sisson. Okay. Would staff like to reply to the comments that were made?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So with regards to CEQA, that's just referring to the Development Code Amendment, so that's why that provision of the CEQA exemption is being passed. We're asking for that to be approved with the development code amendment. For any hotel project that comes forward, like the previous one, they will have to go through an entitlement review process. They will have to go through an environmental review process for where they're proposing the project. So we will analyze the environmental impacts of that proposed project. What the public commenters were requesting clarification on So with regards to the CUP, the history behind the CUP for hotels and motels was that the city council previously thought that there was an oversaturation of like economy type hotels, motels in the city and things like Motel 6 and Super 8, the extended stays and such. So what they wanted and what they wanted to attract were upscale, full-service hotels that could include conference rooms, full-service restaurants, bars, other amenities such as spas, fitness rooms, et cetera. and the requirement of the CEP was to go to city council so they can review a market feasibility analysis for hotels, just to make sure that what the proposed motel, hotel, at the time, that there was a market feasible for what was being proposed. So what we're asking for at this time is to codify previous policy and, kind of council direction to exempt full-service hotels because that's what they were intending to attract. So we're trying to amend our code to be consistent with what their policy decision was so that it doesn't have to go to that extra step. The previous steps was, like I said, just to provide an extra hearing body and the council could make a call whether or not that particular hotel, motel proposed at the time that there was a market that wasn't oversaturated for when they were proposing it. So conditions of approval, all departments will be reviewing all proposed hotels. So this provision of the development code isn't exempting any future hotels from going through the entitlement review process. We would go through it. The only difference would be that it wouldn't be going to city council. And I believe that was the extent.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Lamp, can you have any, go ahead.

I don't think you closed the public hearing.

Oh, I just gave them a chance to rebut the.

I know, but it's not closed.

Yeah, but I went through, exhausted all the green cards I had, so. I know, but it's a public hearing. So you can just go ahead and close the public hearing.

Okay. Yeah, so. I listened to the other, and I appreciate it, thank you. Chris Robles. I listened to the other speakers and their concerns and then I heard the staff's response. And I'm more confused now than I was before. And if the staff is saying specifically that the council wants to fast track, that's what I heard, fast track. And not make the hotels they like go through the process for the public's scrutiny, there's something significantly wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I advocate more scrutiny, more transparency, more public hearings, not the minimum. That's where my comment was from the beginning. So if that's what's happening, I, once again, ask you as our first line of defense for the actual residents that live and have to have to put up with this style of process and the results of it that you put the brakes on it now. Please, thank you.

Thank you. I'd also ask that whoever wishes to speak first ask the chair to recognize them before they speak. But thank you. Any responses to that, staff? No. Okay. So now I will close the public hearing and turn the matter over to the Commission for clarification or litigation.

That's probably not the best word to use there. I'm sorry.

I mean.

Deliberation.

Deliberation. We've been here for a while. I'm sorry.

Such a dirty word.

Yeah. Deliberation. I apologize. I'm thinking of Thanksgiving dinner right now. All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Lampkin. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do, and as a result of everything that I heard from staff, I do have a question. And I don't know if this is going to clarify or alleviate any concerns out there. But I feel like I'm reading a penal code book sometimes.

The good thing is I've been training how to read them, right?

Section 3, subsection D. And I'm referring to the revised chapter 5.0 for the zoning and land use to include. Section D is asking that we amend division 5.03 supplemental land use regulation section. This is actually inclusive of section 5.03.250. Hotels, motels, residence, and other similar accommodations to add 5.03. I'll just stop there because it goes on to talk about revising the conditional use permit process for upscale hotels. When you reference the G section, it says to add, and I'm jumping to the enforcement piece. which is in subsection eight. The enforcement piece says that it is to add that section I just mentioned, 5.03.150.G, full service exemption identifying the full service upscale hotels are exempt from the requirements of the section. So if you can do me a favor, please provide some clarification on the language and if there needs to be any, and maybe we're misunderstanding it, maybe this is being misunderstood because I did read it in part, I didn't read it in full, that G section. And if you need me to reference a page, it's going to be 684. I'll also mention that page, the page that was mentioned by one of the previous speakers, it says that the page before and after were blank. And I understand that in the report and the printout and just including all these other pages, sometimes they could be off. But if we can go to page 684, let me make sure I have there, because I know sometimes on a digital copy it's a little different. So bear with me one second here.

684 of 6. Wait.

It's going to be item F, 14 of 644. Oh, 14. 14 of 644. OK.

I said, wait, we only have 644, and you're saying 688.

At the top of the page, it says page 8.

Oh. OK.

Bear with us, everyone. This is a packet. We do review it. We do look at it. We read it. So I just want to give everybody a chance here to locate the section that I'm referencing and get the clarification. You said page? The bottom of the page says item F. Section F?

Yeah, item F, page. 14 of? Okay, 14 of 644.

I'm getting old, you guys. 644.

You're getting old. Come on. You're the youngest one up here. 14 of 644.

Okay, yeah.

The Wi-Fi is acting a little weird.

And if you guys can go to section D under enforcement.

So this section, this is under the entertainment zone. So that... That enforcement pertains to the entertainment zone that was being mentioned as far as just enforcement of notice of violations. So the plaza area between the arena and the ADEPT project. This doesn't have to deal with upscale hotel section.

And the reason why I reference that is it mentions under amend division 5.03 supplemental land use regulation section 5.03.250 hotels, motels, resident ends and other similar accommodation to add 5.03.150G which was previously mentioned as a part of item F on page two of 644.

So what was your question?

So I just wanna see if you guys can, and you probably just did, but I guess kinda break it down in more plain language to address any concerns. What exactly does that mean? And I'm thinking that could be where the confusion is coming from because there's a claim that it's outright exempting the issue with the hotel. It's gonna exempt the CUP.

14 of 644, right?

14 of 644, and I pulled that language from 2 of 644.

644? No, page 14 of 644, so on the bottom of the page. Here, it's going to be way over here. Let me see.

Page 685, 684. Yeah, the Wi-Fi's a little slow to load here.

So it's page 685. Yeah, 14 of 644 is where it says it.

So the intent of the revision is to exempt it from the conditional use permit process for that upscale hotels as we described it. We did put a definition of what a full service upscale hotel would require. Like I mentioned, it would be like up to a minimum of like four amenities, a spa, conference room, full service, restaurant concierge, and like room service, things of that nature. So they would be providing that. But what I do want to clarify is that the entitlement process we would go through the development plan review like we did for the previous project. So all projects will have to go through that development plan review, which we will condition accordingly any conditions required of that hotel where it's being proposed. So it's not gonna be exempt from going through an entitlement process. It's mainly to, like I mentioned before, to not go through that extra step of going to city council. It will go to Planning Commission like we did tonight. They'll have public hearings. It'll go to the Development Advisory Board. It just won't have that extra step of going to the city council for that market feasibility analysis because these are the types of hotels that the city council wishes to attract to the city and believes that we need more of.

Okay. You did great. That's exactly what I was looking for. Correct me if I'm wrong. I could be wrong in the way I'm describing this, because I want to make sure we're clear on language here, that it will be exempt from the CUP process. However, what you're saying is it still has two other things that it needs to go through. That is the entitlement process and also the development plan review. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification. Um, so we are still in the, uh, what is it? Litigation? No, uh, deliberation. I apologize. I'm just joking here. Um, so, um, any other comments before we make a motion? I think, well, just personally, I think we did review this and Commissioner Lampkin and myself with Mr. Gron on the subcommittee. and we also reviewed it in the briefing. So I think most of this is just to eliminate some of the quote red tape. I think there's a lot of things that people take for granted when putting in for applications and how long the process is and people are going through so many hoops to try to get things approved and some of the minutiae I think is where we just did need to clean that up a little bit. But because of the process I think we're in agreement that it's not necessarily going to be just carte blanche, everything gets approved. We do have a process where things have to come to us and we're still gonna have a little bit of say whether we approve something or not. So that's good that we got that clarification. And with that said, so do I have a motion to approve or deny or recommend approval or denial to City Council? Mr.

Chair, I'll also add that I am satisfied with the staff's response to my last question. The one piece that I guess if we had to extend the way we're describing the desire of the desires of council is, you know, we often talk about whether or not a development, a proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits, including the vision of the policy plan or the otherwise referred to as the general plan here in the city of Ontario. And also the city council's priorities as a component of the Ontario plan of 2050. So I think that was the missing piece there. I don't want anyone to feel like just because something is exempt from the CUP that there aren't other processes that these proposals have to go through. But if that is a part of the policies and the goals of council, then there are mechanisms in place to ensure that we're doing things in a proper way. And I'm also glad that we got clarification on that section as well. I saw it twice, and I think, I don't want to use the wrong words here. I wouldn't say it's missing, it's just, it's a lot, you're right, it's a lot to read. But it's covered in other parts of the file, so. And in the development code amendment, so. With that said, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend the council the approval of the Development Code Amendment, file number PDCA25-003, subject to the resolution. Thank you. Do we have a second?

I second that. Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Lincoln. to approve file number, or recommend approval to City Council, file number PCDA25-003, and we have a second by Commissioner Marks. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. It is recommended approval to City Council four to zero.

Okay, so file number PCDA25-003, the Development Code Amendment has been recommended for approval to City Council. Thank you very much. Now we move on to matters from the Planning Escort Preservation Commission. Old business. We didn't meet. Historic Preservation did not meet this month. It says it on there. Yeah, it did. but the Development Code Review Subcommittee did meet, and that was myself and Commissioner Lampkin, and as we have seen, that was pretty much everything we covered, which was well done by Mr. Grun. New business, do any commissioners have any new business or any other comments? Okay, seeing none, any nominations for special recognition? Seeing none, the Monthly Activity Report. Director Ngo, do we have the monthly activity report?

Yes, a copy of the monthly activity report has been provided and attached to the agenda. And with that, I did want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving as well.

Excellent, yes. Thank you. And as a reminder, if there is so, we're not sure about the public hearing for December, right?

Not yet? That one we are canceling. There's no items for December. Okay, so no items for December. That's why I wore the sweater today.

Well, I wore my Thanksgiving tie. See, it's very, you know, with the gray. Very fall-like, yes. But I was going to wear some Christmas stuff, but I guess... Anyway, so with that said, the next meeting will be next year. So in that case, Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to everyone. uh so thank you very much anything else um that's it this meeting is adjourned good night everyone thank you

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.