Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the uh meeting of the RATO planning commission of December 17, 2025. Uh at this time, I've asked Commissioner Estavander to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. We all please stand. Face the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Commission Secretary, if you could call the role this evening for us. Chair Story here. Vice Chair Gutierrez here. Commissioner Espander present. Commissioner Coral here. Commissioner Schneider here. Commissioner Thompson here. And Commissioner Avalos Via Lobos here. All present. Very good. Thank you. Um at this time I'd like to uh ask uh the item is any oral communication from the audience on items that are not on the agenda. This isn't the time to speak on any of the agendaized public hearing items, but anyone has anything to speak for oral communication from the audience on items not on the agenda. Did anyone fill out a card to do that?

No, sir. Okay, very good. Thank you so much. We'll move on to the planning commission minutes. Hopefully, everyone had an opportunity to look at our December 3rd, 2025 minutes. Is there any comments or corrections? I have a correction. Okay, go ahead. Uh, it seems rather minor, but uh, if we could correct the record to reflect that Mike Visser was with the Rialto Police Department and not the fire department. Thank you. Duly noted. So moved. Okay. So at that point we So is there a there's a motion on the floor to approve the miss be sent for second as amended. Is there a second? Second. Second. Very good. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

I. Okay. Very good. For the record, I want to abstain. I was absent that day. Yes. Thank you. And then make sure I understood it too and stuff because Virginia uh she called in because she was ill and stuff like that. So that becomes an excused absence to be able to do that. Just to confirm that put on the record. Thank you. Thank you. No problem. All right. Now we're moving on to the public hearings. Uh the first one we have this evening is for variance number 25-00002. Uh do we have a staff presentation for that?

Good evening chair and commissioners. Zebra World has requested that the planning commission review and consider variance number 25002. The project site is an existing commercial shopping center located at the southeast corner of Riverside Avenue and Baseline Road as shown in the within the red boundary on the slide. The site is zoned community shopping center C-1A. The site contains an existing 25,750 foot commercial building that is currently empty but was previously occupied by Big Lots. Additionally, a 900 square foot Dutch Bros coffee shop is currently under construction along the Riverside Avenue frontage. Zebra World is proposing to operate an indoor children's playground completely contained within the existing 25,750T commercial building. The operation will consist of a main open space that has ball pits, trampolines, children's obstacle courses. There there will also be a kitchen that will prepare food and a seating area. The store proposes to operate within the hours of 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. from Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. On this slide, staff prepared a parking count. A total of 139 parking spaces are required, while the site currently only provides 113 spaces, resulting in a deficit of 26 spaces. The applicant has filed a variance application to address the parking deficiency. Subsequentially, Lochner Incorporated has prepared a parking demand analysis. The analysis evaluated

the parking utilization at an existing Zebra World location in Cathedral City, focusing on the peak days and peak hours, excuse me, that concluded that the project site only needs 83 parking spaces to accommodate both Zebra World and Dutch Bros. Given that the site has 113 spaces, the site will have adequate parking to meet real demand. Oops. The site is compatible with the zone C-1A and the surrounding retail uses except from the required parking. All required findings necessary to grant approval of the variance can be made in positive manner. The site is consistent with goal 3-1 of the general plan which encourages to strengthen and diversify the economic base and employment opportunities and maintain a positive business climate. The project is exempt in accordance to categorical exemption requirements of the California Environment Quality Act section 15301 existing facilities. Staff I'm sorry, staff recommends that the planning commission approve variance number 25-00002 subject to the findings and conditions thereof. That concludes my presentation. uh staff and the a representative of the applicant is here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much. Uh let's go ahead and open the public hearing uh at this time. Uh anyone like to speak on this item? Uh please if anyone fill out a card to speak or go ahead. I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, if I may at this time it would be to have the applicant or applicant representative. They hear Oh, it doesn't. Okay. Very good. So then so now I can we can address staff questions or open the public hearing. I would suggest that you address staff questions first and then Okay. So uh questions from any of the commissioners regarding this item? No. Okay.

Do they operate any other pl any other zebra world? Uh yeah the location that was analyzed was in Cathedral City. That's the other location. Cathedral City. Okay. and uh on the site as we looked at the site plan stuff we know it was a big loss before and stuff and uh

yeah and now you've got now you got Dutch Brothers which is going there and then you've got Tacos Gavalon that's there and stuff to be able to do that and so all those businesses it will not impact I'm not worry about impacting Zebra world but it's not going to impact those businesses because there's is there a joint parking reciprocal type of thing there that uh if someone parks over like Dutch Brothers, they can walk over to Zebra World or something. Can help me with that? Yeah. Um they they don't have a shared parking agreement. Okay. And so the uh the parking is provided on the actual subject parcel. Okay. Is what they're limited to. Now, of course, sure,

there are connections where drivers aren't going to know that and they're going to be able to park, you know, on any of the properties. Okay. Sure. Go ahead. Yeah. I live um a block away from there. At night, well, even during the day, but mostly at night, there's a lot of homeless people there. A lot being that it's a recreation area for kids. Most likely more moms than their kids are going to be there. And especially if you're going to close it at night. Okay. Um have you guys thought about that? So before before you answering stuff that there, let me turn it over to the city attorney and let him uh make a reference to something here. Sorry. Sure. If

you could we take a like a fivem minute recess. I can talk to the commissioner about her uh residents in proximity to this project. Sure. Very good. Let's take five minutes and stuff like that just to get clarification because of what uh Virginia did and stuff like that real quick. So we'll just take five minutes. We're going to talk real quick and we'll return again. So yeah.

Okay, we'd like to call the planning commission uh meeting back in order. And so I'm going to uh ask if any commissioners had any has any comments at this time. So I do. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. Um I'm going to have to recuse myself just to be safe uh because of the proximity of my residency to this location. Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate it stuff. And so we'll uh continue on. We've uh any other comments for uh staff or anything from commissioners before I open the public hearing? Yeah, you might explain to the public what you're doing.

Okay. just to let the people know what happens. She commissioner Virginia uh stepped down because uh her close proximity to the project accord you know the government code and other requirements so we don't violate Brown act as if we're within 500 ft the potential of a conflict and that's the main thing she's thinking is a doesn't even say that she has one but the potential of it so she would recluse herself she'd step away from any action on this item and then when we're done with this item she'll return as a uh to the commission and but she also has the right at this point in time to speak. If she does, she would need to do it from the audience and come up to the podium to be able to do that if she desired to, but not from the disast as a commissioner. That correct? That's correct. She'd be commenting as just as a general member of the public.

Got it. Okay. All right. So, no other comments by commissioners. So, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone that has requested to speak on this item? I miss I had a question.

Oh, go ahead. Okay. Okay. staff. There is an east west alley at the south side of the project uh that extends from Sycamore westbound and then is chain linked at a gate. My understanding is that is being addressed with the people at the zebra room and whether that alley will or will not continue through there once this is built. I think I can help that comm with that, commissioner. Um, yeah, the the property owner recently installed uh two chain link gates at the south end of the property basically to close off that drive aisle at the south side of the building. Um, that is private property. It's not a public alley there. U so the property manager he could come up here and also elaborate on it but my understanding in speaking with them is that you know they were having as we kind of heard uh issues with vagrancy and folks dumping uh you know trash back there. Um so they went ahead and installed those gates. Um they were not done with any kind of permit or anything and they do need to have some uh modifications made to them uh such as like Noxbox installation for uh fire department police access. Uh staff's already in contact with the applicant to get those modifications uh made, but the intention is to keep those gates there for the security purposes.

Okay, very good. I just wanted to make sure that we're not blending people being such as they are. Once Dutch Brothers gets open and operating, I want to make sure that people through their familiarity don't want to use as an access cross that parking area and then get into the the traffic that's coming out of there. I wanted to be confident that that's going to be addressed. Yes, it will be. It is addressed. The Dutch Bros traffic will not be able to drive back there.

Okay. And then I had one other question. And that is when when this traffic circulates and know we're talking about zebra room, but these are contiguous developments. And again, we're talking about the traffic flow and how what traffic from one project can affect another. The traffic that's exit exiting to the west on the Riverside Avenue, is that traffic going to be directed to right turn only? Are you asking about the Dutch Bros traffic that's exit?

Well, they're contiguous. So, I think one is actually the other. It would seem to me that one is the other, unless we can't discuss it that way. Yeah. So, the the driveway there where uh the Dutch Bros drive-through exit is, uh it does not have any restrictions. It is a full access. Left out, left, right out, left in, right in. So they can turn left across the I guess there is probably the south end of a left turn pocket there also. Yes. Drivers leaving Dutch Bros could turn left into the median lane or into the medane travel lane and then proceed south. Yeah. And staff is comfortable with that.

Yes. It was previously analyzed in a in a traffic analysis that was done for the Dutch Bros. Yes. Traffic's happy. That's it. Thank you. There's too much traffic there. Yeah.

Thank you. Commission questions or didn't get any cards filled out. Is there anybody that wants to speak uh before I close the public hearing that wants to get up and speak on this item? Okay. Move to close the public hearing. Okay. Okay. One second. What is she doing? Guess she's not going to do it. She want All right. Have a motion by who made the motion to close the public hearing. Dale is Is there a second? I seconded by Terry. Okay. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying I. I. I. Very good.

What's the pleasure? The attached resolution exhibit E to approve the variance number 25002 allowing a reduction in the required parking for the project site from 139 parking spaces to 113 parking spaces based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein. There's a second seconded by Commissioner Thompson. uh commission secretary at this point in time if we could do a roll call uh of each of the commissioners to get their vote to be able to do that. Okay.

So, Commissioner Abalos Vialobos is recused. Commissioner Schneider. Commissioner Gutierrez. Hi. Commissioner uh Chair Story I. Commissioner Esbander I. Commissioner Thompson I. Commissioner Kor I.

Okay. Very good. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next uh public hearing item. So I'll go ahead and read this one real quick. We move on to this one. This is several items. The first one is tenative. I'll be under one public hearing to do this. Tenative parcel map number 202300006. Tenative parcel map 20809. Conditional delement permit number 20230032. Precise plan of design number 2023-0041. development agreement number 202400 02 and environmental assessment review number 202300 51. Do we have a staff presentation?

Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may, I just want to note for the record that Commissioner Avalos Via Lobos return to the council chambers at 6:23 p.m. Thank you, Daniel. Go ahead.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. Yeah, I'll be giving the presentation here on the second public hearing item tonight. Um, this project is entitled the Locust Gateway Development Project and the applicant is IV5 Locust Gateway Logistics Center LLC. I'm going to just start by going over the project site for each of you. Uh, this slide shows you an aerial image, uh, which I've highlighted the project site in the red boundary there. Um, you can see it's an L-shaped site that is 38.89 89 gross acres in size. Uh it's located at the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and LOL Street. Uh this is within the Rialto airport specific plan and within the specific plan, it has a land use designation of general general manufacturing. Um as you can see from the aerial here, uh this is an established industrial area. Uh the project site is surrounded on all four sides by existing industrial developments. And so what the applicant proposes to do is to construct a 664,859 square foot industrial warehouse building on the site and then additionally install associated uh paving, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and drainage improvements. Uh the building has been designed to accommodate various storage and distribution uses. This next slide showing you the site layout. Uh the applicant will place the building on the west end of the site furthest away from Locust Avenue. Uh the truck courts will be located on the east side of the building and then a second truck court on the northeast end of the site. Uh those truck courts will be enclosed with 14 foot high uh screen walls uh so that uh none of the views of any of the trucks or trailers uh will be able to be seen from the public right away. Um there will be passenger vehicle parking areas on the north side, south, and west sides of the building. Um, the truck courts I mentioned before

will accommodate the parking of up to 480 trucks and trailers. The passenger vehicle parking lots will accommodate uh up to 365 passenger vehicles, which exceeds the minimum parking requirement for a building of this size. Um, the applicant will also install landscape planters all throughout the site, both the perimeter of the building, the perimeter of the site, and throughout the parking areas. And those are those green areas that you see on the site plan. Um, the applicant will also install five new driveways for access. I've indicated the locations of each driveway with the red arrows. Uh, so there will be three uh driveways on LOL Avenue. That's at the top of the the map there. Um, the uh furthest west, the one on the top left there would be uh passenger vehicles only. Um, and then the two the middle and the one on the right would be for trucks and passenger vehicles. And then there's a Locust Avenue driveway on the right end that would be for trucks only. And then kind of at the middle left there is a exit out to a private street that's Lake Padden Lane. That would be for emergency vehicles only. And then additionally, uh the applicant will install two underground infiltration basins to manage storm water. Um next site just showing you the floor plan. Um so the applicant uh proposes to have the 657,146 square feet of the building dedicated to storage space. Um the remainder 7,713 square ft of the building would be dedicated to office space. Uh the offices could potentially be at any of the four corners uh just depending upon the tenency of the building. Um the building will have 82 dockai loading doors on the east side of the building. Just moving on to the exterior design of the building. This particular image is showing you the north elevation and then I do have a 3D rendering on the next slide, but this is the north elevation

as if we were looking at it from loc Avenue to the north. Um, so the building will feature significant wall plane articulation both horizontally and vertically. Um the horizontal articulation will come from offset wall panels that have a minimum depth change of 3 feet and then the vertical articulation will come from height variations. Uh the building's height varies from 42 and 1/2 ft from the finished floor up to 50 feet from the finished floor. The exterior of this building will be of concrete tiltup walls. Uh they'll be painted in a palette of five different colors. Uh various gray tones and then some accents uh will also be painted. Um the building will feature stone accents at the corners and composite wood siding. Uh then also more standard features such as panel reveals, metal eyebrow accents, and glazing uh throughout all four sides of the building. And then this next slide is just showing you a 3D rendering. Uh this is if we were looking southwest uh towards the building. So we can see that truck court along the l frontage and then behind that we have the building. And you can see again those architectural features both the vertical and horizontal articulation. Um so as mentioned also this project does include a parcel map. Um the project site is only one parcel of land. So typically we don't see a parcel map uh when that's the scenario. That said, um there were several past maps that kind of uh resulted in a kind of complicated legal description uh for this property. And so the applicant did submit a tenative parcel map to uh resolve underlying past recordings and simplify the legal description. Additionally, the the tenative parcel map will facilitate the necessary right-of-way dedication um along the public streets. Um and so with the rightway dedication, the final net parcel size will be 38.78 net acres,

which exceeds the minimum halfacre parcel size required in the general manufacturing land use district. So we've kind of discussed the building, its layout. Now I'm just going to move on to some of the analysis that was done for the project. Uh so there was a transportation impact study prepared for this project by Kimley Horn and Associates. The trip generation within the study um estimates that the project will generate up to uh 1,138 daily vehicle trips. Um of those 455 would be truck trips. Uh the estimated peak hour trips are 113 in the AM peak hour and 120 in the PM peak hour. Once the trip generation was determined, the uh um an analysis was done of the impact of those trips on 12 intersections. Uh the study determined that there were inf existing infrastructure deficiencies at the following intersections. That's Locust Avenue and Kasa Grande Drive, Locust Avenue and L Street and Locust Avenue and Casia Street. And the study made recommendations on how to address those infrastructure deficiencies. And the recommendations include installing a new traffic signal at the intersection of Locust Avenue and Kasa Grande Drive, which I'll note is a planned uh improvement. It is part of the Locust Avenue roadway improvement project uh which is anticipated to start in the third quarter of 2026. So that that signal would be installed completed long before this development would be completed. Um the additional recommendations included extending the eastbound left turn pocket in the raised median within Casalia Street at the intersection of Locust Avenue and Casia Street. Um, essentially today the median has a turn pocket with about 150 foot queuing. Um, that would be extended to 250 ft to allow for more vehicles to queue and not

spill out into into the the through lanes. Uh then the remaining recommendations in the study included restriping of LOL Street um at the intersection of L of LOL and Locust to add dedicated left and right turn lanes and then also the addition of a northbound left turn lane at the uh on Locust Avenue at the intersection of Locust and LOL Street. Um the transportation impact study that was prepared and the city's uh traffic study guidelines uh determined that the applicant's fair share constitutes uh adequate mitigation. Uh the applicant's fair share identified in the study is $364,699. Um and those fees would need to be paid uh prior to at the latest a certificate of occupancy. Uh this project also does include a development agreement which is attached to the agenda report but just kind of summarizing the the primary uh components of it. The uh applicant as a part of the development agreement has agreed to contribute uh make a $4 million monetary contribution to the city of Rialto and it's stipulated those funds will be able to be used at the sole discretion of the city council. Um, in exchange, the city will vest the project for five years with a possible fiveyear additional five-year extension and then also lock in the development impact fee rates at the current rates, the current rates that we have in fiscal year 2526. Um, now moving on to California Environmental Quality Act analysis. Um, there was an environmental impact report that was prepared for this project by Kimley Horn and Associates. Um it had identified that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. Um an echotier was contracted by the city to conduct a peer review of the EIR.

A notice of preparation was uh circulated for a 30-day period um in from June 27th of 2024 to July 26, 2024. uh comment letters that were received during that uh time period were then addressed in the draft environmental impact report uh which was then circulated for review from September 5th, 2025 to October 20 20th, 2025. U there were a few comment letters that were received and those comment letters were addressed with responses that were all packaged up in the final environmental impact report dated December 2025. And the environmental uh review that has been completed for this project is in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Um included in the resolution tonight uh for the environmental impact report, there are a set of findings that include a statement of overriding considerations. Uh this is the part that uh identifies the benefits of the project that would outweigh the potential adverse impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Um just kind of summarizing the uh overriding considerations. Uh the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan and the Rialto airport specific plan. Uh this project will serve to develop a vacant and underutilized site with the highest and best use that is allowed in the general manufacturing land use district. Um, the applicant is also committed to provide 100% of the building's energy load from on-site renewable energy generation, which would include things such as solar and other renewable energy sources. Um, this project will also create uh employment generating opportunities in both the uh temporary construction jobs as well as permanent jobs. Uh, it was estimated this this project would generate over 550 permanent jobs. The project will also increase tax revenue in the form of uh property tax,

business license tax, sales tax, and utility users tax. Uh the project will also attract related businesses, fostering long-term economic growth for the city, and it will also serve to improve efficiency of regional and national goods movement. And then in addition, as we already discussed, the project will provide a lump sum contribution of $4 million to be used at the discretion of the city council. And that concludes my presentation. The staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt the resolutions before you tonight. And this is uh the council's act or excuse me, the planning commission's action would be to adopt resolutions forwarding a recommendation to the city council. And then after tonight, the project will be scheduled for a city council hearing. That concludes my presentation. I'm available if there's any questions and the applicant and the representatives are here as well.

Great. Thank you, Daniel. Uh, if we could have the applicant come up so he can address us, I appreciate it.

Good evening, members of the commission. Um, thank you and I would also like to also thank Daniel for the great presentation tonight. My name is Amir Latifian. I'm a senior associate with Brookfield Properties. uh the applicant. Um I'll be happy to answer any questions. Questions for the applicant. Yeah. Go ahead. Is this uh are you the end user or is this a spec building? It is a spec building. We are uh building a first class highquality building to attract uh first class tenants and uh we are uh targeting a single user for this this building. Okay. Very good. Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I do. Sure. Go ahead. Typically, these buildings like this of this scope and size will have wallp pack lighting on the outside of the building, but I didn't see anything in the materials I received regarding lighting out where the trailers are stored or that what is immediate to the building itself. Uh we did uh do a lighting analysis and we have uh wallp pack lightings as as well as uh lightings in the in the truck court. Um I I believe. Yeah. Yeah. So that's that's that's included in the design that might have not been shown on on the elevations.

Okay. And is there any provision for any for any tenant that you may have in there for them to provide on-site security? Absolutely. Yeah. On on-site security is a must. We usually include that as part of our lease agreements with with the potential tenants. Okay. Thank you, sir. Absolutely. Got it. Any other commissioners? Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you so much. I'd like to go ahead. Sorry.

Say a few words. Um, you know, u I I'll be very brief. We acquired this site back in 2023 and uh what you see today is a result of uh two years of hard work with our consultant team and city staff. So I really appreciate everyone's effort. We are very excited about this project and uh we think it's a great fit. like Daniel explained, uh it is u uh it's located where exactly the industrial buildings are supposed to be and it's uh in it's inconsistency with general plan and zoning. Uh from a construction standpoint, we are also committed to work with uh industry uh leading general contractors, unions, and uh members of the local workforce. Um uh we are also um glad that we receive uh multiple letters of support and it's uh always encouraging to see that level of support from the community. Um again uh we are very excited to be investing in Rialto and look forward to working with the city staff and members of the commission as as SECO moves forward. Um I'll be seated if uh unless there's a question for me.

All right. Thank you. questions of staff. Daniel, any questions for staff? Yeah, I have one. Sure. Go ahead, Daniel. Well, just as far as you can project forward, do you see the the Locust Avenue improvements before the completion of this project? Yes. Or about simultaneous? Uh, they are projected to be completed. construction may be happening simultaneously, but they're projected to be completed before this would this project would be completed. All right. Very good. Thank you. It's part of the You said the Cassa Grande Locust intersection part.

Yes, it is a part of it. You have the Locust Avenue roadway improvement project. Yes. Okay. Good. Yeah. I mean, obviously you guys should should already be reviewing this part, but those are the the truck routes. those roads there, they they probably should be driven down by the road department to make sure they're in because they're not in great shape and we keep increasing the truck traffic down those roads and uh we just don't want to create hazards, get in front of them before they happen. I got a question. Sure. Um it does show, piggybacking off what you're saying, the new traffic signal is recommended. Who would make that final decision if it's going to be going in?

It it will be going in. Yeah, the city will be installing it as a part of the ongoing Locust Avenue project. So, yeah, the applicant will be paying a fair share cost that will help pay for the signal. Uh, but one way or the other, that signal is getting installed. Okay. It's long overdue. Yes, that one right there. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

You know, if I may continue that, is that going to be a triggered signal or is it going to be timed? you know that I'd have to inquire with engineering and I I don't know if we're at that stage yet in the design to be honest but I can look into that for you and provide that if you could just I'm wondering about the buildup of the vehicles as they back up both on l and on the cross street. Sure that y

any other comments questions for staff by commission? Uh Daniel help me out. I mean I you know and this in this area something that's nice and stuff like is needed because that area was rough to begin with to at least to say. Uh so I'm familiar with Lel Avenue and the access there. Help me out with the access on Lake Padden Lane and where where does it go and who's what's that primarily going to be used for? Because I'm just not I'm not seeing it. So

yeah, the the project itself, the operator, whoever, tenant will not be using that. That's merely for emergency vehicle access only. There is a uh a private street on the property to the west. Got it. Um and the fire department did want to have an additional access point there. Makes sense. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh this is the time for the public hearing. Has anybody from the audience requested to speak on this particular item? Yes, sir. Okay, go ahead. Joseina.

Uh, good evening. My name is Jose Pña with Care California. Um, we're here to voice our our strong support of this project and to ask for the commission's yes votes on it. The city of Rialto deserves this project's far-reaching positive impacts. The benefits from this development will create positive economic growth through good paying jobs and straightening of California's industrial power for years to come. During this time of economic uncertainty and hardship, we should be saying yes to positive development and yes to building straightening the powerhouse that is California and Rialto. We support this project and the many benefits it will bring to the city, the county, and the state. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Any others? Yes. Robert Lugan.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Robert Lugan. Um, my brothers, they call me aka Mad Dog since I served in the Marine Corps. And I brought that mentality to our local union for nine years as a sergeant- of- arms. Um, and I'm one out of 5,000 in Southern California of iron workers that that have been I I've been employed with them uh or been with them for 45 years at this time. I am retired and uh but I I am giving back what was given to me. When uh when I see something that is worth building and and pushing, then I stay with it. And that's what I've been doing recently. Uh we have a program called helmets to hard hats and I am a product of that. So for this project to continue and other projects here in Southern California, it would employ the military personnels that come back from Afghanistan, Kuwait and uh so they have a good good uh career in the union trades. We are here today to support this project and to ask for this commission your commissioners to support with the yes vote tonight. Um this project will bring so much to our community as a whole. The developer has made a commitment to local hire as myself when I was living here. I lived out here in Rialto for about five years and now I'm living in Harupa Valley. But um that's another story. This is a guarantee that our children and families will be taken care of, have medical benefits and prosperous life ahead of them. Please support support our community, our families in the city of Rialto with a yes vote this evening and have a happy holidays. Thank you. Any others?

No, that was it. Okay. Pre commission regarding the motion by Commissioner Estavander, seconded by Commissioner Gutier Harris to close the public hearing. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying I. I. I. Public hearing is closed. What's the pleasure of the commission at this point?

Move to adopt the attached resolution exhibit K, L, M, N, and O. Thereby forwarding to the city council a recommendation to certify the final environmental impact report. Environmental Assess Review number 2023- 00051 approved tentative map number 2023-00006 and approved conditional development permit number 2023-000032. Approve the precise plan of design number 2023-000041 and approve development agreement number 2024-00002 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions therein.

Is there a second? I second it. Second by Commissioner Thompson. Uh if the commission secretary could also do another roll call uh vote on this one, we appreciate it. Commissioner Avalos Via Lobos I. Commissioner Schneider I. Vice Chair Gutierrez I. Commission or Chair Story I. Commissioner Esbander I. Commissioner Thompson I. And Commissioner Cor I.

Okay. Motion carries. I was approved. Thank you so much. All right, moving on to the next item. Now, this item is not um we're the same people, but this is not a planning commission item. We will be conducting this item as the uh building appeals board, uh for the city of Rialto, which is the planning commission to do that. And so, uh it's you're going to see a little bit different, uh way that we're conducting it. Uh but uh want to let you know that's who we are now is going to be the building appeals board on this particular item. And uh uh I'm going to go ahead and uh announce the item and the appeal. Then I'm going to turn it over to the city attorney to have explain a little bit more of how the proceedings are going to go. So, this is a building appeals board review and consider adoption of a resolution to uphold the building officials decision regarding a junior accessory dwelling unit or a JADU at 1443 North Riverside Avenue in accordance with government code section 66332. Attorney, can you fill it from there?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as the chair story stated, um this is uh the commission's acting as an appeals board at this stage. So, the procedures going to be slightly different and I'll give you I'm going to go over the general procedures for the commission to understand uh and for the public to see how this is going to proceed. So, after I finish my my explanation, the next item that the chair will do is she's going to request that the commission disclose any exarty contacts or conflicts of interest. Um, exarty contacts is essentially any uh information or contact you've had the commission has had uh with this project or this item rather outside of the commission. Right? So, just to disclose it. Um, conflicts of interest uh is basically if you have a conflict of interest, something like your property is in proximity of this property or something other or you're related somehow to the uh to the the appellent. Um, of course, we could always do a recess if you wanted to talk about it, but you know, assuming there's nothing, we go forward. Um the next item would be the the chair would open the public hearing and then the city would provide its presentation uh on its on its what it's uh asking the commission to do. Um commission can ask clarification questions of the city um the city staff person. After that's done, the appellant will then make their presentation. Then once again, the commission can ask questions of the appellant as well. Um after that's done, then the city will have an opportunity to do a rebuttal um to the uh the applicants. I'm sorry, the appellants presentation as well. Again, commissioners can ask clarify questions to the to the city city's representative. And then finally, uh because the Brown Act requires it, uh the public comment can be taken on this item, excuse me, on this item. And then once that's all done, then we will close the public hearing. And then from there, the commission can deliberate and then from there, uh make a decision via motion to uh uphold the building officials determination or otherwise. And that's uh essentially it. Very good. Any questions for the city attorney at this time before I proceed?

Okay. At this point, I want to make sure we uh disclose any disclosures or necessary recusals uh need to occur at this point by any of the commissioners regarding this item uh as was outlined by the city attorney. Anyone need to excuse or recuse themselves? Take five and confirm with city council for a moment. Okay, another five minutes. Thank you.

will reconvene the uh building appeals board at this time. And uh any comments or questions by any of the commissions at this point? Yes, I do. Um I'm going to have to recuse myself just to be safe because of my residency as well. Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

No. Uh, Mr. Chair, I did ask for a moment to speak to city council. Yes. After speaking with him, I have no conflict and therefore I will not recuse myself. Very good. Thank you so much. At this point in time, we will uh uh open the public hearing on this particular uh item of the building appeals board and at this point uh request the city's presentation. So, who's be doing that? Jay's going to be doing that. Great. Thank you. Just so you guys know, we have or the commission knows we have no PowerPoint. Uh it's just uh verbal presentation. So,

Got it. Thank you. Uh good evening. My name is Jay Garcia. I am the chief building official for the city of Rialto. Uh I am here today to discuss the matter of 1443 North Riverside and the applicant's request uh to apply the provisions of government code 66332 for an unpermitted junior accessory dwelling unit, also known as a JDU. One of the elements of government code 66332 is that the JDU must have been in existence and constructed before January 1, 2020. Uh when the applicant requested to apply the provisions of government code 66 332, staff did not find any substantial evidence that a JD I'm sorry that a JDU was in existence or constructed before January 1, 2020 and denied the applicant's request. Upon uh denial of their request, staff informed the applicant that deni that the denial did not preclude them from seeking legalization of the JDU and offered to assist them through the permitting process. The applicant instead asked that the matter be reconsidered by the building appeals board. Under Rialto Municipal Code Title 15, the planning commission is appointed as the building appeals board and we ask that you make a ruling to uphold or deny the applicant's appeal. The question at hand is whether or not the JDU in question was in existence and constructed before January 1, 2020. In order for the provisions of government code 66332 to apply, the applicant must prove and holds the burden of proof to substantiate that the JDU in question was in existence and constructed before January 1, 2020. In the appeal from the appellent, you will find that the appellent does not provide any facts and circumstances that substantiate that a JDU was constructed before January 1, 2020. In the staff report, you will find an analysis of the appellence appeal under which a determination was made that

there is not enough evidence to substantiate a JD was constructed before January 1, 2020. In the staff report, you will find staff's recommendation to deny the appellants appeal. Staff recommendation was based on thorough research, careful consideration of state statutes, took into account and weighed all of the facts and documents available at the time, and made an objective decision that the unpermitted JDU in question was not constructed before January 1, 2020. I thank you for your time and consideration, and I am available available for any questions or comments you may have. Okay.

Thank you, J. Uh, at this point in time, I'd like to have the appellet or do we ask questions of the the of the staff? At this point, you'd be able to ask questions of staff. Okay. Anyone have any questions of uh for Jay regarding this particular item? Yeah. Go ahead. This property has an existing ADU. Am I correct? Uh this uh existing ADU was recently permitted and completed I believe uh this past year 2025 or final at the end of 2024. Correct.

Okay. And the and the the physical structure itself the residence was built to my understanding about 1948. Uh correct. And and the ADU in question that you just uh that was recently final was the detached garage that was converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Okay. in the area that they want to put the JD in, that is an enclosed patio area. Am I correct?

Correct. Based on uh permits and records that we've researched, it was a patio that was illegally converted to an enclosed patio. Um and so there were some code enforcement actions, I believe uh 2008 or so that show that it was there was an enforcement action uh on that patio because it was unpermitted. Okay. And that was an unpermitted project. Correct. The enclosing. The enclosure was and then and then I believe it was then issued at some point uh a permit to enclose it under a previous administration or previous building official. Okay. Thank you very much.

Very good. Thank you. Good clarification. So any other questions from commission for staff for the building official? That's not okay. Thank you, Jake. Sit down there. We'll go ahead. We'll move on now. Um the board will move on and then have the presentation by the the appellants who's going to make a presentation on behalf of Okay, very good. Thank you so much.

I'm being told I can just put my I have five copies of the slides. If you want Yeah. Put it in there.

Yeah. There's just not enough to make coffee. So Oh, right here. Yeah, it's just a PDF of it, but

yeah, perfect. How do I get it to show on the Okay, cool. Yeah, we'll put it up. There we go. Okay, perfect. So, should we wait for the copies before I get started then? We can see it right there. Yeah, we see the PowerPoint. We'll be fine. So, go ahead. We get a hardc Go ahead. Thank you.

I appreciate uh everyone here and members of the uh building appeals board and uh Jay uh for his presentation. And so my name is Rob Ingram. I am the applicant from a company called Middle Housing Partners where we seek to provide uh missing middle housing uh to communities that we operate in. this project at North Riverside. We uh you know acquired the property uh and were hired by the homeowner that acquired the property in 2023 when some of the initial um photos that the uh city took uh were taken and uh attempted to do a renovation. We made applications for the ADU that was recently final and built. And then we have this uh junior ADU application that we've been working from. We initially did apply for this through a standard permit process to legalize that that unit and then uh state laws uh and motivations of the property owner changed and we decided to pivot and try and uh permit it under the provisions of 66332 and legalize it as under the unpermitted ADU uh statute. As Jay stated, the question at hand is the only question that actually matters is whether or not the unit was constructed before January 1st, 2020, which is the requirement of the stat to apply the statute of 66332. Initially, we did provide the evidence and that was to the building department and they made the determination. Um Jay during his presentation mentioned that they made the determination based off of the evidence that was provided at the time. Um I have a slide later where we mentioned that there there's something that's not being said in the draft resolution. There's one other action that wasn't listed and that was the uh middle housing partner

staff met with the building department and the city attorney to have a meeting uh about this project where during that meeting we mentioned that we also have video evidence from when we first acquired the property in 2023. We did a walk through and that provides interior photos of the uh of the of the property showing the existence of the dwelling unit where there's cooking facilities, restroom facilities, and the bedroom facilities that are difficult to ascertain from the photos presented. The city did present the photos that I'm showing here on the slide in their denial letter representing evidence that a dwelling unit didn't exist before 2020. However, these photos were taken in 2023 almost directly after acquisition of the property and the start of renovations. You can see the windows blowing out and the pictures were taken in 23. Our staff found it was curious that pictures from 2023 are being used as evidence that a unit did not exist before 2020. But that being said, uh since we didn't own the property before that, we don't have any any better evidence other than our video walkthrough of the interior at the same time that these pictures were taken. Um and my next slide is actually going to go through that video and I just want to let it play here. I don't know how to make sure that plays. I hit next. All right. So, out here in North Riverside 1443. Um, definitely want to walk through. Take note here. Then we come down here. We actually open this up to the bathroom that's right here. Um, so this would be uh a new bath in pretty bad shape. res. And then um uh this door is opened up right here.

It went silent. Sorry. This is the bathroom component of that living space. There's the stove and the kitchen facility, laundry, and then the living facilities. So, this is the interior of the unit that's being pictured, the depicted in the city's pictures from 2023. And this is uh a copy of the the unit layout as it stands today. So, in Jay's presentation, he did mention that uh the patio uh it was started did start out as a a covered patio that was enclosed under a code enforcement action in 2008. Since 2008, that patio enclosure at some point was converted to a dwelling unit. Now, from the video, granted our evidence isn't any better than the city is that it occurs in 2023, but I think it's pretty obvious from the video walkthrough of the interior of the unit that the dwelling unit did represent significant tenure uh at 2023. So, it's not like that that unit was built in 2023 and then displayed as it was shown in the video. Uh it does show signs of significant tenure. So, we asked, "Does it actually look like patio enclosure to you?" I I I don't know. Uh, our understanding of an unpermitted junior ADU, you know, I think people may be familiar with the statue. If they're not, um, has to be under 500 square feet, has to be part of the existing single family uh, dwelling. It JDUs aren't don't actually require a separate full kitchen. Um, it doesn't require sanitation facilities. it uh has a has

to have a living area. Um the it has to have features of a dwelling, living, sleeping, and and partial partially those features, but it doesn't have but for an unpermitted unit under 66332, it doesn't have to comply with the state or local uh zoning rules. It and it just can't violate non-substandard uh conditions. Um, I think we can all have different opinions about the substandard at the time the videos were taken and acquired, but that's why we, you know, after we acquired, we cleaned it up. the ADU amnesty law. One of the other features that's missing from the city of Rialto make it difficult for us to operate under these under this program was that the statute requires as of January 1st, 2025, the city provide a notice to the public that this that violating uh unpermitted ADUs are allowed to be permitted under this provision and provide checklists so that people the public are able to know what the standards are and how to proceed with this and none of those things exist. We provided screenshots of the website from City of Rialto where they just provide links to the actual text of the statute. Uh we included a couple examples of other jurisdictions where we applied this law to show what that would look like. Uh we included LA, Oakland, and Riverside where they're all providing official documents with the checklist with the standards the expectations the city is going to be expect applicants to meet. uh which the city of Ralto does not currently have. Typically the process the correct process for this would be would be that we apply for application. We show our evidence that the unit existed and then the application can then only then be denied or approved uh based off of the health and safety standards presented that would show up

on that checklist. But to do that, an inspection actually has to be done so the city can make those determinations. To our understanding at this point, with the way the unit is now, that inspection hasn't taken and those determinations haven't officially been made. We're still uh arguing about the uh existence prior to 2020. And in that meeting that I mentioned before where we met with uh city attorney and building department staff, we were explicitly told that the building by Jay that he did not want to see the video evidence that we just presented and that uh we could go ahead and proceed with the uh he he encouraged us to proceed with continuing our permit um that we had already previously applied for and not pursue the um appeal process. and we decided to pursue the appeal process. So in our appeal, our ask to the uh this council is that uh we resend the denial from the building department and consider all of the evidence that we have and then come and inspect the unit and decide for themselves what and using the checklist standard that's required by the statute to determine if any substandard conditions actually exist. and you know and so and to help us to legalize this unit. You know, the the the beauty about this statute, this law is really to bring all these illegally unpermitted units out of the shadows into public eye, make them legal, make them safe, to make the community safer. And I think that's what we're attempting to do here with this uh with this property that we acquired.

Appreciate your time, everyone. Thank you. Does the the board have any questions of the appellent at this time? Any questions for the appellent? Okay. Thank you so much. At this point, what we're going to do is have under the uh building appeals board, we the uh city has a rebuttal at this point. So you can present a brief uh Jay a rebuttal to what that was brought up or anything that was and clar that any points that have been raised or something like that that weren't uh that you didn't address or you can address now and stuff. So go ahead.

Uh thank you very much. Uh and thank you Robert. Um and the we would say that staff is supportive of ADUs and JDU construction across the city of Rialto. Uh, city also at one point had a its own amnesty program where it allowed uh applicants to come forward and there was a reduction in permit fees in order for them to legalize these units. That program ended I believe at the end of 2022 right after CO or uh right around the same timeline that CO was ending. Uh Rialto has leaned forward in providing as much ADU and JDU uh availability as possible. Uh we were one of the first in the Inland Empire uh to just or or we weren't one of the first I I I I we were in line with state statute in providing um pre-approved ADU uh designs for the public right before it became a requirement. Um so we lean forward in that. Um Mr. Ingram is correct in that we were a little behind in the statute when it comes to the noticing and the list of the unfunded state mandate. uh we're still catching up. We're still wrapping our heads around what's right, what's wrong. Uh there are some jurisdictions that have leaned forward in that regard with much larger staffs. Um but uh you know some some of those staffs or cities have directed that policy in that in that manner. Um I don't think there is a way a correct way that you can point to and say hey this is what the state is requiring. So but we have since corrected some of those. Uh I've looked at the uh punch list or checklist from some of the other cities and really all it is is the exact same thing we have with the exception of theirs has a box of yes or no next to the requirement for substandard buildings. Uh so you will see that it is compliant state compliant with what the state has required. Um

uh as as he mentioned they acquired the property in 2023. uh they went forward and renovated the property um or that Jadu so whatever the original condition was at the time they didn't come forward they instead proceeded with the renovation and are now asking for uh the government the you know now that it's been implemented uh they did start with legalization but at any point they could have said hey you know we we should not be moving forward with the renovation without permits we should first approach the city about legalizing this and they failed to do so. They moved forward, they renovated and now because there's this uh 66332, um it's a little, you know, a little of convenience, but uh it's we don't see anything. And again, I I go back to was this or was this not constructed and in existence prior to January 1, 2020, which is really what we're here to do uh and determine. So, uh I turn over to you and any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions of the building official? I do. Okay. Go ahead. Let make sure I understand this so it's right out here so we can all understand it. The crux of this matter is when and in what manner was this area where he wants to put the JDU in when it was enclosed. Am I correct?

So the yes the the it is that is the question. And the crux of the matter is whether or not there was a JDU in existence. Uh whether it was rented uh as a JDU, uh whether there was a JDU, uh you know, what what I'm assuming is that when they saw the enclosure, they immediately attempted to incorporate and JDUs have been around and uh found a you know a convenient enclosed area and incor tried to incorporate it into the building. But this portion um and but we don't see any evidence that it was at any point uh utilizes a JDU. So

So it's not specifically when that area where you're putting where he wants to put the JD or is putting the JDU. It's not specifically how that was enclosed or in what manner that unpermitted work was done. Am I correct? And when correct is more of a matter of whether the Jedu was in existence prior to January 12 was in existence. Yes. Not not not the not the not the square footage, not the structure itself, but a JDU had to have in existence prior to January 1, 2020. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments for the building official regarding the city's rebuttal? Okay, thank you very much. The uh at this point in time, what we're going to do is uh this is the public comment also. So, if anyone would like to speak on this or has requested to speak and filled out a form, has anyone filled anything out for this? No, sir. Okay. Okay. No one's filled out a form. Does anybody want to speak regarding somebody get public input taken on this? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the public comment period. Close public comment period. Motion by Commissioner Gutier. Is there a second? Second. Second. Just to clarify, that's a motion to close the public hearing.

Public hearing. Second. And so, yes, seconded by Commissioner Estavander. Uh, all those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Hearing none. Okay. This is a time where commission as the appeals board can deliberate openly, not in secret and stuff like that, but can talk about what any amongst ourselves or comments that you have at this point before uh we recommend a motion or decision with that. Any comments or anything regarding what's been presented to the board this evening?

Um I do have a question. Um I do know on Google Maps, you're able to research history. Sure. Has that been attempted? Mr. Chair, at this moment, Mr. Chair, at this moment, the public hearing has been closed. Yeah. So, we we can't introduce any new evidence at this stage. So,

yeah, we can't initiate them. So this we got to deliberate on where we're moving forward with this with a with to grant the uh appeal or deny the appeal to be able to do that. So whatever uh any comments regarding that part and then if we don't have any then we'll entertain a motion for uh the next item and and and once we get the motion I'll make a comment about that. Go ahead. Whatever your the pleasure of the the board is. Well, then I would make a motion based upon the information that we received both from from the appellant and from the city that we deny the uh appeal.

I'll second that. So, just to clarify the motion, it's a motion to deny the appellants's appeal and to uphold the planning or the building officials decision. Okay. Correct. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Gutierrez. And before we take the and take a a roll call vote on that one, I'll make sure that other not like the planning commission, but the building review board, appeals board. This is where the the buck stops. This isn't an appealable item to the city council. It stops with this the board. Am I correct? That is correct. And I do also want to clarify that we're the motion is to adopt I'm sorry. to adopt the resolution

upholding or I'm denying the appeal upholding the billing officials decision. That's the motion. Is that correct? Associated. Yeah.

So the So let me repeat it to make sure we we got here. So it's it's the the motion uh Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Gutarius is to adopt in this staff report there was an attached reol resolution which was exhibit H to deny the appellants appeal and uphold the building officials decision that the property at 1443 North Riverside Avenue does not meet the elements listed under government code section 66 332 and that the evidence provided does not substantiate or prove prove that a junior um accessory dwelling unit JDU existed or was constructed prior to January 1st, 2020. That the motion.

That is the motion. That is the motion. Is that your second? Yes. Okay. Very good. And it this is where it ends too at this point, not people. Okay. Very good. Commissioner Secretary, if we could do a roll call on this one, too. Commissioner Avalos via Lobos recused herself. Commissioner Schneider. I vice chair Gutierrez. Hi Chair Story. I Commissioner Espander. I Commissioner Thompson. I Commissioner Coral. Hi.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Now we're going to uh that concludes the uh building appeals board portion. Now we're going to go back into the world of planning commission and we have some uh something here from the community development director that she's going to present to us. So go ahead. Thank you, chair and commission. Um Sandra Robas, our senior planner, is going to um give you guys a brief update on the um housing element update.

Good evening, chair and commission. Um the next item PC250837 is regarding the six cycle housing element. Um, essentially what the housing element is, it's a required part of the uh, general plan that identifies the current and future housing needs and outlines policies and programs to provide housing for all income levels. This um, this draft is has been in the works for a few few years now and um, it is quite a lengthy document. So what we're doing is we are presenting it before the planning commission now to receive and file and during the January 21st planning commission meeting staff will be presenting the item. In the meantime during this review period the planning commission is welcome to contact staff if you have any questions. So as such um the recommendation is for the planning commission to receive and file the document.

Mr. Chair, just just as a matter of formality, note for the record that Commissioner Avalos Vovos return to the commission meeting at 7:22. Thank you. Hey, you know what? You guys never had this when you were chairman, so I'm getting sick and tired of it, I think. So it's okay. I know. It makes it last longer. I just like when I was on staff. Yeah, I know. Okay. Any questions of staff regarding this particular item, this information item regarding the draft housing element update? No.

Okay. So, wait it for So, do we have to take an action on receive and file? No. All right. We get it. And then we will be seeing it at our January 1st, 2026 meeting at that point. Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving on to any planning commission comments. Mr. Chair, can I can I make one more comment, please? Sure. So, we will not be having the first commission meeting in January just as a reminder. So, and then that concludes when you look at the should be the 21st. 21st. January 21st.

Should be the 21st. Yeah. All right. Any other comments, questions, or information they'd like to ask of staff from the commission or anything? Go ahead.

This is new for me as it is for some of us. And the housing report we were just talking about, I ran it up on my computer and that's what close to 800 pages long. And it it caused me to understand clearly the amount and level of work that is done by our uh this department under Christine. The state of California passes about 2,000 laws a year and it's almost impossible for any municipal government to keep up with that. And as they build these plans and these futures for our community, sometimes you have to readress it. And I think that our staff should be lauded for the work that they do with the resources that they have because it really is a very daunting task and it's appreciated by the people who've come to know it like us. when you sit up here and you say, you know, 778 pages and we have to re-up it. It's a big task and I think that that's something we should all be in appreciation of. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from commission and you and you it's only the December 17th. You got a whole month to read all 800 stuff. So, it should be good. So, any other comments or questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. Quick. Don't wait. I just wanted to real quick ask Terry here. Um, I just wanted to wish my father happy birthday. A longtime resident, 70th birthday. Just wanted to put that out there for Corell. There you go. So, thank you. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I motion by Commissioner Gutier. Is there a second? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Ajourn.