Colton City Council
July 15, 2025

City of Colton
City Hall, Council Chambers
650 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
City of Colton Website
Mayor Frank J. Navarro
Council Members:

David J. Toro – District 1
Kelly J. Chastain – District 2
Dr. Luis S. González – District 3
John R. Echevarria – District 4
City Clerk Isaac T. Suchil
City Treasurer Henry M. Razo
City Manager William R. Smith
City Attorney Carlos Campos
Agenda
City Council
Colton Utility Authority, Colton Public Financing Authority, Colton Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 15, 2025 – 5:00 PM
City Hall, Council Chambers
Closed Session
5:00 P.M.

Closed Session Called to Order
Roll Call
_____________________________________________________________________________ Public Comment - Closed Session
This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite your comments regarding Closed Session items. If you wish to address the City Council regarding a Closed Session item, please fill out and submit a public comment card into the public comment card box BEFORE the meeting begins. During the public comment period, the City Clerk will call each speaker by name to approach the podium.

Please begin your public comment by stating your name and your city of residence, then proceed to share the rest of your public comment. You will have a time limit of 3 minutes to complete your public comment; however, the presiding officer does have the authority to exercise discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

It is important to remember that the Council is prohibited by law from discussing or taking immediate action on items during this public comment period; If any matter does require action, it will be referred to by staff for investigation and any report will be provided at a subsequent Council meeting.

If you would like to submit paperwork to the City Council members, you will also need to provide a copy to the City Clerk for the Official Record. _____________________________________________________________________________

Closed Session
1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Jorge Luis Yanez Sanchez v. City of Colton
San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2305484 2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Stephanie Moulas v. City of Colton, et al.

San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No.CIVSB2401378 3) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Representatives: Bill Smith, City Manager & Tom Cody, HR Director Employee Groups: Colton Police Officers Association (CPOA) Colton Police Management Association (CPMA)
Colton Firefighters Association (CFA)
4) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Section 54956.8)) Property: APN 0276-144-55 & 0276-144-54
Agency Negotiator: William R. Smith, City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Satnam Investments LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
5) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Representative: Carlos Campos, City Attorney
Unrepresented Employee: William R. Smith, City Manager
City Attorney Oral Report on Closed Session Actions
_____________________________________________________________________________ Rules of Decorum
To help conduct the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion, the City Council has adopted rules pertaining to decorum and order, as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure. The City Council will strictly enforce these rules in order to allow full expression of ideas and opinions by Council members, staff and the public. Generally, the City's rules of decorum prohibit comments or actions which willfully disrupt the meeting. All remarks and questions shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any particular member. No individual Council member or member of the City staff shall be questioned without first obtaining permission from the Presiding Officer. The City Council asks that all persons - including Council members, staff and the public - act and speak respectfully. _____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ Open Session
6:00 P.M.

Open Session Called to Order
Invocation
Pastor Eric Strutz - The Door Church
Flag Salute
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Commander Bernie Moyeda
Roll Call
_____________________________________________________________________________ Ceremonial Matters
Presentations, Awards, Proclamations
• Business Focus - State Farm Insurance - Scott Manning • Recognition - US Conference of Mayors Climate Award - 1st Place Small City • Employee Years of Service Appreciation and Recognition _____________________________________________________________________________ Mayor and Council Items
Gift Disclosures
Prior to rendering a decision in any proceeding involving a license, permit, contract or other entitlement pending before the City Council, any Council member who has received been promised a gift or gifts aggregating $50.00 or more in value within the preceding twelve months from a party or participant in the proceeding shall disclose that fact either orally or in writing during open session. This disclosure shall be made part of the official public record of the proceeding, either as part of the minutes of the meeting or as a separate writing filed with the city. (CMC Section 2.04.030)
AB 1234 Oral Reports
Members of the City Council shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the city. (GC Section 53232.3(d))
Appointments
• Appointment - Planning Commission - D4 - Bruce McKillop

Mayor and Council Discussion Items
_____________________________________________________________________________ Public Hearings
To speak on Public Hearing items, it is requested that you submit your filled out public comment card into the public comment card box before the meeting begins. Once your name is called you may approach the podium. Please begin your public comment by stating your name and your city of residence; then proceed to share your public comment. The applicant will be allowed 5 minutes to address the Council, and all other people will be allowed 3 minutes. The presiding officer shall have certain discretions to extend or limit the time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.
1) TIME & PLACE FIXED TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ORDINANCE O-08-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION 18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN – AMENDMENT NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 PERTAINING TO LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE 18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE 6 TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021- 2029) AND ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) (FILE INDEX NO. DAP24-0038), ORDINANCE NO. O-08-25.

Staff Person: Heidi Duron
_____________________________________________________________________________ Business Items
There are no Business items.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Public Comment - Limit 3 Minutes
This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite your comments regarding Consent Calendar items or any other general subject. If you wish to address the City Council please fill out and submit a public comment card into the public comment card box BEFORE the meeting begins. During the public comment period, the City Clerk will call each speaker by name to approach the podium.

Please begin your public comment by stating your name and your city of residence, then proceed to share the rest of your public comment. You will have a time limit of 3 minutes to complete your public comment; however, the presiding officer does have the authority to exercise discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

It is important to remember that the Council is prohibited by law from discussing or taking immediate action on items during this public comment period; If any matter does require action, it will be referred to by staff for investigation and any report will be provided at a subsequent Council meeting.

If you would like to submit paperwork to the City Council members, you will also need to provide a copy to the City Clerk for the Official Record. _____________________________________________________________________________ Consent Calendar
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion, unless Council members, staff or the public request that specific items be discussed and/or removed for separate discussions or action.
1) Minutes - Approval of Minutes for the City Council Regular Meetings Held on May 20, 2025 and June 17, 2025, on File in the Office of the City Clerk.

Staff Person: Isaac T. Suchil
2) Warrants - Approve US Bank voucher dated 05/29/2025 and totaling $66,459.62; voucher numbers 219609 to 219688 dated 05/28/2025 and totaling $100,680.52; voucher numbers 219689 to 219804 dated 05/29/2025 and totaling $1,202,944.23; voucher numbers 219805 to 219910 dated 06/05/2025 and totaling $3,095,006.02; voucher numbers 219911 to 220000 dated 06/12/2025 and totaling $1,010,144.26 and voucher numbers 220001 to 220099 dated 06/19/2025 and totaling $434,354.66.

Staff Person: Stacey Dabbs
3) Agreement - Blais & Associates - Approve Agreement with Blais & Associates for Grant Writing Services.

Staff Person: Charles Berry
4) Agreement - AXON Enterprise, Inc. - Approve an Agreement with AXON Enterprise, Inc. for Seventy-Five (75) Body Worn Cameras, Seventy-Five (75) Tasers, Fusus Pro Licenses, and Associated Equipment and Software.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega
5) Bond Release - DAP-001-800 - Approve Release of the Payment and Performance, and Maintenance Bonds for DAP-001-800 (Donut Star) at 736 W. Valley Blvd. – APN: 0162- 122-09 and 0162-122-10.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
6) Budget Amendment - CR&R Disposal Services - Approve and Adopt a Resolution to amend the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Public Works Budget for Solid Waste Professional Services and Streets Professional Services, RESOLUTION NO. R-54-25.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
7) Contract Award - AALRR - Approve the Contract Agreement with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR) for Professional Legal Services.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega

8) CFD Levy - CFD's 2021-1 & 2021-2 - Approve Levy of Special Taxes in CFDs No. 2021-1 and 2021-2 for FY2025-26, RESOLUTION NO. R-55-25 & R-56-25.

Staff Person: Heidi Duron
9) City of Colton Citywide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan - Approve the Citywide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (“CCSAP”) as Recommended by the Traffic Safety Committee, RESOLUTION NO. R-61-25.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
10) Contract Amendment – Epic Land Solutions, Inc. and HW Lochner – Approve Contract Amendment with Epic Land Solutions, Inc and HW Lochner for the Right of Way Phase Support for the Mt. Vernon Avenue over Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Tracks Bridge Widening Project.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
11) Contract Award - LC Paving - Approve the Award of Contract to LC Paving & Sealing, Inc. for West Colton Bike Lane Project in the Amount of $1,978,522.00, RESOLUTION NO. R53-25.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
12) Contract Amendment - Willdan Engineering - Approve Fifth Contract Amendment with Willdan Engineering for Building Support Services for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Staff Person: Heidi Duron
13) Contract - Colton Joint Unified School District - Approve a Three (3) Year Contract with Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD) for the Provision of School Resource Officers.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega
14) Contract Renewal - Motorola Solutions - Approve Renewal of Contract with Motorola Solutions for GIS Managed Services and Support for the ArcGIS Pro Migration.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega
15) Correction to Contract Amendment - Ninyo & Moore - Approve Correction to Contract Amendment with Ninyo & Moore to Complete Environmental Work at the Corporate Yard.

Staff Person: Charles Berry
16) Grant Acceptance & Purchase - Officer Wellness & Mental Health Grant - Approve and Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Officer Wellness & Mental Health Grant, and Approve Purchase of Equipment from Advanced Exercise, RESOLUTION NO. R-58-25.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega

17) Investment Policy - Approve Update to the City Investment Policy.

Staff Person: Stacey Dabbs
18) Lease Agreement - Enterprise Fleet Management Inc. - Approve a Master Equity Lease Agreement with Enterprise Fleet Management Inc., for Ford Explorer Police Interceptors and Unmarked/Administrative Vehicles.

Staff Person: Anthony Vega
19) Approve and Adopt the City of Colton Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) - Approve and Adopt the City of Colton Sewer System Management Plan and Rescind Resolution No.

R-124-15, RESOLUTION NO. R-62-25.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
20) NOC - Fire Station 212 Driveway Replacement Project - Approve the Execution and Recordation of the Notice of Completion for the Fire Station 212 Driveway Replacement Project.

Staff Person: Chad Blais
_____________________________________________________________________________ Mayor and Council Oral Reports and Comments
Comments from Mayor and Council on various issues and activities throughout the community. Comments shall be limited to 5 Minutes per speaker.

City Manager's Reports
Adjournment

_____________________________________________________________________________ I, Stephanie M. Vargas, the Chief Deputy City Clerk, hereby certify that a true and correct, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954(a), at the following locations:

City of Colton City Hall 650 N. La Cadena Drive
City of Colton Website, www.coltonca.gov
_____________________________________________________________________________ Procedures for Addressing City Council
For the Official Record, it is requested that you submit your filled out public comment card into the public comment card box before the meeting begins. Once your name is called by the City Clerk you may approach the podium to speak. Please begin your public comment by stating your name and your city of residence; then proceed to share your public comment. The City Council encourages public input on all City issues within the Rules of Decorum. Speakers will be limited to the time periods provided on the agenda; provided, however, that the Presiding Officer shall have certain discretion to extend or limit time as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure.

Rules of Decorum
To help conduct the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion, the City Council has adopted rules pertaining to decorum and order, as provided for in the City Council Manual of Procedure. The City Council will strictly enforce these rules in order to allow full expression of ideas and opinions by Council members, staff and the public. Generally, the City's rules of decorum prohibit comments or actions which willfully disrupt the meeting. All remarks and questions shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any particular member. No individual Council member or member of the City staff shall be questioned without first obtaining permission from the Presiding Officer. The City Council asks that all persons - including Council members, staff and the public - act and speak respectfully.

Notice to Public
Staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item referred to, on the agenda, are available for public inspection at the following locations: Office of the City Clerk, 650 N. La Cadena Drive, Colton, CA; City of Colton Public Library, 656 9th St., Colton, CA; or the City of Colton Internet Website, www.coltonca.gov. Any person who has questions concerning any item on the agenda may call the City Clerk’s office at (909) 370 - 5001 to make an inquiry concerning the nature of the item described on the agenda. The City Clerk’s office shall direct inquiries to the appropriate office.

All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion, unless Council members, staff or the public request that specific items be discussed and/or removed for separate discussions or action.

In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 909-370-

5001. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Legal Challenges
If you challenge in court any discussion or action taken concerning an item on this Agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the meeting or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the City's consideration of the item at the meeting.

Manual of Procedure
The City Council adopted its Manual of Procedure pursuant to Resolution No. R-41-18, with the latest updates being approved on November 2, 2021. Copies are available in the office of the City Clerk.

Item: 1.

Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 15, 2025
To: City Council
From: Bill Smith, City Manager
Prepared By: Heidi Duron, Director
Item Name: TIME & PLACE FIXED TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ORDINANCE O08-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION 18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN – AMENDMENT NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 PERTAINING TO LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE 18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE 6 TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021-2029) AND ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) (FILE INDEX NO. DAP24-0038), ORDINANCE NO. O-08-25.

Recommended Action:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for the first reading and pass by title only:

Ordinance No. O-08-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION 18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN – AMENDMENT NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 PERTAINING TO LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE 18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021-2029) AND ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) (FILE INDEX

NO. DAP24-0038).

Background:

Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan. The CHCCSP was adopted on November 21, 2014. The document replaced the existing West Valley Specific Plan, which was adopted June 1996. The CHCCSP was amended in November 2016 to include the RES-1 zone.

Housing Element. The State of California requires jurisdictions to update their Housing Element every eight years. Housing Element State of California Government Code Section 65580-65589.11 outlines the necessary requirements and components to be included in the Housing Element to ensure compliance with State law. Jurisdictions are required to submit their Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and for determination of whether the Housing Element achieves substantial compliance with State law. Once HCD has determined that a Housing Element meets the necessary requirements, it issues a letter of substantial compliance. Throughout preparation of a Housing Element, HCD provides guidance and technical assistance to jurisdictions to assist them in achieving compliance with applicable State laws.

HCD and the California Department of Finance are responsible for assessing the new housing needs of different regions across the State. The City of Colton is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, which has a cumulative Regional Housing Needs Determination of 1,341,827 new units. SCAG has distributed these units to each jurisdiction within the region in a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Colton’s RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period was determined by SCAG to be 5,434 housing units, including 1,318 units for very-low-income households, 668 units for low-income households, 906 units for moderate-income households, and 2,542 units for above-moderate-income households.

The City of Colton began updating its 6th Cycle Housing Element in early 2021. A total of five meetings and workshops were held for the Housing Element between February 2021 and January 2022, and two additional public meetings were held in October 2023. The Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on January 4, 2022 (Resolution R-04-23).

The Housing Element went through several rounds of review by HCD throughout 2021 to 2023. The most recent letter from HCD was received on December 11, 2023. This letter states that once the rezoning efforts as outlined in Program 10 (Mixed-Use Development) and Program 11 (Rezoning Sites), and Program 18 (By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” RHNA Sites) are completed and submitted, the Housing Element would comply with State law. The CHCCSP amendment implements pieces of Programs 10 and 11 to rezone sites in the CHCCSP area used to meet the City’s RHNA. This would bring the City’s Housing Element into full compliance with State law. In order to be fully compliant, the City needs to complete the rezoning in Programs 10 and 11. There are no “reuse” sites within the CHCCSP.

Community Meeting and PC Study Session CHCCSP. On April 9, 2025, the first community meeting was held with about 600 public notices including property owners/residents/tenants. In addition, staff sent out notices to home builders interested in developing the CHCCSP. Eight residents attended and received handouts about the project, heard a presentation by staff and asked questions during Question and Answer. Mayor Pro Tempore was present at this meeting as well as three City staff members.

The community meeting was held in the California University of Science and Medicine (CUSM) facilities. A copy of the Presentation and other materials are available as part of Attachment 1, which includes materials taken to the meeting. The following notes include areas that were discussed and/or questions asked about the plan or general development of the CHCCSP:
• Question of the status of the habitat area also known as the Habitat Conservation are of the Endangered Species Act for the Federally Endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (future development, removal of the designation, other general information).
• Comment received about beautifying the curb appeal/landscape buffers of the areas fenced around the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly.
• Question/Comment received concerning issues with mosquitoes coming from protected conservation area where the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is located.
• Question/comment about future cross traffic through Wildrose Avenue in northern direction through San Bernardino Avenue.
• Question about review of environmental information from developers third party consultants instead of City generated environmental reports/studies.
• Question received about whether Section 8 Homes will be generated with new development. • Question about the maximum height of buildings and general development standards. • Comment from one of the participants with a nursing background stating that their family lives in the new homes from San Bernardino Avenue and west of Indigo Avenue. If the City planned for medical staff to move there it is working in

his opinion.
• Comment about looking forward to new residential community and applauded the City in moving in this direction in creating beautiful neighborhoods to recreate, live and work.

A Planning Commission Study Session was held on April 22, 2025, which included a presentation of the draft amendments of the CHCCSP followed up with a discussion and question and answer period. All but one commissioners were in attendance. The following questions were asked and discussed regarding the specific plan and general development of the CHCCSP. • Question regarding whether rooftop landscaping counts towards the common open space requirement. • Question regarding what the expected buildout is for the 17 parcels in the HCCSP, and the likelihood of a master planned community application.
• Question regarding whether the objective design standards in the HCCSP are commonly applied in other jurisdictions. • Question regarding project phasing and if there would be one developer or if all 17 sites would develop individually. • Question regarding how the HCCSP will impact schools and how school impact fees will be applied. • Question regarding the determination and need for fire protection services in the HCCSP area and how impact fees will be applied.
• Question regarding the project’s impacts on traffic.
• Comment from an individual supporting the potential housing options planned for in the HCCSP, to support employees of Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.

At a public hearing held on June 10, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Colton, by a 4-0 vote, voted to recommend City Council approval of Colton HUB City Centre Specific Plan Amendments (Map and Text) to various provisions within the CHCCSP by adopting Resolution R-12-25. (See Attachment 1 for PC Resolution R-12-25 and Attachment 2 for Approved PC Minutes) The Planning Commission removed the proposed Amortization Ordinance from the recommendation and continued it for another discussion at a separate meeting with the Planning Commission to occur in July or August of 2025. Staff also received a number of letters opposing the project which are included in this staff report (See Attachment 3).

Proposal
The proposed project includes an amendment to the CHCCSP in conformance with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029).

Overall, the changes proposed to comply with the 6th Cycle Housing Element will result in the rezoning of 17 parcels totaling approximately 93.86 acres within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 19 of the CHCCSP. The rezoning includes a projected 2,226 units as identified in the Housing Element (53% of the RHNA).

The sites identified would be rezoned to RES-MU (Residential Mixed-Use), which is a new zoning district. The new RES-MU zone would allow a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of 40 du/ac. The zone would allow mixed-use projects as well as standalone residential and standalone commercial. To comply with State law, for mixed-use projects that have a residential component, the zone would require at least 50% of the total floor area to be occupied by a residential use.

The revisions to Chapter 4 of the CHCCSP introduce the new zone and set development standards including lot requirements, density standards, setbacks, lot coverage, height, parking, and ground floor transparency requirements. The development standards allow flexibility for a variety of housing types and uses. Many of the uses in the existing zone would be retained and multifamily residential uses would be added.

In addition, the amendment to the CHCCSP includes Objective Design Standards (ODS) that apply to the new RES-MU zone.

Through Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330 State legislation requires projects to be reviewed against objective standards for eligible multifamily projects. The Objective Design Standards in the CHCCSP are intended to make development projects more predictable and easier to interpret for all users (i.e. decision makers, staff, applicants, and members of the public) and to ensure applicants know beforehand what requirements apply to a proposed development and if their project meets those requirements before submittal.

The ODS in the CHCCSP provides standards that can be measured and verified to ensure the proposed project satisfies the design intent and vision set forth in the Specific Plan. The ODS provides standards that regulates the following:
• Building Orientation and Layout
• Site Access and Parking

• Utilities and Trash Enclosures
• Building Form
• Building Height, Massing, and Articulation
• Open Space
• Roof Forms, Entries, and Windows
• Garage
The second part of the CHCCSP amendments include:

Specific Plan Zoning Text Amendments:
• The revised project would result in the rezoning of 17 parcels totaling approximately 93.86 acres within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 19 of the CHCCSP.
• The rezoning includes a projected 2,226 units as identified in the Housing Element (53% of the RHNA). • The sites identified would be rezoned to RES-MU (Residential Mixed-Use), which is a new zoning district. • The new RES-MU zone would allow a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of 40 du/ac.
• The zone would allow mixed-use projects as well as standalone residential and standalone commercial. • To comply with state law, for mixed-use projects that have a residential component, the zone would require at least 50% of the total floor area to be occupied by residential use. • The revisions to Chapter 4 of the CHCCSP introduce the new zone and set development standards including lot requirements, density standards, setbacks, lot coverage, height, parking, and ground floor transparency requirements. • The development standards allow flexibility for a variety of housing types and uses. Many of the uses in the existing zone would be retained and multifamily residential uses would be added. • The amendment to the CHCCSP includes Objective Design Standards (ODS) that apply to the new RES-MU zone.

Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330 require projects to be reviewed against objective standards for eligible multifamily projects.
• The ODS in the CHCCSP provides standards that can be measured and verified to ensure the proposed project satisfies the design intent and vision set forth in the Specific Plan. The ODS provides standards that regulate the following:

Building Orientation and Layout; Site Access and Parking; Utilities and Trash Enclosures; Building Form; Building Height, Massing, and Articulation; Open Space; Roof Forms, Entries, and Windows; and Garages.

Attachment 4, 4.1, & 4.2 includes, draft City Council Ordinance O-08-25 including Exhibits A-1 (Addendum to 2014 Certified EIR) and A-2 (Amendments to CHCCSP) respectively.

Issues/Analysis:

CHCCSP Rezoning Project. The proposed project would allow for compliance with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029). Specifically, the CHCCSP amendment will implement pieces of Programs 10 and 11 to rezone sites in the CHCCSP area used to meet the City’s RHNA. This is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into full compliance with State Law.

The project will also ensure the City complies with State law regarding ODS. A complete CHCCSP is included in Attachment

5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Analysis for CHCCSP Rezoning Project. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the CHCCSP was certified in 2014 (State Clearinghouse No. 2008041067). One addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared in March 2018 to address the NEC 10 Pepper Project. A subsequent addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared in April 2023 related to the Business Park at 2245 West Valley Boulevard (DAP-001-778) Project. (See Attachment 4 for Addendum to EIR) An Addendum to the Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan EIR (proposed project) was prepared under the City’s authority in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the analysis presented in the Addendum, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified 2014 EIR, nor are there any other circumstances that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared because the proposed modifications to the CHCCSP do not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs in use than what was assumed in the 2014 EIR, those modifications do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections

15162 and 15163, respectively. The Addendum to the 2014 EIR demonstrates that no substantial changes would result from the revised project modifications nor have the existing conditions in the project vicinity substantially changed such that major revisions to the 2014 EIR would be required. The project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed development, as compared to the 2014 EIR, do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the proposed development is sufficiently similar to that analyzed in the 2014 EIR such that the impacts of the proposed development are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 2014 EIR.

In addition, no substantial changes in circumstances under Section 15162(a)(2) have occurred since the certification of the 2014 EIR for the adopted approved project that would result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified, since the background environmental conditions have not significantly changed since that time. The City of Colton has received no information indicating there has been a substantial change in any circumstances that would result in a new or substantially greater significant impact.

Furthermore, no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2014 EIR preparation, has been revealed that shows new or substantially greater significant impacts would result (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). There are no new or different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the adopted approved project but that are not adopted. The proposed modifications do not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures or alternatives beyond those provided in the 2014 EIR for the adopted approved project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). The following link for complete copy of the updated CHCCSP:

Correspondence Received on projects. As of June 2, 2025, the majority of the comments received from both Community Meeting and Planning Commission Study Session are in support of the proposed rezoning within CHCCSP. One of the major property owners within the CHCCSP area submitted a Development Application for an industrial/commercial project on September 26, 2024, for a 652,060 square foot logistics warehouse project plus 130,941 square feet of retail space on approximately 72.4 acres within the CHCCSP existing Retail and Retail Mixed Use land use designations. The Development Application is presently incomplete.

On May 20, 2025, the staff also met with Arrowhead Regional Hospital principal staff members on the proposed amendments.

They are in support of the proposed residential/commercial uses. However, the hospital representatives expressed their disappointment with the industrial/commercial proposal mentioned above.

On May 30, 2025, the City received a few questions from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) after reviewing documents from the amendment. Our response to the questions are below:

1. We’ll add language for that in Ch 7 of the HCCSP, which covers administration. Can you let us know if the following is adequate: “Housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households and that are located on sites identified as rezone RHNA sites in the City’s housing element shall be allowed by right. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(i), by rights mean that no conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code shall be required.”

2. Correct that the excerpts just cover the sites in the HCCSP. The rezones will be done in two separate projects, so the City will send over a separate set of amendments that cover the other sites. The project requires an EIR that is currently being drafted.

3. I’ve attached the list of the sites that this portion of the rezoning covers. Let me know if you need any more information on these sites. (Excel spreadsheet of the sites location and various data requested by the state)

4. None of the sites in the HCCSP are reused sites, since they are being rezoned to allow multifamily residential.

Implementation of Program 18 would be a part of a different project so I’ll defer to Mario and Heidi on if that has been completed yet and what the timeline of that would be. Do you have any language you could share with us on what that amendment might look like?
Fiscal Impacts:

Approval of this item has no additional fiscal impact. The preparation of Specific Plan Amendments was included in the adopted FY2024-25 and FY2025-26 budgets. Future projects will pay adopted building permit fees, development impact fees, school fees and other development fees as applicable.

Alternatives:

Provide Alternative Direction to staff.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1_PC Reso R-12-25_DAP24-0038_Signed

2. Attachment 2_June 10, 2025_PC Minutes_Final

3. Attachment 3_Letters Received for June 10, 2025, PC Meeting2

4. Attachment 4_CC Ordinance No. O-08-25

5. Attachment 4.1_Exhibit A-1 of Ordinance No. O-08-25

6. Attachment 4.2_Exhibit A-2 of Ordinance No. O-08-25

7. Attachment 5_Complete CHCCSP with Amendments July 14, 2025

Planning Commission Resolution R-12-25 and Exhibits
ATTACHMENT 1

1 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. R-12-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION

18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN –
AMENDMENT NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 PERTAINING

TO LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION
OF TITLE 18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY
WITH THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021-2029)

AND ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) (FILE INDEX NO. DAP24-0038)
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2014, the City Council of the City of Colton (“City Council”) adopted the Colton’s HUB City Centre Specific Plan (An Amendment of the West Valley Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, the CHCCSP includes Community Planning & Design Goals, Land Use Plan & Components, Development Regulations, Community Design Guidelines & Objective Design Standards, Administration of the Specific Plan for the orderly development of the CHCCSP project area with a mix of land uses; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Colton (“Planning Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommend that the City Council adopted Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 (Case Index No. DAP24-0038) to amend Table of Contents, Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7 pertaining to Land Use & Components, Development Regulations, Community Design Guidelines & Objective Design Standards, and Administrative and voted 4-0 approving Resolution No. R-12-25 as modified; and WHEREAS, CHCCSP Amendments - Addendum. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162, an addendum to a

2 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
previously certified EIR may be prepared in cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts .

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
COLTON DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The recitals above are true and correct and are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that, under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared because the proposed modifications to the CHCCSP do not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR within Exhibit-“A.1” of this resolution. Although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs in use than what was assumed in the 2014 EIR, those modifications do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, respectively. The Addendum to the 2014 EIR demonstrates that no substantial changes would result from the revised project modifications nor have the existing conditions in the project vicinity substantially changed such that major revisions to the 2014 EIR would be required. The project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed development, as compared to the 2014 EIR, do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the proposed development is sufficiently similar to that

5 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Exhibit-A-2
ORDINANCE NO. O-XX-25

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLTON, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION 18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN – AMENDMENT
NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND VARIOUS
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 PERTAINING TO LAND

USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE
18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE
6 TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021-2029) AND

ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) (FILE INDEX NO. DAP24-0038)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colton desires to amend certain provisions of the Colton HUB City Centre Specific Plan (CHCCSP) and Zoning Code to ensure consistency with state law; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2014, the City Council of the City of Colton (“City Council”) adopted the Colton’s HUB City Centre Specific Plan (An Amendment of the West Valley Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, the CHCCSP includes Community Planning & Design Goals, Land Use Plan & Components, Development Regulations, Community Design Guidelines & Objective Design Standards, Administration of the Specific Plan for the orderly development of the CHCCSP project area with a mix of land uses; and
Exhibit – “A-2” of PC Reso No. R-12-25

6 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Colton (“Planning Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommend that the City Council adopted Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 (Case Index No. DAP24-0038) to amend Table of Contents, Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7 pertaining to Land Use & Components, Development Regulations, Community Design Guidelines & Objective Design Standards, and Administrative and Voted 4-0 Approving Resolution R-12-2025, as modified; and WHEREAS, CHCCSP Amendments - Addendum. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162, an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared in cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts .

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Colton does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council find that, under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared because the proposed modifications to the CHCCSP do not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR contained in Exhibit A.1 attached hereto.

Although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs in use than what was assumed in the 2014 EIR, those modifications do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, respectively. The Addendum to the 2014 EIR demonstrates that no substantial changes would result from the revised project modifications nor have the existing conditions in the project vicinity substantially changed such that major revisions to the 2014 EIR would be required. The project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or a substantial

7 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed development, as compared to the 2014 EIR, do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the proposed development is sufficiently similar to that analyzed in the 2014 EIR such that the impacts of the proposed development are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 2014 EIR.

SECTION 3. General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1.1, LU-1.2 and LU-1.8 Housing Element Program 10 (Mixed-Use Development), and 11 (Rezoning Sites) as a matter of law under Government Code section 66314(c) as further defined below:

Policy LU-1.1: Ensure that all new development conforms to all applicable provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Code; in that, the proposed changes are consistent with adopted 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Programs and as recommended for changes within Programs 10 (Update Zoning Standards) and 11 (Rezoning Sites).

Policy LU-1.2: Evaluate existing Specific Plans to ensure continued appropriateness in relation to the goals and policies of the General Plan and the City’s long‐term vision, and to reflect planned land use. After evaluation, maintain, amend, or repeal Specific Plans, as appropriate; in that, the proposed CHCCSP Map and Text Amendments are consistent with Policies within the City’s 2013 adopted Land Use Element and 2021- 2029 6th Cycle Housing Element as noted within this resolution.

Policy LU-1.8 Interpret the Land Use Plan in a manner that provides for compatibility between adjacent land uses, and that allows the City to achieve land use, design, and economic development objectives; in that, the proposed amendments to the Administrative Section of the CHCCSP address approval process that requires project compliance with

8 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Objective Design Standards (ODS) for projects reviewed ministerially and land use compliance with ODS and compatibility findings for projects requiring review by the Planning Commission.

Program 10. Update Zoning Standards; in that, the proposed amendment to the Colton HUB City Centre Specific Plan (CHCCSP) includes updating development standards, adding Objective Design Standards, and increasing allowable residential densities consistent with the City’s 2021- 2029 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 11. Rezoning Sites; in that, overall, the revised CHCCSP project, the changes pertaining to the 6th Cycle Housing Element “Programing,” would result in the rezoning of 17 parcels totaling approximately 93.86 acres within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 19 of the CHCCSP. The rezoning includes a projected 2,226 units as identified in the Housing Element (53% of the RHNA).

SECTION 4. Specific Plan Code and Map Amendment. Title 18, Section 18.34.040 (Colton’s HUB City Centre Specific Plan – Amendment No. 2) amending table of contents and various provisions of sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 pertaining to land use, development standards & administration of Title 18 of the Colton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as provided in Exhibit “A-2,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 6. HCD Submittal. In accordance with Government Code section 66326, the City Clerk is directed to submit a copy of this Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and post or publish this Ordinance as required by law.

9 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SECTION 8. Custodian of Records. The custodian of records for this Ordinance is the City Clerk and the records comprising the administrative record are located at 650 N. La Cadena Drive, Colton, CA 92324.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

SECTION 10. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING.

The City Council Finds that under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR was prepared because the proposed modifications to the CHCCSP do not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs in use than what was assumed in the 2014 EIR, those modifications do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, respectively. The Addendum to the 2014 EIR demonstrates that no substantial changes would result from the revised project modifications nor have the existing conditions in the project vicinity substantially changed such that major revisions to the 2014 EIR would be required. The project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed development, as compared to the 2014 EIR, do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the proposed development is sufficiently similar to that analyzed in the 2014 EIR such that the impacts of the proposed development are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 2014 EIR.

10 23152.06300\41318891.2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

SECTION 12. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance. Not later than fifteen (15) days following the passage of this ordinance, the ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Colton.

SECTION 13. FILING. The City Clerk shall submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. The City Clerk shall also submit a Notice of Exemption within three days after adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Colton, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of _________, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
FRANK J. NAVARRO, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
ISAAC T. SUCHIL, City Clerk

CITY OF COLTON

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 650 NORTH LA CADENA DRIVE, COLTON, CA 92324 REGULAR MEETING –TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025 – 5:30 P.M.

A. CALL TO ORDER at 5:30pm
B. ROLL CALL
Present
Richard Prieto
Adrianna Escarcega
Leticia (“Tish”) Baden
Gary Grossich
Commissioners Absent:

None
Staff Present:

Heidi Duron, Development Services Director
William “Jim” Priest, Assistant City Attorney – BB&K
Mario Suarez, Planning Manager
Steve Gonzales, Associate Planner
Jesus Guerra, Assistant Planner
Alicia Gonzalez, Michael Baker International (MBI), City Consultant Shannon Liska, Michael Baker International (MBI), City Consultant C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice Chair Gary Grossich D. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR
May 27, 2025, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Motion and second by Commissioner_Grossich_ / Commissioner Baden Roll Call vote: Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None
F. NEW BUSINESS

1. FILE INDEX NO.: DAP25-0022 SUBDIVISION 2ND TIME EXTENSION Commissioners:

Richard Prieto, District 1
Adrianna Escarcega, District 2
Letitia Baden, District 3
Vacant, District 4
Gary Grossich, At Large

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2025

APPLICANT: William Southworth
PROPERTY OWNER: RR105* LLC
PROPERTY LOCATION: West of South La Cadena Drive and East of Old Pellisseir Road ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 1167-011-01; 1167-011-02; 1167-021-21; 1167-021-01; 1167-021-05; 1167-021-22; 1167-021-23& 1167-031-18
REQUEST: One-Year Time Extension request (Second Extension) for approved Tentative Tract Map No. 20041 (DAP-001-748) (“A” Map) for the division of land solely for the purpose of financing or conveying title to all or a portion of the land within the Roquet Ranch Specific Plan (RRSP). 19 total lots consisting of 12 lots for future subdivision and development, 2 lots for recreation, 4 open space lots and areas for dedication of right-of-way for the street network located on land area of 339.8 acres made up of 111.9 acres of residential areas, 23 acres of recreation areas, 190.07 acres of open space areas, and 14.2 acres of street circulation areas located west of La Cadena Drive and east of Old Pellissier Road.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Staff analyzed the proposal for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. The proposed project has determined that there is no possibility that the time extension request may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Therefore, the proposed use is exempt under Article 19, Section 15061 b. (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Presented by: Jesus Guerra, Assistant Planner
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approve Second Extension of Time for DAP-001-748, which will set a new expiration date of June 28, 2026. Approved Planning Commission Resolutions shall remain in effect with this two-year time extension.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None

COMMISSION ACTION
Motion and second by Commissioner Grossich / Commissioner Escarcega Roll Call vote: Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
G. HEARING ITEMS

1. FILE INDEX NUMBER DAP24-0038 MUNICIPAL CODE & CHCCSP AMENDMENT APPLICANT: City of Colton – Development Services Department PROPERTY OWNER: Various

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2025

PROPERTY LOCATION: Citywide and Located within the Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan (CHCCSP) Area. The CHCCSP Area consists of a 373-acre area bounded by San Bernardino Avenue to the north, the City of Rialto to the west, the Interstate-10 (I-10) freeway to the south, and Hermosa Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east.

ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP NUMBERS: Citywide and 0254-061-30, 0254-071-62, 0254-071-63, 0254-071-64, 0254-071-65, 0254-071-61, 0254-051-14, 0254-071-58, 0254-051-69, 0254-071-49, 0254-071-47, 0254-071-27, 0254-071-50, 0254-071-43, 0254-071-44, 0254-071-25, and 0254-051-

13. REQUEST: Request for Specific Plan & Municipal Code Amendments: A recommendation to the City Council concerning amendments to Chapter 18.46 of the Colton Municipal Code and amendments to the Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan (CHCCSP) (Specific Plan Amendment No. 2) to comply with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) and proposed text amendments to 18.46.303 and

18.46.050 and within the CHCCSP for amortization procedural requirements for nonconforming uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 1. CHCCSP Amendments - Addendum. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162, an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared in cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts, and 2. Amortization Municipal and CHCCSP Amendments – Exemption. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since the project establishes procedural requirements for the establishment of amortization periods and does not result in changes to the environment.

Presented by: Mario Suarez, Planning Manager, Shannon Liska, MBI and Jim Priest, BB&K STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of roposed Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan amendments through adoption of the attached Resolution titled.

RESOLUTION NO. R-12-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18, SECTION 18.34.040 (COLTON’S HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN – AMENDMENT NO. 2) AMENDING TABLE OF CONTENTS AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, AND 7

PERTAINING TO LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE 18 OF THE COLTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2021-2029) AND ACCOMPANYING ADDENDUM TO

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COLTON HUB CITY CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008041067) AND CEQA

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2025

EXCEMPTION SECTION 15061(B)(3) AS IT PERTAINS TO AMORTIZATION PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (FILE INDEX NO. DAP24-0038)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Andrew Goldfraut, ARMC – supporting project
Lewis Bravo – 320 Rexford opposed – keep zoning the same.

Tim Kagoy – oppose rezoning & amortization.

Jose Rubi – oppose rezoning & amortization
Juan Espinoza – opped rezoning & amortization
Jesse – oppose rezoning & amortization.

Efrim Viama – oppose rezoning & amortization
Julio Gavilanes, Jr. – oppose rezoning & amortization
Crystal Ochoa – oppose rezoning & amortization
Robin Haaker – McNeils – Oppose rezoning & amortization Mathew Noods – Haacker Equipment Company – oppose rezoning & amortization Eve Brackman – oppose rezoning & amortization
Pamela Sapetto – oppose rezoning & amortization
Allison Dickson – oppise rezoning & amortization
Bruce Balfour – oppose rezoning & amortization
The Commission generally concurred on tabling Exhibit “B” of Resolution No. R-12-25, to allow additional discussion and provide notice to business owners of the proposed amortization ordinance.

COMMISSION ACTION
Motion and second by Commissioner Grossich / Commissioner Escarcega to table Amortization item “B” of Resolution R-12-25.

Roll Call vote: Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
H. DIRECTOR’S REMARKS/REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
None
I. COMMISSION COMMENTS

COMMISSIONER RICHARD PRIETO
• Commented on how developers can build their projects faster. • Concerns about P&G moving forward with their improvements.

COMMISSIONER ADRIANNA ESCARCEGA
• Comments about as a Commissioner they do sometimes act as educators of the community understanding the different jurisdictional areas when processing projects. • Appreciates staff listening to commission concerns and in improving Colton. • Went to Vallarta – looks great and impressed, liked the new look and overall presentation brought an elevated level of class to the commercial center.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2025

COMMISSIONER LETITIA BADEN
• Comments about rezoning, RHNA, and value of property.

COMMISSIONER GARY GROSSICH
• San Bernardino County approved project for Red Roof.
• Likes mixed-use projects in meeting city housing objectives. • Suggested projects that don’t meat timeframe that ther Commission be informed. • Was working during Vallarta Opening, excited about the project. • Donut Star – trendous opening and looking forward in seeing Woody’s come to the City. • A lot of good things happening in the City.
• Staff working hard on the housing element as long as he can remember. • Thanked City Consultants for coming out.

J. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Baden.

Meeting adjourned at 7:58 pm
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Documents Related to Open Session Agendas (SB 343). Any public record, relating to an open session agenda item, that is distributed within 72 hours prior to the meeting is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 p.m. at theCity ofColton Development Services Department located at the Civic Center Annex (across the street from City Hall) at 659 N. La Cadena Drive, Colton, CA 92324. The meeting will be an in-person meeting and comments via telephone or zoom will not be available.

Appeal of Planning Commission Action. If you challenge in court any action of the Planning Commission related to a public hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the CityCouncil. An appeal must be filed within ten (10) days following the appellant’s receipt of notice of the action.

ADA Compliance. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a Planning Commission Meeting, please contact the Planning Division at 909-370-5079. Notification forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Letters Received at June 10, 2025, Planning
Commission Meeting
• Republic Machine & Fabrication Inc.
• Haaker Equipment
• Amcal Automotive
• CDS So Cal_Clean Diesel Specialists 1
• CDS So Cal_Clean Diesle Specialists 2
• Munck Wilson Mandala with Index of Exhibits
ATTACHMENT 3

A Limited Liability PartnershipDallasAustinHoustonWacoLos AngelesBoca Raton/MiamiOrlandowww.munckwilson.com Eve A. Brackmann, Esq.

Direct Dial: 310.855.3314 Email: [email protected] June 6, 2025
Via Email and FedEx
Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
City of Colton Development Services
659 North La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
[email protected]
Re: Colton Hub City Center Specific Plan (CHCCSP) Specific Plan Amendment No. 2; FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038-- Objections and Comments by Crown Enterprises, LLC (1849 W. Valley Blvd.)
Dear Mr. Suarez:

We represent Crown Enterprises, LLC (“Crown”), the owner of the property at 1849 W. Valley Boulevard, Colton, CA 92324 (the “Crown Terminal”), and submit this letter in opposition to proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2, noticed for public hearing on June 10, 2025.

The proposed rezoning and amortization provisions are legally defective, procedurally flawed, and would create the risk of severe consequences for the City, community, and local businesses.

Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject this proposal.

Pursuant to Cal. Public Resources Code § 21177 and all other applicable law, Crown objects on the following grounds (as further discussed below):

1. Environmental: CEQA review is inadequate; a Subsequent EIR is required.

2. Legal Exposure: The amortization scheme raises serious constitutional issues, other legal problems, and may obligate the City to pursue costly eminent domain or risk inverse condemnation claims.

3. Less-Burdensome Alternatives: Options such as a zoning overlay would reduce disruption to property owners, workers, and businesses, and alleviate the environmental and legal challenges.

4. Procedural Deficiencies: This proposal abounds with procedural deficiencies and other concerns, such as failure to define the amortization period, lack of financial and individualized impact analysis, and insufficient stakeholder engagement.

Accordingly, Crown respectfully requests that the Planning Commission reject Proposed Amendment No. 2, or at least defer its decision pending full CEQA review and meaningful consideration of less-aggressive alternatives. Crown expressly reserves all rights under CEQA, state and federal takings law, and other applicable authority.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
2 | P a g e
Brief Summary of Relevant Underlying Events Involving the Crown Terminal Crown is a multi-generational, family-owned transportation and logistics enterprise. Its affiliated tenant, Central Transport LLC, a national, less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carrier, currently employs 46 people at the Crown Terminal. Crown has paid over $200,000 in property taxes to the City of Colton since 2011.

Throughout its decades-long ownership and operation of the trucking operations at the Crown Terminal, Crown and its affiliates (currently, Central Transport) have employed a significant number of people at the Crown Terminal. Many of these people live nearby, in Colton and surrounding communities. They have purchased homes and raised families here. They had the opportunity to tell their stories at the December 10, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing regarding a separate zoning dispute that Crown has had with the City for the past five years.

The stories told by Crown’s Colton employees had a profound impact. A copy of the transcript hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit A with some of the key portions highlighted. For example:
• “I’d be happy to work with the City of Colton. […] I can’t get out. I’ve got a business that I care about, employees that I care about. I’ve got an operation that serves customers. Many folks that make things and ship things that are located in the City of Colton. Many businesses that received this shipment in the city of Colton, we serve them. That’s what these gentlemen do right here. It’s their livelihood. I ask you to resolve this. We will do whatever is necessary to make the City whole.” (Matthew Moroun, President of Crown Enterprises, pp. 40:10- 41:1.)
• “[T]onight, the punishment is on us. The only people in this room that’s gonna feel it if you guys make a decision to shut that terminal down is the people that got these uniforms…We can’t – we’re hesitant to buy Christmas gifts. We might need this money that we have to pay bills because we don’t have a job. Does anyone understand what I’m saying?...It’s the people in these uniforms that are going to hurt and more people that are not here.” (Dwight, Crown Enterprises Employee [Driver], p. 125:10-24.)
• “[L]ike the gentleman before me, the only people that are going to be hurting if that building is closed down is going to be us. And I am 58 years old, and I can’t go out and find a job that fast. And I live paycheck by paycheck. So I mean, sure I’ve got a little something, something for a rainy day, but that’s not gonna – that’s not going to last for very long. So I ask you guys to please keep it open, to go for us. I would gladly appreciate it.” (William Gavelones, Jr., Crown employee, p. 127:4-23.)
• “I’ve been here for three years as a truck driver. It’s kind of hard to find a place to call home. I had to go on the road just over a year and a half just to get enough experience to get a local job. And then now they talk about it’s going to shut down. So I don’t want to have to get back on the road to provide, just keep that in mind. It’s not just me. It’s potentially 30 other households who are gonna lose income. So there’s money on the table that can fix things. But I don’t think

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
3 | P a g e
there’s money on the table to fix these homes. So don’t put me out of a job; don’t put these guys out of a job.” (Daniel Mendez, p. 128:18 – 129:6.) • “I’ve found somewhere where I can be home. I’m off on the weekends. I can have some kind of life. I have been able to buy me a home two years ago. And it’s been a great place for me. I’ve been able to bring my mother with me, make sure she’s taken care of over the years. Just like you said, this is going to affect a lot of people if you guys make the decision to shut this down.” (Brad Gamp, p. 130:4-11.)
• “I’ve been working for Central for about two three years now, and these are the most amazing guys. Because before this I was over the road and I wouldn’t be home. And now I have two kids, and, like, I want to spend time with them. And Central allows that to happen. So I would like for you guys to consider and just look at these faces. And don’t leave us without a job.” (Rafael, Plan. Comm’n.

Tr. at 131:24 – 132:6.)
Crown operates an essential freight service both nationally and locally. Its Colton terminal plays a vital role in the company’s nationwide LTL operations. Located in the heart of the Inland Empire—one of the country’s busiest freight corridors—it serves as a key West Coast gateway, offering efficient access to major highways, ports, and distribution centers. This strategic positioning allows Crown to reduce transit times, streamline freight consolidation, and provide reliable service to a wide range of businesses in Colton and across the region.

The Crown Terminal has continuously operated as a trucking facility since before the City adopted the West Valley Specific Plan in 1996. Crown’s affiliate, C.C. Western, Inc., leased the property beginning in 2000 and purchased it in 2003. In 2014, the City adopted the HUB City Centre Specific Plan (HCCSP), which acknowledged Crown’s ongoing use of the terminal for trucking purposes. While there has been some debate about whether Crown’s use qualifies as a legal nonconforming use, no final determination has been made.

The Planning Commission began to consider the issue at a hearing on December 10, 2024, but following the testimony of Mr. Moroun and the Crown employees, the matter was continued and then taken off calendar to allow for potential settlement discussions between the City and Crown. Despite multiple follow-ups from Crown, the City has not responded. Instead, Crown was surprised to learn— on extremely short notice—that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is now being proposed and includes a targeted amortization of Crown’s use.

Shutting down Crown’s trucking use at the Crown Terminal would have a devastating effect on these people and their families, as well as the other almost 50 people employed at the Crown Terminal alone—not even counting the impact on all of the other surrounding businesses that occupy the 17 parcels facing complete loss of their operations.

Surely, this is not what Colton aims to do with its police powers, nor is it the intent behind California’s fair housing objectives.

Environmental: CEQA and EIR Deficiencies.

The stated purpose of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is “…to comply with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) and the accompanying CEQA Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Colton Hub City Centre Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
4 | P a g e
2008041067) [‘2014 CEQA Addendum’].” Yet the CEQA Addendum is over a decade old, and thus hopelessly outdated. Reliance upon Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14 (CEQA Guidelines), § 15061 – Review for Exemption (“Section 15061(b)(3)”) is therefore unfounded and improper.

Rather, there is no “common sense exemption” under section 15061(b)(3), nor any other basis for exemption of this re-zoning from the CEQA requirements. These zoning changes seek to add 2,226 new housing units in a century old commercial-industrial area. The original EIR (SCH 2008041067) was certified by the City of Colton on October 21, 2014—a decade ago. Thus, a new EIR will be required under CEQA Guidelines §§15162–15164.

More specifically, an addendum may only be used when project changes or additions, previously covered by an EIR or other CEQA document, do not necessitate a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This means there are no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Here, many developments in environmental law over the past ten years pose a significant impact on the prior EIR, and the proposal causes for a substantial increase in severity of environmental effects.

Just two examples include:
• SB 743 VMT analysis standards-- requires the analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA to be based on VMT, starting on July 1, 2020 (Agencies must now determine if a project's increase in VMT will cause significant transportation impacts, potentially leading to environmental harm).
• Stormwater/groundwater management changes—SGMA enacted in September 2014 (established a statewide framework for managing groundwater and empowered local agencies to develop and implement plans for sustainable groundwater use).

In short, the City's reliance on the 2014 CEQA Addendum is legally insufficient and outdated under current CEQA standards. CEQA mandates that when substantial changes to a project, its circumstances, or significant new information arise after the initial environmental document, a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared to adequately address these changes and provide meaningful public disclosure. (Public Resources Code § 21166; Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15162.)
The Supreme Court clarified in Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951-952, that CEQA obligations for subsequent review hinge on the ongoing relevance and adequacy of prior environmental documentation:
[U]nder CEQA, when there is a change in plans, circumstances, or available information after a project has received initial approval, the agency’s environmental review obligations ‘turn[] on the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process.’ (Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989) 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed2d 377 (“Marsh”).) [Fn omitted]. If the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the proposed changes, then the agency proceeds to decide under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions whether project changes will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects. (Friends of College, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 951–952.)

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
5 | P a g e
Here, Colton’s reliance on a 2014 Addendum fails to comply with CEQA where new land use densities, updated VMT standards (SB 743), and water use obligations (SGMA) present significant new impacts that were never previously analyzed.

Further, the Staff Report, issued just days before the June 10 hearing, contains no substantive discussion of the issues with habitat for the federally protected Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Sandfly. This Sandfly is an endangered species endemic to the Colton Dunes in Colton, California.

The species is listed as endangered and protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Planning Area 16A, where Crown’s parcel is located, overlaps with a known critical habitat for the federally protected Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Sandfly. There is no discussion in the Staff Report of:
• Compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); • Mitigation measures;
• Consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
• Potential for legal or environmental delays due to habitat disturbance.

This is particularly relevant to the feasibility of future residential development, but remains unaddressed in either the proposal or the Staff Report.

In this case, substantial changes and new circumstances are undeniable. Rezoning from longstanding industrial to dense residential mixed-use significantly alters the nature and intensity of land use, thus materially affecting local infrastructure demands—including traffic, air quality, water resources, and public services like schools and utilities. None of this is addressed in the Staff Report, and it certainly does not discuss challenges these major changes could face at many levels, particularly given the protected Sandfly habitat directly in the Planning Areas.

Additionally, courts have held that CEQA analyses must adapt to evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory frameworks. In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017), 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 423, the appellate court, citing the California Supreme Court, underscored that: “CEQA requires public agencies … to ensure that such analysis stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” Given these clearly evolved regulatory standards and new information not contemplated by the City's outdated 2014 Addendum, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required.

Moreover, the threshold to trigger further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 is lower when an initial document was a negative declaration or a simplified EIR, as substantial changes necessarily involve impacts not previously analyzed. (Friends of College, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 958–959.) Here, the City's rezoning effort introduces significant new impacts, rendering reliance on a decade-old document fundamentally inadequate.

In that same vein, Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992), 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1321, clarified that Public Resources Code § 21094 requires heightened scrutiny to determine if new environmental impacts arising from subsequent projects or modifications were inadequately considered in original program-level environmental reviews. The substantial density increase proposed by Colton unequivocally demands this heightened scrutiny.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
6 | P a g e
Finally, while Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1051-52 and In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008), 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1161-1162 & 1175, indicate courts typically defer to agency expertise, such deference applies only if the agency has indeed provided sufficient analysis to intelligently inform decision-making. Given the magnitude and significance of the changes proposed by Colton's rezoning initiative, the current outdated Addendum falls short of this standard, and reliance on it would constitute an abuse of discretion under CEQA.

Consequently, if the City intends to approve Proposed Amendment No. 2 as-is, it must prepare a new or Supplemental EIR that thoroughly analyzes and addresses these significant new impacts, ensuring informed public decision-making and compliance with CEQA.

Eminent Domain: Amortization and Takings Analysis
Although courts do recognize a municipality’s power to eliminate nonconforming uses over time through amortization, without compensation (as a valid exercise of police power) that power is not unfettered. The amortization period must balance the public’s interest in removing the nonconforming use with the private owner's investment-backed expectations.

For example, in the context of billboard removal, while allowed, the city must provide a “reasonable amortization period.” (Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 885, reversed on other grounds, 453 U.S. 490 (1981).) Reasonableness of the amortization period is a highly fact-dependent analysis, and thus prone to prolonged and expensive litigation. (See, e.g., Castner v.

City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 94, 96-98; see also, Cal.Jur.3d, Zoning and Other Land Controls, § 121.)
Federal courts take a somewhat different approach, focusing more on the economic impact to the business:

We hold that the “substantially advances” formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence. In so doing, we reaffirm that a plaintiff seeking to challenge a government regulation as an uncompensated taking of private property may proceed under one of the other theories discussed above—by alleging a “physical” taking, a Lucas-type “total regulatory taking,” a Penn Central taking, or a land-use exaction violating the standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan.
(Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 548.) In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124, the Court identified three factors for evaluating whether a regulation overreaches: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct investmentbacked expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.

Here, all three Penn Central factors weigh heavily against the City:

Economic Impact: The proposed rezoning would devastate Crown’s ability to continue operations. It would reclassify its existing transportation terminal (and the adjacent golf course property) as “RES-MU”—a newly coined “Residential Mixed Use” zone which, by all appearances, is intended to encourage housing development incompatible with existing logistics and industrial use. The adjacent properties are slated for retail or open space. If the plan proceeds, Crown would be forced to

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
7 | P a g e
shut down all trucking operations and redevelop the property with residential structures—an existential threat to the business.

Interference with Investment-Backed Expectations: Crown has made substantial long-term investments in its terminal and related infrastructure in reliance on the prior zoning designations. The proposed rezoning ignores these sunk costs, and any forced transition away from logistics use would impose massive economic loss and impair Crown’s legitimate business expectations.

Character of the Governmental Action: The rezoning appears targeted and punitive. The narrow scope of the proposed changes, the long-standing history of conflict between the City and Crown over the site, and the deliberate redirection of land use in the exact footprint of Crown’s operations suggest a discriminatory, rather than broadly regulatory, intent.

To date, the City has not publicly disclosed the length or terms of any proposed amortization period. The absence of such detail raises significant due process concerns and renders the proposal unripe and inadequate under both CEQA and inverse condemnation analysis. Notwithstanding, a blanket amortization period—if any is specified—without individualized assessment of relocation costs, residual land value, or potential for reuse would be facially unreasonable and highly vulnerable to challenge.

Further, the City’s re-zoning as currently proposed would have severe economic impact upon Crown as well as some of the other businesses in the area. Looking at the maps of the existing and proposed land use plan for the Plan Amendment No. 2 as compared with the currently operating businesses (see Exhibit B hereto, for an overlay visual), the most dramatic proposed re-zoning focuses on PA16A where the Crown Terminal is located, and the adjacent golf course, would both be rezoned for the new “RES-MU” type zone, as yet undefined but apparently intended to be a primarily residential area with some retail. The surrounding areas would become retail or open space. Crown would literally be forced to entirely cease its trucking operations and develop its property with residential structures by the end of the amortization period.

Accordingly, Proposed Amendment No. 2 is not a garden-variety zoning amendment—it is a constructive taking, carried out under the guise of planning, but in effect depriving Crown (and other similarly situated businesses) of all viable use of property without just compensation. The proposal violates both state and federal takings principles and would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Additional Concerns

1. Due Process and Procedural Deficiencies. Procedural deficiencies abound here. First, the City’s May 17, 2025 notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission (the “Notice”) provided minimal notice for the June 10, 2025 hearing. Crown requested a postponement, through counsel, but the request was not granted as of Friday June 6. (See Exhibit C.) Further, a confusing “Notice of Cancellation” was posted on the City’s website with regard to the June 10 hearing, creating an enormous hazard of misunderstanding among other stakeholders in the community as to whether this matter is indeed before the Planning Commission on June 10, and whether they should attend. (See Exhibit C.)
Additionally, Crown has been waiting now for over four (4) months to receive documents requested in a Public Records Request. These documents are likely relevant to Proposed Amendment No. 2 because Crown’s records request followed the December 10, 2024 hearing before the Planning Commission and seeks documents relating to zoning and redevelopment plans in the very same area.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
8 | P a g e
As Ms. Buillen of the City wrote, the request was received on February 3, 2025, but the City’s counsel his holding up production until after the currently scheduled June 10, 2025 hearing. (See Exhibit D.) The production is now promised for June 12, 2025. (Id.) The hearing on Proposed Amendment No. 2 should be postponed until at least July on this basis alone.

2. No Financial Impact Analysis on Local Businesses or the City. Nowhere in the Staff Report is there an economic or fiscal impact analysis regarding the effect of the rezoning on:
• local business operations (e.g., Crown’s ongoing trucking and terminal services); • employment impacts;
• tax revenue consequences; or,
• relocation, redevelopment, or amortization costs.

The City offers no study or fiscal impact analysis quantifying how or whether the proposed changes would benefit Colton’s economy. This is a glaring omission. Courts frequently consider economic hardship and investment-backed expectations in takings analysis (e.g., Lingle, supra).

3. Amortization Period Undefined. The Notice fails to specify the proposed amortization period. The vagueness itself poses Due Process issues. Moreover, as discussed above, the Zoning Overlay approach would provide a far better solution for the City and the impacted businesses, than amortization. This only heightens concerns that the proposal is unripe and legally vulnerable.

4. No Individualized Impact Assessment. The Report takes a blanket approach to rezoning and nonconforming use elimination. There is no indication of any parcel-specific analysis— especially for highly active industrial operations like Crown’s—that would be necessary for any legitimate amortization policy.

5. Failure to Properly Notify or Involve Stakeholders. Crown has no record of receiving notice of or an invitation to attend any of the “workshops” despite the statement in the report that 600 stakeholders were invited to attend. Crown has also spoken with most of the other business owners in the surrounding area and nobody seems to have received any such notice or invitation, either.

This opens a can of worms both legally, and from the community perspective.

As noted above, Crown is very open and willing to engaging in a collaborative process with the City, to reach its objectives underlying Proposed Amendment No. 2. For example, types of engagement that would be appropriate and legally expected from the City include things such as individual and adequate property-owner notifications, focused stakeholder meetings, or specific public workshops for affected businesses.

Less-Burdensome Alternatives
Crown has retained an experienced city-planning consultant, Pamela Sapetto (see CV, Exhibit E), who advises that a safer, more balanced alternative to forced amortization is the Zoning Overlay approach. This is widely used by California cities to promote residential development without sacrificing stable, revenue-generating industrial uses. Ms. Sapetto will be present at the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission hearing to offer further insight.

Overlay Zoning strategies have been successfully adopted by other cities to meet RHNA goals while minimizing litigation and economic disruption. Specifically, rather than imposing rigid rezoning and amortization requirements, other California cities facing similar challenges have adopted flexible

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
9 | P a g e
overlay zones to transition from existing industrial and commercial uses to residential or mixed-use districts while protecting established businesses and avoiding litigation.

Two particularly instructive examples are Irvine’s Business Complex Residential Mixed-Use Overlay (IBC Overlay) and Santa Ana’s Metro East Mixed Use Overlay (MEMU Overlay). (See Exhibits F and G.)

1. City of Irvine – Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Overlay Zone (Ex. F):

The IBC Overlay was established to transition Irvine’s traditional business park into a vibrant mixed-use area, accommodating residential growth while protecting jobs and existing infrastructure.

Key features include:
• Protection of Existing Businesses: The IBC Overlay prioritizes job retention by allowing non-residential uses to remain and operate indefinitely, ensuring new development is additive—not disruptive.
• Flexible, District-Based Planning: The IBC defines clear designations such as Urban Neighborhood (UN), Multiple Use (MU), and Business Complex (BC), providing a framework for orderly, phased development.
• Administrative Review and Relief: New development under the Overlay is subject to Planning Commission findings that ensure compatibility with surrounding uses (Irvine Mun. Code §§ 5-8-1 to 5-8-3).
• Smart Growth Priorities: Emphasizing walkability, connectivity, and incremental change, the IBC Overlay achieves density goals without abrupt displacement.

In Colton’s context, a similar overlay district could allow Crown and other existing industrial uses to remain operational, preserving critical infrastructure, employment, and tax revenues, while still accommodating new residential development around them in a phased and harmonious manner. This would advance Colton’s housing goals without undermining its industrial base.

2. City of Santa Ana – Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (Ex. G):

Santa Ana’s MEMU Overlay similarly supports mixed-use and transit-oriented development without displacing existing industrial uses. Notable elements include:
• Optional Overlay Use: Property owners can choose to retain their existing entitlements or opt into the overlay’s standards, preserving investment-backed expectations (Santa Ana Mun. Code §§ 2.2–2.3).
• Clear Development Standards: The overlay includes clear requirements for projects opting in, ensuring compatibility and a smooth transition. • Planning Commission Review: Overlay projects must secure Planning Commission approval, adding transparency and consistency.

Like Irvine, Santa Ana’s approach supports growth through incentivized, voluntary redevelopment, not compulsory displacement. A MEMU-style overlay in Colton would similarly provide property owners, including Crown, the choice to continue their current operations or voluntarily redevelop in line with mixed-use standards over time. This would effectively prevent sudden economic disruptions, job losses, or costly inverse condemnation claims.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
10 | P a g e

3. Application to Colton and RHNA Compliance
Adopting a comparable overlay strategy would fully support the City’s obligations under the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021–2029) while protecting the economic foundation of Crown Terminal and similar businesses. Specifically:
• Flexible Density and Mixed-Use Incentives
Overlay zoning allows landowners to opt into higher-density residential standards over time, facilitating RHNA-aligned growth without displacing essential infrastructure. • Phased Implementation and Increased Housing Stock
By enabling gradual, market-driven transitions, overlay zones bring new housing units online without imposing impractical timeframes or premature demolition. • Minimal Displacement and Economic Disruption
The Housing Element emphasizes sustainable growth, including economic stability and protecting employment opportunities. The overlay approach meets housing goals without abruptly ending viable, job-generating industrial uses that contribute significantly to local economic sustainability.
• Reduced Legal and Financial Risk
Overlay zoning eliminates many of the takings and inverse condemnation risks posed by blanket rezoning and amortization mandates—accelerating housing production by reducing litigation delays.
• Consistent with State Housing Policies
Overlay zoning is a recognized and HCD-approved method of meeting housing mandates. Both Irvine and Santa Ana have used it to comply with RHNA targets—proving its efficacy. • Transit-Oriented Growth
Overlay districts support smart-growth goals under SB 743, promoting reduced VMT and more sustainable development models.

In short, adopting a flexible overlay zoning approach akin to those employed successfully by Irvine and Santa Ana would not only achieve Colton’s immediate housing targets but would also satisfy the broader sustainability and economic stability goals embedded in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

Colton has a clear, court-tested pathway forward. Overlay zoning, as exemplified by the IBC and MEMU overlays—and reaffirmed by Santa Ana’s June 2025 amendments—offers a flexible, lawful, and strategic alternative to the heavy-handed proposal currently under consideration. It protects legacy businesses like Crown, meets housing production targets, and positions the City as a modern planning leader—not a legal cautionary tale.

Conclusion and Requested Actions
For all the reasons above, Crown respectfully urges the Planning Commission to reject Proposed Amendment No. 2.

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
11 | P a g e
Additionally, Crown requests the immediate halt of the current rezoning proposal pending full compliance with CEQA requirements (i.e., preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR), as well as compliance with Due Process (i.e., adequate notice and more encompassing and direct community involvement in the planning process).

In that regard, Crown further requests a stakeholder roundtable or meeting to fully explore alternative solutions. As discussed above, Crown is fully committed to a meaningful dialogue, and the investment of time and resources into the planning process.

Crown expressly reserves and does not in any manner waive its objections to Planned Amendment No. 2 as state herein, and as may be posed in the future after proper notice and adequate details regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2, or any other planned rezoning or amortization of current uses that involve or impact the Crown Parcel and Crown’s current use of its property in Colton.

Very truly yours,

MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
By: __________________________
Eve Brackmann

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
12 | P a g e

INDEX OF EXHIBITS
(Compendium of Exhibits Bound Separately)

Exhibit Description
A. 12-10-2024 Planning Commission Transcript
B. Overlay Visual for Plan Amendment No. 2
C. Email, by and between Crown and the City, dated June 6, 2025 D. Email from City regarding delay in production of relevant public records, dated June 5, 2025.

E. Curriculum Vitae of Pamela Sapetto
F. Overlay Zoning Strategy of Irvine (IBC)
G. Overlay Zoning Strategy of Santa Ana (MEMU)

Mario Suarez, AICP, Planning Manager
FILE INDEX NUMBER: DAP24-0038
13 | P a g e

TAB TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Compendium of Authorities Bound Separately)

1. Case Law:

2. Castner v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 94

3. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036

4. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413

5. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Gardens (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937

6. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528

7. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848

8. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104

9. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307

10. Code:

11. California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), §§ 15061, 15162-64

12. California Public Resources Code §§ 21094, 21166, 21177

13. Other:

14. SB 743 VMT analysis standards

15. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (Online Portal)

EXHIBIT A

· · · · · · · · ·APPEAL OF CROWN TRUCKING
· · · · · · · · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
· · · · · A Planning Commission meeting was taken on
·behalf of Munck, Wilson, Mandala before Sarah Baker,
·Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of
·California, commencing at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday,
·December 10, 2024, at Colton Civic Center, 650 North
·La Cadena Drive, Colton, California 92324.
·Reported by:
·Sarah Baker
·CSR No.· 14686

2 ·APPEARANCES
· · · Dr. ERIC PETERS
· · · Mr. GARY GROSSICH, VICE CHAIR
· · · Mr. RICHARD PRIETO, CHAIR
· · · Ms. ADRIANNA ESCARCEGA
· · · Ms. LETITIA BADEN
· · · HEIDI DURON, MPA
· · · JESUS GUERRA
· · · MARIO SUAREZ
· · · EVE A. BRACKMANN, ESQ.
· · · JAMES PRIEST, ESQ.
· · · MICHAEL THIES, ESQ.
· · · MATTHEW MOROUN
· · · LINDSEY MOROUN

3 · · · COLTON, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2024
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·5:30 P.M.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-O0O-
· · · · · · · · · · MEETING IN SESSION
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Good evening everyone.· I order
·the City Planning Commission to begin.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I'd like to take roll.
· · · · · Commissioner Dr. Peters?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Present.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Gary Grossich, Vice ·Chair?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Present.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Letitia Baden.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Present.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Chair Richard Prieto?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Present.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Attorney Mr. Priest is here.· You ·have -- Adrianna Escarcega is maybe in a little later as ·she's coming from work.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· Everyone rise for the
·Pledge of Allegiance, please.
· · · · · Thank you.

4 · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Approve the minutes of November ·26.· Do I have any corrections or revisions on that?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· I personally saw no corrections. ·And I make a motion to approve the minutes as written. · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· I'll second that.· Staff, can we ·have a roll call vote, please?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Peters?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Vice Chair Gary Grossich?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Chair Richard Prieto?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Escarcega?
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Thank you.· And we also show
·Ms. Escarcega coming in at 5:32.
· · · · · Commissioner Letitia Baden?
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I have the approval of the
·minutes.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Thank you.· Public comments.
·Anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on any item ·that is not on the agenda may do so now.
·Staff, do we have anybody?
· · · · · MS. DURON:· I have no speakers at this time.

5 · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.· Ms. Duron?
· · · · · MS. DURON:· I apologize, no.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We'll close public comments.· New ·business.· The AB24 005, go ahead, Staff.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Thank you, Chair.· Jesus Guerra
·will be giving a presentation on the site.
· · · · · MR. GUERRA:· Good evening, Planning Commission. ·This is file Index No. DAP 24 0055.· It is a request for ·a new time extension for an approved tenant of Tract
·Map No. 19983 under DAP-001 764.
· · · · · The subdivision of a tentative Tract Nos. 20041 ·residential lots 2, 0, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 consisting ·of the creation 446 single-family lots on 78.4 acres
·within the low density designation a [sic] Roquet Ranch ·Specific Plan.
· · · · · A planning commission approved the resolution ·order 21 or -- 21 22 approving the tentative Tract Map ·on December 13, 2022.
· · · · · And on November 21, 2024, the applicant asked ·for its first extension of time for the tenant Tract Map ·to be considered by the Planning Commission.· The
·applicant's letter explains problems with convention of ·work because of the required resource agency have not
·been obtained and additional time is required to obtain ·the permits and to resolve a question with Riverside

6 ·Public Utilities.· The applicant is requesting a time ·extension of the Planning Commission approval for one
·year, which would expire in December 13th, 2025.
· · · · · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ·approve the first extension of time for DAP 001 764,
·which will set a new expiration date of December 13,
·2025.
· · · · · Approved Planning Commission resolutions shall ·remain in effect with this one year time extension.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Did Mr. Lunical explain that he
·did not make it to the meeting, but indicated that he
·does plan to move forward with the project and is
·working through his challenges and appreciates the
·consideration of the time extension?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· So what are the issues of the
·Commission?· Go ahead.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· We just have a quick question. · · · · · So we just have two actions ongoing; correct? ·That's why we have the two dates and the December dates, ·one that is a tentative Tract Map and there's another
·separate item, correct, on the same project.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· There's just one time extension on ·this one?
· · · · · MR. GUERRA:· Yes, it's one time extension.· The ·June 1 and the June 11th.

7 · · · · · Is that the one?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· No.· I understand but we have to ·separate.· We're talking about tract map and we have
·DAP-00 -- and another one DAP-77 014, and they are
·running on a different timeline.
· · · · · That's why it was my question.· Is this two
·separate actions on the same project?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Right.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Do you follow me?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· That's not coming from the
·Commission.· The Specific Plan has been approved.· And ·that runs with the line item that had been approved
·legislatively.
· · · · · The only thing that was approved on this
·project were the tentative maps.· They will be coming in ·as soon as I get their maps finaled with an actual
·project.
· · · · · And at that time, you have a new DAP coming
·with those projects.· And that will be the actual
·housing projects.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· So the day we're working ·on the extensions?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· For the one map.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Are only going to be for one
·map.· Do we have -- just out of curiosity, do we have an

8 ·action based on that list, your December date?· It looks ·like we had December, 2022, and then the extension was ·June of 2024?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· There's two types of maps, the
·larger map, which is the major map for the Specific Plan ·which includes the different areas, and then we have the ·Specific Tenant map, which was for the single-family
·lots that were proposed for the project and that's
·before the Commission tonight.· So the only thing before ·the Commission tonight are the residential subdivision ·lots.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· So that date, that
·extension didn't come before us, is that right?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· They have the two years.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· They have a two year?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· They would change the project to ·one year.· That was my question.· Thank you so much.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Any other questions?
· · · · · No.· Okay.
· · · · · What are the wishes of the Commission on this, ·please?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Well, I'll make a motion to
·approve Filing Index No. DAP-24 0055 for another
·extension.

9 · · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· And I'll second that.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Pushed by Vice Chair Grossich and ·Adrianna Escarcega for extension.
· · · · · Can I get a roll call, please.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Dr. Peters?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Adrianna Escarcega? · · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Letitia Baden?
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Grossich?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Chair Richard Prieto?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It passes 5-0.· I'm gonna go ahead ·and set up for the next item.· Give me one second.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Okay.· On this one I'll do a
·little introduction on these two.
· · · · · Well, I know who is here representing the City. ·This is an item which is a little bit different than
·usual.
· · · · · And so what we're doing now is setting up for ·an appeal of a Staff decision that has some history and ·was provided in the Staff report.· That and the little

10 ·Staff that was provided on this project.
· · · · · Some of you got a hardcopy and some of you an ·electronic copy.· I do have an extra hard copy in case ·someone wanted a hard copy, and I can get it for you,
·okay?
· · · · · A little weightlifting there on that one.· So ·in this case we have our Attorney Michael Thies.
· · · · · Michael, did I pronounce your name right?
· · · · · Michael Thies is with BBK and is separate from ·our representing attorney.· Allotted attorney for the
·Planning Commission, Mr. William Priest.
· · · · · So right now he's sitting on the dais, so he
·represents the Planning Commission.· Representing Staff ·on this item is Mr. Thies.· We also have here the
·appellant's attorney and some of their elves.· I'm
·sorry.
· · · · · MS. DURON:· Try again.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· She will introduce herself in a
·second.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Good evening members of the
·Planning Commission and happy holidays.· My name is Eve ·Brackmann.· I'm counsel for the appellant Crown
·Enterprises, which has a trucking facility here in
·Colton.
· · · · · I'm joined by my clients, CEO Matthew Moroun

11 ·and his lovely wife, Lindsey.· They flew in from Detroit ·to attend this hearing.· We also have a number of --
·some portion of the 30 employees that are employed by
·Crown Enterprises at the Colton termini here with us
·this evening.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Thank you.· So we do have a
·presentation by Mr. Thies, and of course because this is ·unusual in terms of number of minutes on this one, it's ·really up to you.
· · · · · We do not have another item on this agenda
·other than -- over -- actually I should at this point
·just hand it over to Priest, our Bill Priest.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· So I'm hardly that.· I'm just the ·attorney.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I've got a lot today.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Thank you.· Good evening,
·Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission.
· · · · · As Mr. Suarez had mentioned, this one's a
·little different.· This is before you, based on kind of ·an interesting provision of the HUB City Centre
·Provision Specific Plan.
· · · · · Typically, this would not come before the
·Commission but just by nature the Specific Plan here, it ·is before you by the appeal body.· I would note, and I'm ·going to kind of just give you a quick summary into the

12 ·thrust of the issue.
· · · · · It's undisputed by the other party that the
·Crown Enterprises trucking use after the property
·violates the current HUB City Centre Specific Plan.
·It's undisputed on the record; however, Crown
·Enterprises is asserting as a defense that they have
·legal nonconforming use.
· · · · · So your discussions, your analysis, your
·conclusions are focused on that issue.· Has Crown
·Enterprises established legal nonconforming use, such
·that they're not in violation of the HUB City Centre
·Specific Plan.· And you're going to hear both sides
·argue this evening.
· · · · · One other thing I'm going to mention to you,
·and I'll do this before these types of hearings, is
·Mr. Thies and I do work for the same law firm.
· · · · · That said, we have erected what we call ethical ·screen within the framework.· The only time I've talked ·to Mr. Thies is for any logistics or anything to get the ·record done or even connected to the Planning
·Commission.
· · · · · Stuff like that is not customary.· He is not
·trying to persuade me in any way, and I have not
·attempted to persuade him in any way.· We've maintained ·that separation.

13 · · · · · Under the Contedo decision, we can with the ·same laws serve in these two roles.· He would serve as ·the City prosecutor for lack of a better term, and I'm ·serving as your advisor.
· · · · · As you arrive at a decision on this matter -- ·what I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chair, going forward is
·Mr. Thies, typically we have Staff give the report
·first.· We have Mr. Thies go for a 15 minute
·presentation.
· · · · · And then Ms. Brackmann can present for 15
·minutes.· You guys can ask some questions and then if
·they want to see, take five minutes of reply and we'll ·just see where the discussion goes at that point.
· · · · · A couple questions I wanted to ask Counsel,
·both of them.· Okay.
· · · · · Is that going to be a problem, Ms. Brackmann? · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We were hoping that since we
·are the appellant, that we would be allowed to go first. ·And then we would have some rebuttal time.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, that's entirely the
·Commission's call how you want to do that.
· · · · · If you want to let him go first.· If you want ·to let her go first.· Our tradition is typically -- and, ·again, I want to note that while this is an appeal
·hearing, this is -- we are still the Planning

14 ·Commission.· So it's the procedure to let Staff go
·first, but it's ultimately a decision to how you want to ·structure that.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We usually take her side first.
·Then we'll do it that way.· To continue the same matter. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· So Mr. Thies will go first. ·Ms. Brackmann, you can go after.· And there will be time ·for rebuttal.
· · · · · And this is not intended to follow the strict ·courtroom type procedure here.· There can be questions ·and answers.· We might ask you some questions.· Then, we ·go Mr. Thies and vice versa.· So there is some
·flexibility built in.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· So it's my understanding that ·in ordinary procedure for an appeal directly to the
·Planning Commission under HCCSP 7.4.11, is that the City ·presents its case first.· And then the appellant;
·correct?
· · · · · ·MR. PRIEST:· Perhaps City Plan Specific
·Centre's silent to that.· So it's not the usual, typical ·procedure that we're used to for these kinds of
·hearings.
· · · · · ·MR. THIES:· If I may, Mr. Chairman, I've
·prepared a quick PowerPoint with just a brief history of ·the matter.· I figured I would do that and set it up.

15 ·It leads into your issues on appeal.
· · · · · And I don't mind them presenting their side of ·the case first.· The City presented its position in the ·Staff report so --
· · · · · I can come back in afterwards and answer any
·questions you may have, if that's acceptable.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· That's all right.· If you wish to ·do that, that's fine.· Go ahead.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· ·Okay.· Thank you.· We
·appreciate it.· We have a certified shorthand court
·reporter here with us, and if it's okay with you, we
·would just like to record the proceedings that way.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· You are perfectly welcome to
·record the proceedings as long as it doesn't interfere ·with the meeting.· And I'm sure she will do her
·professional duties.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you so much.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Before we proceed any further,
·there were a couple issues I would like to address.
·These were specifically raised by you, Ms. Brackmann,
·and your email.
· · · · · The right to objections you had noted, and I
·want to get those procedural objections out of the way. · · · · · The first one is you had objected to the fact ·of the order of the documents in the administrative

16 ·record.· You had contended that the order of the
·documents were prejudicial.
· · · · · What I'd advise the Planning Commission on is ·you are not to regard any greater or lesser weight to
·any of the documents just based on where they appear in ·the record.· And with that admonishment, I would urge
·the Planning Commission to overrule the objection.
·You've been admonished.
· · · · · Don't give it any more weight based on what it ·is, but beyond that, I'm not recommending that we
·sustain the objection or change the order of the
·documents in any way.· The horse has left the barn.
· · · · · So I'd advise, as the Commission, to overrule ·the objection at that point, and you have my
·admonishment.· The second one is you had said that there ·was a document in the record that were unclear or, I
·guess, weren't printed clearly or something.
· · · · · Can you refresh my memory about which documents ·you believe those were.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you.· I believe -- I
·appreciate you saying that.· It gives me an opportunity ·to hand out the clean version of the one document that ·was not clean in the record or didn't appear in the
·record as we had provided it.
· · · · · And I don't think that's anyone's fault.· It

17 ·was inadvertent, I'm sure.· It was just a copy, albeit a ·clean copy of our request for appeal, which is also
·appellate brief.
· · · · · I have a copy for everyone, if I may distribute ·it.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· If you'll give me just a minute
·here.· Sorry.· I am trying to get to it because it's a ·very long record.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· It's Document No. 3.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Document 3, letter dated
·March 23rd, 2022.· What was missing from the document
·because I'm looking at it and I see page 1; I got page ·2.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· It's just that the copy quality ·is very poor compared to the very clean version that we ·provided.· I would like the Planning Commission to
·simply have a proper quality copy of the brief, and I
·have them here.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Let me ask the Commission.· I'll ·tell you these are the documents that are Bates stamped. ·Do you know what I mean by the Bates stamp, the little ·bottom right there?· These are the numbers that is page ·33 through 67.· And that there's a couple of exhibits
·that are attached.
· · · · · The only reason I'm asking them to go through

18 ·them, Ms. Brackmann, is I'm looking at it and it's
·crystal clear to me.· The document is fine.· I just want ·to see if the Commission needs that copy.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I have it here on my laptop
·screen.· I'm not saying it's illegible.· I'm just saying ·it's not the great quality of brief that we've provided. · · · · · I don't want to waste everybody's time going
·over it.· It's a small issue.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Was it missing any pages or
·anything?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· What?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Was it missing any pages?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I don't believe it was missing ·any pages.· It's just not the same document we provided ·in regards to the quality of the document.· And it's a ·very simple matter.· I have clean copies right here of ·the brief.· It's the exact same thing.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· It is the exact same document?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Mr. Chair, I mean it's ultimately ·the Commission's call, if you want to add to this
·document.· Ms. Brackmann is attesting it is the same
·document that you already looked at.· It's just a
·cleaner quality copy.
· · · · · There is no additional material on the letter

19 ·or anything.· So you can take that if you'd like and, ·you know, read that if you want.· I'll be honest with
·you, it looked like it was pretty clear to me.· I didn't ·have any problem reading her appeal letter, but if you ·guys are comfortable with just accepting the hard copy ·here, that's fine.· You could do that.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· To the wishes of the Commission. · · · · · Mr. Peters, are you okay with that?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I vote no.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay with it.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· I can read it
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· It's fine what we have.· I don't
·have a problem with it.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Do you want the other copies?
·No.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· So the Commission said no on that. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· Were there any other
·documents that were unclear that you had concerns with, ·Ms. Brackmann?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We object to the language of
·the notice of appeal.· And just to make the record
·clear, the primary point we are appealing directly to
·the Planning Commission under HCCSP 7.4.11, which gives ·the Planning Commission the power to directly decide a ·repeal from the notice in order for Colton to shut down

20 ·its trucking facility.
· · · · · We are also to the degree that it would have
·any precedence or persuasion appealing from the decision ·Mr. Burns the Hearing Officer for the prior
·administrative appeal that was called under the Colton ·Municipal Court.
· · · · · The notice of the hearing states that it's only ·from Mr. Burns's decision.· It is unknown that our
·appeal is directly from the notice in order and this is ·allowed under the HCCSP of our request for appeal, which ·is also our appeal brief.· It starts on page 34 of the ·record.
· · · · · The same thing we were just discussing.· States ·clearly that we are appealing directly from
·May 5th, 2021 notice in order to appeal.· So I just want ·to make it clear for the record.· And that we object to ·the notice -- we object to the notice of the hearing as ·well as the 34 page Staff report that we received for
·the first time on Thursday.
· · · · · ·That they both state that it is solely from
·Mr. Burns' decision.· We don't believe that's correct
·procedure.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· Mr. Chair, I think we can ·just note in the record, I think we're getting into a
·very big technicality here.· The Hearing Officer's

21 ·decision was regarding the legal nonconforming use
·defense, and therefore, whether there's compliance or
·noncompliance with the Specific Plan, it seems to be an ·appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision.
· · · · · Necessarily, an appeal of the original notice ·in order to abate.· But if it would make Ms. Caufman -- · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Ms. Brackmann.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· -- Ms. Brackmann, more comfortable ·we can just note in the record that this is about the
·whole thing.· I mean it is the most direct process.
·What, this is an appeal of the Hearing Officer's
·decision?
· · · · · But the whole global issue is:· Is there
·compliance or noncompliance with the Specific Plan and ·the Municipal Code that appears to answer, whether there ·is a legal conforming use or not.· So we can note that ·on the record.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead and note it.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· So note.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Before we proceed any further, are ·we having any more witnesses besides just giving them
·their three minutes of public comment?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.· So we have Mr. Moroun,
·who would like to say some words.

22 · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· So I plan to call him too as a ·witness.· Also we had Mr. Michow simply to authenticate ·a letter and exhibit.· It's Exhibit 31 in the record.
·So he is available by video.· He also has prepared and ·we have provided to Mr. Thies a declaration of the
·authenticated document.
· · · · · We lend his testimony to authenticate the
·document and establish the document as a business record ·exception to the Hearsay Rule.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· So if the City would
·authenticate to its admissibility based on his
·declaration then we won't need to call him.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Let me clarify, because this is a ·Planning Commission meeting, so part of your hearing
·duties is to consider all relevant evidence.· We are not ·standing on ceremony with the technical rule of evidence ·like we have in court, where it has to be authenticated ·and all that stuff.
· · · · · If it is authenticated, you can consider that ·as maybe making the document more relevant, more proof ·of the item that's being proven there.
· · · · · However, we are not going to be standing on
·authentication of official court procedure in that

23 ·respect.· So with that, we've talked about witnesses. ·Mr. Thies, any witnesses from the City side?
· · · · · ·MR. THIES:· Well, the City is going to be
·objecting to the introduction of the witness testimony ·and other documents.· So maybe it just makes more sense ·to do that when the time comes.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· You can note your objection ·on the record, or we can discuss that at that point. I ·will tell you that even though the Hearing Officer did ·not admit certain records that are in this
·administrative record because the Hearing Officer was -- ·decided it was too late to submit those records and
·stuff.
· · · · · The Planning Commission here is not so limited. ·I mean, you're not a Court of Appeals.· You are not just ·limited to what the trial court looked at here.· You are ·allowed broader latitude to look at relevant evidence
·but that comes, including what's in the administrative ·record that is produced at this hearing.
· · · · · And Mr. Thies may have objections to production ·of some of the evidence and will hold that and just that ·point.
· · · · · We've already talked about -- anything to enter ·the record?· It sounds like we have, potentially, a
·couple of witnesses here.· Any additional documents to

24 ·add to the record, either of you?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I do just have Mr. Michow's
·declaration that we would like to include in the record, ·again, about Exhibit 31.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Do we need the declaration at all? · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Well, we don't need him to
·testify, if you'll accept his declaration.· We can make ·the record that way.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· We'll take a look at that when we ·get there.· Okay.· On then --
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I also do have a handout with ·just some bullet points.· It's just demonstrative and it ·doesn't necessarily have to be part of the record.
· · · · · And Mr. Thies, I gave him a copy, so I will ask ·to provide it to the Planning Commission when it's my
·turn.· And if he has an objection, then I guess we can ·address it at that point.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.· All right, Mr. Chair,
·members of the Commission, do you have any questions of ·me at this point?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Anybody have questions?· Go ahead, ·Dr. Peters.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Can you move your microphone just ·a little so everyone else can hear?· I heard you just
·fine but maybe the other people in the room --

25 · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you for telling me. I ·didn't realize that it's not on.· Now it is.· Thank you. ·Were you able to hear me okay?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Are there questions?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Well, then I would advise
·Mr. Chair that we let Staff begin with a brief
·presentation.
· · · · · ·MR. THIES:· Yes.· I think this will be most
·appropriate and it leads into their issues on appeal,
·and at that point Ms. Brackmann can make her case, and ·perhaps, like I said, I could come back up and answer
·any further questions or reply to their comments.
· · · · · And I don't mind if they reply to mine, but
·then after that, I'll keep it brief because I know it
·was a lot for everybody here.
· · · · · Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning
·Commission, good evening.· My name is Michael Thies.
·I'm a lawyer for the City's Attorney's office.· And the ·reason -- I present to you tonight the matter of Crown ·Enterprises and Central Transport.
· · · · · The reason for tonight's hearing as Mr. Priest ·stated that Crown and Central Transport are appealing
·the administrative Hearing Officer's February 22nd, 2022 ·decision and order.
· · · · · And his related procedural -- relates regarding

26 ·the cities -- the May 21st -- I'm sorry.· That's a typo. · · · · · The May 5th, 2021, that is in order to abate a ·public nuisance.· Their appeal is made pursuant to the ·HUB City Centre Specific Plan.· Mr. Priest stated
·specifically there's a Section under 7.4.11 and it
·provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the ·director with the other official enforcing the
·provisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. · · · · · Typically, the administrative Hearing Officer's ·decision would be the City's final decision on this
·matter, but we've determined that this prior provision ·supersedes this, and therefore, the Planning
·Commission's decision will be the City's final decision ·on this matter.
· · · · · Just for a quick background.· Crown owns the
·property located at 1849 West Valley Boulevard.· The
·purchase dated 2003.· Central transport is their tenant. ·And they use the property as a trucking terminal.
· · · · · And as you see from the materials of the Staff, ·this matter goes back several years now.· I'm going to ·just give you a real quick recap of the events.
· · · · · So this matter started back in July of 2020
·with a code enforcement department checking the
·business.· When they did it they wanted to determine
·whether the facility has a business license and its

27 ·occupancy permit.
· · · · · A code officer went that day, determined that ·they did not.· And the next day on June 16th of 2020,
·they issued a citation for violation of Municipal Code ·Section 1858020 for not having any business occupancy
·permit and ordered them to obtain one within 14 days.
· · · · · Then, in July the City issued a second
·citation.· This time for violation of the HUB City
·Centre Specific Plan.· Specifically it stated for them, ·they did not have a conforming use.· That their use of a ·trucking terminal was not in compliance with the plan
·and then ordered them to stop using the property as a
·trucking terminal within 30 days.
· · · · · July 15th, then Crown begins corresponding with ·the City about the matter and they also produced some
·lease agreements that they contended showed a continuous ·use of the property as a trucking terminal since at
·least January 1st of 2000.
· · · · · After that point, September 2028 [sic], a third ·citation is issued.· This time it was issued to both
·Crown and Central Transport, where the first two were
·only issued to Central Transport.· These are just
·warnings.· There were no fines attached to them.
· · · · · In October of that year, the City in a phone
·call with Crown's President, the City explained that the

28 ·lease agreements that they provided didn't establish a ·nonconforming use because of the West Valley Specific
·Plan.· The HUB City Centre Plan took effect in 2014, and ·it was preceded by the West Valley Specific Plan which ·took effect in 1996.
· · · · · So the City Staff explained to Crown that they ·needed to establish that the property was being used as ·a trucking terminal from prior to 1996 and continue to ·the present.
· · · · · Then, Crown and Central Transport requested an ·extension to gather the documents in order to establish ·a legal nonconforming use, which the City granted.
· · · · · In November 2020, Crown and Central Transport's ·legal counsel was corresponding with the City Attorney's ·office.· A letter from their legal counsel acknowledged ·the City's argument that the West Valley Specific Plan ·required that they prove the use predated it in 1996.
· · · · · In November of 2023, requested another
·extension, which the City granted.· The further
·extension was granted in December of that year.
·And also that month on December 14th of 2020, the City's ·legal counsel issued a letter to Crown and Central
·Transport's legal counsel that reiterated the
·application of the WVSP in their name to show that their ·use predated 1996 when that plan was enacted.

29 · · · · · Also, that month in December 17th of 2020 and ·December 18th, Crown and Central Transport filed two
·public records act requests with the City.· And they
·sought all documents and communications relating to the ·property.
· · · · · Starting in January, 2021, another extension
·was requested, which was granted.· At that point, Crown ·and Central Transport submitted what was called a
·"detailed written explanation" to the City presenting
·their case and presenting evidence and arguments they
·contended showed a legal conforming use.
· · · · · Another extension was granted in February 2021. ·And at that point in March of 2022, the City issued a
·notice of violation for violation of the HUB City Centre ·Specific Plan and some related provisions that make
·those violations a public nuisance.
· · · · · They ordered them to cede the property as a
·trucking terminal by April 15th, 2021.
· · · · · I'm sorry.· I'm noticing a few little typos
·here so bear with me.
· · · · · Then on May 5th, 2021, the City issued the
·notice in order to abate that subject here listed in the ·same notice of violation from March.· At that time they ·requested an administrative hearing.
· · · · · And then we begin the city and we begin

30 ·coordinating on the administrative hearing.· We set it ·for November 17th.· And we had planned to submit briefs ·with each other and to the Hearing Officer by
·November 5th.
· · · · · The City's brief was six days late.· I'll just ·note on the record that it was due to my grandfather
·passing away that week.· So that was the reason for the ·delay.· Because of that, we rescheduled the hearing from ·November 17th to November 30th.· So the hearing was
·conducted on November 30th, 2021.
· · · · · On December 17th of 2021, Crown and Central
·Transport requested a further administrative hearing to ·provide additional evidence.
· · · · · On December 17th and at the administrative
·hearing on November 30th, the Hearing Officer set a
·deadline of December 21 to submit legal briefing on an ·issue that was discussed during the hearing.
· · · · · The City submitted its brief on December 24th. ·My daughter was born on December 21, so I was stuck at ·the hospital for a couple days.
· · · · · And then on February 22nd, 2022, the
·administrative hearing issued his decision and order and ·related procedural rulings.· We served that on Crown on ·March of that year.· And they requested this appeal.
· · · · · And to that point we entered into extensive

31 ·settlement negotiations that continued for a couple ·years.· And, unfortunately, those didn't work.· So we
·are here this evening.· And just to recap, I'll start
·with the procedural rulings.· The Hearing Officer made ·four findings.
· · · · · One, Crown and Central Transport submitted
·proof that was 14 pages long instead of 10 pages, a
·limit that he set.· The Hearing Officer allowed them to ·do that.· He denied the request to submit further
·evidence that was not presented at the administrative
·hearing.· He denied the request for further
·administrative hearing.· And he allowed the City's three ·day late brief.
· · · · · And finally, for the decision and order, he
·found that Crown and Central Transport -- they did not ·establish that it was lawful at any point to operate the ·property as a trucking terminal.
· · · · · He found that they distinguished use of
·trucking terminal since 2003 when Crown purchased the
·property.· He found that their other defenses did not
·apply.· And he found that they never secured a business ·occupancy or business occupancy permit since they
·purchased the property in 2003.
· · · · · So that's -- he ordered them to cede the
·property as a trucking terminal within 60 days.· So that

32 ·leads us to the current issues on appeal.· And the Staff ·report they listed six issues on appeal.
· · · · · I have the first one up on the board here. I
·figure at this point we'll allow Ms. Brackmann to
·discuss their appeal.· Go ahead.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you.· Mr. Thies.· May I ·have a moment to set up?· I also have Mr. Michow here by ·Teams.· I also have Mr. Michow here on Teams.
· · · · · Hello.
· · · · · In the event that he is allowed to testify.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, may I ask a question
·really quick of Ms. Brackmann?
· · · · · You said you had a declaration of Mr. Michow? · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I did.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Can I just take a look at that
·real quick?· I'll just take a look at that while you're ·giving your opening presentation.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Should I hand it to this man
·here?· Shall I begin or am I waiting for you,
·Mr. Priest?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· No.· Mr. Chairman, it's fine if
·she goes ahead.· I'm just looking at this while she's
·doing that opening presentation.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.

33 · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· And my understanding is we'll ·have 15 minutes at the end for rebuttal; is that right? · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· We'll just be flexible with it.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· ·Okay.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· You have 15 minutes.· Then, we'll ·go from there.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· ·I want to be respectful of the ·Planning Commission's time.· I know it's the evening
·time here.
· · · · · Well, as I said earlier, thank you so much for ·hearing our appeal this evening.· It is a direct appeal ·to the HCCSP.· So I know it's a little unusual we are
·appealing the Hearing Officer's decision.
· · · · · That is independent and we are appealing
·directly to you this evening because you have the power ·to reverse an order that, I think, we will demonstrate ·to you should be reversed.· The notice of order to
·abate.
· · · · · Time doesn't permit for me to go into full
·rebuttal of all of the legal discussion in the 24-page ·Staff report that was issued on Thursday, but we will
·try to hit the important highlights.
· · · · · And we hope that today you'll be able to vote ·in favor of reversing the appeal and that these people ·who are sitting here with us, who are all currently

34 ·employees at Central Transport as well as probably
·another 20 -- or maybe 10 or 20 more, will be able to
·keep their jobs after the holidays.
· · · · · I do have a handout with bullet points.· In the ·interest of time I think it might be a little easier for ·you to just see the highlights right here on this one
·page.· ·And Mr. Thies was kind enough to agree that I
·could hand it to you.· So if it's okay with you, I will ·provide it to you, is that okay?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· That's fine.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· ·Okay.· Thank you.· I'm not
·going to read that to you.· It's sort of in addition to ·some of the points that we are going to make -- or it
·summarizes the points.· And you can take notes on it,
·and I'm just hoping it will be helpful for you given the ·volume of this record.
· · · · · To the degree that you would consider
·Mr. Burns's findings persuasive, first of all, his
·procedural findings really don't apply here in this
·proceeding.
· · · · · As Mr. Priest correctly stated, you have much ·more latitude.· You can consider evidence, any evidence ·you desire, that is placed before you because this is an ·independent appeal under the HCCSP.
· · · · · Different than the CMC appeal that was before

35 ·Mr. Burns.· And you shouldn't consider his decision as ·something that hold much weight at all because as Mr.
·Thies pointed out, he refused to accept and consider
·some important key evidence.· One of those items is
·Exhibit 31 and that's what Mr. Michow is all about. I
·will get to that in a little bit.
· · · · · It shows that in 2003 when Crown purchased the ·property -- and you saw that actually Mr. Burns did find ·that Crown has continuously been using this trucking
·terminal for trucking use since 2003, and that actually ·prior to that Crown was a tenant and was using the
·property for trucking as a tenant even before that.· But ·in 2001 when Crown was thinking of purchasing the
·property it did due diligence.
· · · · · And it talked to Mr. Andres De Soto in the
·planning department of the city and got assurances from ·him that they would be allowed to continue using the
·property for trucking use, if they were to purchase it. ·That's Exhibit 31.· Is that --· is a conversation that ·memorializes that.
· · · · · And that's why it's so important that Mr. Burns ·not having considered that letter is really key to
·whether -- to the fact that we disagree with his
·findings and conclusion.
· · · · · I do have Mr. Michow's declaration here. I

36 ·would suggest that I be allowed to provide it to the ·Planning Commissioners at this point.· Or if you haven't ·decided yet, now would also be good if you would allow ·me to have Mr. Moroun provide some comments of his own ·to the Planning Commission.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Before I propose this to the
·Chair, has Mr. Thies seen this declaration?
· · · · · ·MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.· I sent it to him
·already.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I don't have a problem with a
·legal standpoint if you want to admit it.· Does
·Mr. Thies have any concerns or --
· · · · · ·MR. THIES:· The City's position is that Crown ·and Central Transport tried to make their case at the
·administrative hearing.· This is an appeal hearing, and ·we don't believe that they should be allowed to
·introduce this evidence now after the fact.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· My advice to the Planning
·Commission would -- because again you are the Planning ·Commission, you are not a Court of Appeal.· So you have ·more latitude to let documents in.
· · · · · I'm in support of this hearing process.· So I ·would advise that you can and I'll note the objection. ·I'll advise that the objection be overruled.
· · · · · Is the Commission okay with that?

37 · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Okay.· Thank you.· We
·appreciate that.· So I'll let Mr. Michow go, unless I
·can be allowed to ask him to confirm that this would be ·his testimony.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· That's fine, and then I have one ·question for Mr. Michow.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· ·Oh, sure.· Okay.· Should I
·plug it in, or how do you want to do it audiovisually? · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I went to the wrong school for
·that.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I see an HDMI cord.· Perhaps I ·can just plug it in.· I'm not that great at it either, ·Mr. Priest, but I'll try.· I have plugged it into the
·HDMI, but I don't -- yes.· There we are.
· · · · · Mr. Michow, thank you for joining us.· Oh, I'm ·sorry.· I have you on mute.· Okay.· Can you test it?
·Can you say something?· Are you still muted?· Mute it. ·Unmute it.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I've got one on this side.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Okay.· Can you try again,
·Mr. Michow?
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· I can't see his audio.· because ·if he was connected on his PC, you would see his
·microphone PC.

38 · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Okay.· Are you able to connect ·to the audio, Mr. Michow?· Do you want to maybe try
·logging off and logging back in?· Okay.· Meanwhile, I
·will distribute the declaration.
· · · · · Perhaps this is a good juncture in an
·interesting time to have Mr. Moroun come say his
·comments while we work with the audiovisual for
·Mr. Michow.
· · · · · Would that be okay?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Is he present here?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· He is.· Mr. Moroun is the CEO ·of Crown Enterprises, and he's here.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· And if you wouldn't mind, ·if you just want to offer it to the public.· I assume
·we're not taking official testimony, cross-examination. ·This is just public hearing testimony.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We just want to make sure that ·Mr. Moroun has a chance to address the Planning
·Commissioners.· I don't think it should take more than a ·few minutes.· Maybe four minutes at the most.· I was
·going to prompt him with some questions about some key ·-- you're good?· Okay.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Good evening, Mr. Chair.· My name ·is Matthew Moroun.· My family owns Crown Enterprises
·Transport.· I'm grateful for the opportunity to be

39 ·before this Planning Commission and you all as
·Commissioners.
· · · · · We have an opportunity.· I'm not here to give ·you legal arguments.· There's been quite enough of that. · · · · · We have an opportunity to fix things.· You have ·the power and the position to deal with this matter in a ·positive way.· And I really hope that you do.
· · · · · We've been at this Colton terminal since the
·late 90s as a tenant, Central Transport, since the early ·2000s.· I don't quibble with any of the dates that they ·mentioned.
· · · · · We were able to buy the terminal from our
·landlord.· And we used my family's company called Crown ·Enterprises as a real estate investor to buy that
·terminal and lease it directly to Central Transport.
·And a trucking company has been operating there since
·that time.
· · · · · We made a mistake that I take blame for.· We
·failed for some years, not all years but many of them, ·to pay our business license fee.· We paid all of our
·property taxes.· We paid all of our utilities that some ·of which were paid to the city.
· · · · · We tried to be a good corporate citizen.· But ·we failed to pay our business license fees for many of ·those years.· The City knocked on our door and said,

40 ·Hey, you haven't paid your business license fees.
· · · · · When we tried to pay them, they wouldn't take ·our money.· These fees aren't much.· They wouldn't take ·the money.· I understand that they have a plan or plans ·or maybe even you all have plans to turn the area that ·our terminal is in into something else.· I've worked
·with many cities in the past, many mayors, many planning ·commissions.
· · · · · I understand that things change and evolve.
·And I'd be happy to work with the City of Colton.· I was ·never asked to do that.· Instead we were told, you
·didn't pay your business license fee.· You have a
·nonconforming use.· Get out.
· · · · · I can't get out.· I've got a business that I
·care about, employees that I care about.· I've got an
·operation that serves customers.
· · · · · Many folks that make things and ship things
·that are located in the City of Colton.· Many businesses ·that received this shipment in the city of Colton, we
·serve them.· That's what these gentlemen do right here. · · · · · It's their livelihood.· I ask you to resolve
·this.· We will do whatever is necessary to make the City ·whole.· We'll pay any fees that we owe back with
·interest.· I'll even pay all the lawyer fees, which are ·out of control on both sides, so that the City is not

41 ·out one dime.
· · · · · But what should I do?· I know that you're
·looking at this file and you're saying, wow.· It's this ·thick.· Look at all these documents.· Look at all the
·things that they've been arguing about, so on.· We have ·to.· If we don't argue, these guys are out and so am I. · · · · · You have the power as a planning commission to ·stop this.· And I would -- I give you my solemn
·commitment to sit down with the City and the planner
·folks, and see how can we work together and collaborate ·in the future to accommodate whatever plans you have.
· · · · · None of my industrial neighbors have done so. ·They are all still there operating as industrial
·neighbors right next to me.· But I'm willing to do that. ·I'm willing to put it in writing.· I'm willing to
·resolve this in any amicable way possible.
· · · · · We tried for a long time with the folks inside ·the City to resolve this, and we were unable to do so. ·I regret that very much.· But I'm offering -- I'm giving ·you a heartfelt plea.
· · · · · See these gentlemen.· Tell them before
·Christmas that their jobs are safe.· Tell me, Matthew, ·we accept your offer to cover costs, pay all the fees, ·pay all of the lawyers.
· · · · · End these fights and sit down in a meaningful

42 ·way and talk about how we can collaborate to make that ·area start -- where we are starting for the very first ·time to accommodate your HUB City Centre Plan.
· · · · · But right now I have to fight.· I don't want
·to.· You have the power to end this.· Please, please,
·end it.· Put these lawyers out of business.· Save these ·men's jobs.· Save my company.
· · · · · That's what I'm here to ask you for.· All these ·arguments that they're giving you, they've already given ·them all to you.· They haven't done any good so far and ·we've been fighting about this for over four years.
· · · · · I came to the City once, met with the city
·manager, begged him.· Is there anything I can do to make ·this go away?· Is there anything that we can do?
· · · · · Can we build a new facade?· Can we paint the
·building?· Can we put in streetscapes?· Can we work with ·you?
· · · · · Do you have another spot in the City where we ·can build a new terminal and a couple years later after ·we build it, we'll move and then you can do what you
·want with the property?· The answer was get lost.
· · · · · I can't do that.· I don't want to keep
·fighting, but you can see I'm in a corner.· I have to
·keep fighting.· But you have the power to resolve this. · · · · · You have the power to bring some sanity to

43 ·this.· My alternative if we don't get through, is
·exactly what you would do if you were in my spot.· Keep ·fighting.
· · · · · So the next step is the court.· The next step ·is more legal fees.· I'm not going to let these guys
·down.· I'm not going to watch my business to go down the ·tube.
· · · · · Not to mention the fact that it's always been a ·trucking terminal.· Anybody that drives by can see,
·unless they're blind.· Everyone knows that it's been a ·trucking terminal.· And probably anyone who has been in ·there long enough knows it's been used as a trucking
·terminal since before 1996.· Because our landlord was
·ABF and they do the exact same thing as us.
· · · · · And when they moved out, we moved in and they ·rented it to us.· And then we bought it from them.· This ·thing's been a trucking terminal since the day it was
·constructed.· We need only have a look at the plans that ·Colton approved to allow the building of construction of ·the terminal to find out the date that it started being ·a trucking terminal.
· · · · · I'm sorry.· That's me arguing.· I didn't come ·here to argue.· I came here to ask you to -- does the
·punishment fit the crime?
· · · · · These are small business license fees, mea

44 ·culpa.· They should have been paid.· I will pay them ·with interest.
· · · · · I'm very sorry.· But don't kill us because we ·didn't pay or forgot to pay the business license fees. ·Thank you.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you, Mr. Moroun.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Thank you.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· That's okay.· Let's worry about ·that after.· I just want to follow up with some clear
·points on the timeline for what Mr. Moroun was saying. ·'96 was the original Specific Plan and there was a
·clause in the plan that said if the property was sold
·that any not -- any grandfathered nonconforming use
·would be extinguished.· We have been referring to that ·as the Extinguishment Clause.
· · · · · Dionna Natelyn was from Mr. Michow's office
·wanted to do due diligence with Mr. Soto.· This is the ·first page of Exhibit 31 in your record.
· · · · · She said, "I'm writing as a follow-up to my
·recent visit to your office in our telephone
·conversation last week.· This is February 23rd, 2001.
·As we discussed West Valley Specific Plan" -- that's the ·'96 plan -- "the current use of the property is a legal ·pre-existing nonconforming use under the plan."
· · · · · Currently legal for nonconforming use.

45 ·Although, there is some language in the plan indicating ·a change of ownership of the property subject to the
·plan truckers conformity of use.· No change of ownership ·would affect the pre-existing nonconforming use of
·freight.
· · · · · Even if the freight company was allowed, she's ·ready to confirm that with them.· Now, this is 2001.· We ·don't have many files at that time, but we were able to ·find this.
· · · · · And the declaration that I provided to you from ·Mr. Michow, who was a partner in the law firm at that
·time, confirms this is her signature, and he attaches an ·example of another letter that you can see in his
·declaration as well.
· · · · · So in 2001 the statement promised that if Crown ·purchased the property, that it would continue as legal ·nonconforming use.· And as you saw, even Mr. Burns
·agrees, that the use has been continuous as a trucking ·use since 2003.
· · · · · So all we're really talking about here is a
·couple of other things.
· · · · · No. 1, this business license extinguished the ·grandfathering of that use.· There is case law that we ·cited in the record in our proof that says, "No, that is ·not a basis to extinguish a commercial nonconforming" --

46 ·sorry.· -- "legal nonconforming use."
· · · · · The other thing that Mr. Burns said in his
·opinion, again we don't believe it's precedential, but ·just to make the point or in case you feel persuaded by ·what he found, he said the City was never aware that
·Crown was making that use during the critical time
·frame.
· · · · · In fact, when the City in 2014 issued the
·current Specific Plan, the City referenced this use of ·the 2014 Specific Plan.· So from 2001, we've got the
·City saying, no problem.· You can use it.· 2003, Crown ·purchases it and continues the trucking use that's
·always existed there all the way through the entire
·timeline.
· · · · · And then in 2014, the City knows when it issues ·the plan that that trucking use is there.· Adjacent to ·the west side of Pepper Avenue is a former church
·facility transitioning into vocational school. A
·warehouse building, not a trucking company.
· · · · · This starts on page 77 of your record, which is ·a copy of the Specific Plan.· And on the very next page, ·knowledge of the trucking use.· We also prove this is a ·demonstrative exhibit.· I believe this is a
·demonstrative exhibit too because they kind of mark it ·up.

47 · · · · · But the point is in 2014, the City knew about ·this ongoing trucking use.· So we've got an ongoing -- ·you know what "grandfathering" is; right?
· · · · · It just means that when there is an ongoing
·use.· There is legal nonconforming -- it doesn't get
·interrupted.· And that's what we have here.· There is no ·reason, just because of a business license, a clerical ·error, to extinguish this use and extinguish all of
·these jobs.
· · · · · If I had known you -- and more to Mr. Moroun's ·point about the surrounding uses.· This is all
·commercial industrial.· If you shut it down, you're
·essentially taking the property.· There's nothing he can ·do.
· · · · · That's retail and Crown doesn't operate retail. ·Crown operates a trucking use.· So those are some of the ·critical things I hope you'll consider for the record. · · · · · Here is why from a legal standpoint.· You can ·and should grant our appeal.· You've got a continuing
·use from 2003, completely legal nonconforming the entire ·time.· The only legal issue is the business license,
·which case law says is not a basis to extinguish legal ·nonconforming use.
· · · · · If -- and you've got an owner that is telling ·you he is sorry about the clerical error, but you don't

48 ·cancel his business.· You don't extinguish these jobs ·just because of a clerical error.· Let him pay back the ·fees with interest and he'll even pay the City's legal ·fees that arose from all of this.
· · · · · And I think that you will find that that's a
·much better, you know, scenario for both the City as
·well as for Crown and its employees.· If you're not
·inclined to vote yes in favor of our appeal today and
·cancel the notice and order to shut down Crown's use,
·then we would ask that we simply be allowed -- that you ·take it under submission, rather than voting down our
·appeal.
· · · · · And allow us to submit a reply to the 24-page ·Staff opinion that was submitted to you.· We haven't had ·an opportunity to submit a written reply to that, if
·you're concerned about it.
· · · · · But I do think we covered the major points
·today.· There isn't a legal basis to extinguish the use ·of this point.
· · · · · And there is a bit of social basis to Crown or ·its employees.· And with that I will use my time to
·respond to anything else that Mr. Thies would like to
·say, unless you still would like to hear from Mr.
·Michow.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, did you have any

49 ·questions for Mr. Michow?· I had one question I wanted ·to ask.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Does the Commission have any
·questions?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· For the witness.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· For the witness, Mr. Michow.· Is ·he still on?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Now, if I may, Members of
·Commission and attorney and appellant's attorney.· The ·best way to do it is just to unhook it and let your
·audio go and then put your microphone next to your
·audio.· That's the best way to do at this point.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Oh.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· The other way would be the HDMI to ·the computer.· But I didn't bring the plug.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We didn't bring the plug.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· If I had known ahead of time, I
·would have -- I would've brought mine.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I wonder if we could just get ·Mr. Michow on the phone.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I just have one question,
·Mr. Chair, if you don't mind.· I just have one question ·for Mr. Michow if you don't mind.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Let me just try to get him.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I'm just trying to get back in.

50 · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Does he see or his law firm have a ·copy of a Colton signed letter?· Not the template
·attached to Exhibit 31, a signed copy.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We'll just stipulate that the ·answer to that is no.· No one was able to find that in ·their files, no.· Do we still need to go to get
·Mr. Michow?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· No.· If you're willing to
·stipulate to that, no.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Okay.· There was one more thing ·I wanted to mention of the timeline.· So in 2003, Crown ·did have a business license, and that business license ·expired in 2005.
· · · · · So the business license expired in 2005.· So
·when Crown began its use in 2003 as an owner, it was
·actually licensed.· So we're just talking about failure ·to renew the license during the interim of the use.
· · · · · That was my final point.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.· You have questions.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Go ahead.· Repeat that again.· What ·was that you said, just to clarify?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Crown purchased the property
·2003 and at that point they had a business license.· The ·business license expired in 2005.
· · · · · So in fact when after Crown purchased the

51 ·property, so we establish continuous use.· We also
·established that they were in 2005 licensed to operate ·as a trucking company.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· So Crown did have a business
·license; correct?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Correct.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· And, Commissioner, if I may?· You ·say Crown had a business license in 2003?· Where is that ·in the record?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I will find it for you.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Are you sure you're not talking
·about the business occupancy permit that was issued to ·Crown Enterprises in 2000?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· So there was a business permit ·to operate as a trucking company as I recall from the
·record, and I will find that for you.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· In Crown's name?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· In Crown's name.· I'll find it ·for you in the record.· I want to accurately answer your ·question.· I told you that while Mr. Thies is making his ·comment.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· And if you could too, I'd like to ·see the information you have about a business occupancy ·permit to Crown as well because I didn't see that in the ·record.

52 · · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Any questions?· Go ahead.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Do you have questions of me?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I'm not sure who my questions will ·be going to.· They're more general than you, targeted I ·suppose.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Is this the best we could do it? ·So going with what Mr. Priest was saying, this here says ·there was a business occupancy permit application in
·2003 that was issued; but just to clarify the difference ·between that of the business license application is:
·One allows the business to operate with a certain
·whatever they're going to do.
· · · · · And one is to physically enter the building?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· A business license -- I can
·clarify that.
· · · · · A business license is fundamentally a text
·document.· You file for a business license and then you ·pay the City's business license tax and any applicable ·fees and there you go.· You post the certificate in your ·business and you go from there.
· · · · · The business occupancy permit under our code is ·a different thing.· The business occupancy permit is
·really the screening system.· The code has to verify its ·uses are in conformance with the zoning code or

53 ·applicable Specific Plan.
· · · · · The way the code is written is when there's a ·change of ownership of property which happened in 2003 ·with Crown.· The owners are required to then come in and ·get a business occupancy permit.· And in applying for
·that the City goes out there, verifies zoning, verifies ·proper use and then will sign off on the BOP, if that's ·the case.
· · · · · And just to give you some background, by the
·way, on the code enforcement side of this, this happens ·sometimes.· You know, users will be operating out there ·and then something happens with the business license or ·something.
· · · · · And then it gets discovered and then it gets
·referred to the Department of the BOP and then we end up ·here, not uncommon.
· · · · · But in any event, I just wanted to clarify.
·That's the distinction between the two.· And you know, ·correct me if I'm wrong, anybody.· I don't remember
·seeing a business license in Crown's, nor a BOP in
·Crown's name in the administrative record, but I'm open ·to persuasion if you've got those records.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· So I might've misspoken.· It's ·a business occupancy permit as Exhibit 5 and 34 and it ·was taken up by Crown Western, Inc., an affiliate of

54 ·Crown Enterprises at the time.
· · · · · They have since become LLCs, you know.
·Entities can be affiliated or they can change form and ·so on and so forth.
· · · · · And in 2000 they submitted a business occupancy ·permit and under that permit the trucking use was
·approved and that permit was issued and expired in 2005. ·I can remember Crown purchased the business -- the
·building in 2003.· So that business occupancy permit
·wasn't set to expire until 2005.
· · · · · I guess there is a distinction between the
·business license fee.
· · · · · Again, we are just back to this as all a
·clerical error, yes.· Mr. Moran has apologized for the ·clerical error.· And that is an oversight on my client's ·part.
· · · · · But when you have a continuously operating use ·that you now started out with a business occupancy
·permit in place and then you've got, again, promises
·from the City as you see in Exhibit 31 that that would ·continue and be legal despite the change in ownership, ·it seems like a great injustice to, in 2024 now, shut
·the business down and look at all the consequences that ·go with that.
· · · · · And then if you're talking about as Mr. Priest

55 ·-- obviously, the City doesn't have the money for
·enforcement.· It's like sort of as they see it they
·enforce it.
· · · · · But the City was fully aware -- if you look at ·this timeline that you have here, you've got
·September 21st, 2016.· That's Exhibit 35.· The City
·receives an online request considering the dust and
·debris from trucks entering the property.· All the way ·up until 2014 when the City -- when the new Specific
·Plan is issued you saw from that exhibit that the City ·did know in 2014 and included the use in the Specific
·Plan, reference it.
· · · · · There is no citation, and the City is aware
·that this use is ongoing.· And then, you know, you have ·a whole timeline of events that are filled with moments ·when, for instance, in May 2018, Mark Tomlinch, another ·city employee, request by Crown's -- one of Crown's
·personnel about extending the trucking use on the
·property.· That's Exhibits 37 and 38.
· · · · · And then in May 2018, there's an event from
·Senior Planner Jay Jared and the City and others
·discussing should we inform Crown that they don't have ·an active business license for their trucking use?
· · · · · That's in 2018.· That's Exhibit 39.· Still the ·City doesn't issue any citation.

56 · · · · · And in 2020, we finally get the citation issued ·that gave rise to why we're here today.· And you don't ·have a business license.
· · · · · If you look at this exhibit, you'll see the
·back-and-forth conversations.· What happened is that as ·soon as Crown knew it didn't have a business license, as ·soon as it realized that and it was brought to its
·attention, it received the citation, they said hey,
·let's pay for the business license.· We are so sorry.
·We didn't even realize that.· That's a clerical error. · · · · · Perhaps they thought their tenant was going to ·take care of that.· Obviously, a big company should take ·care of those things, but sometimes -- and again that's ·why you have a procedure to issue a citation and it gets ·corrected.
· · · · · That's exactly what Crown attempted to do in
·2020.· But it sort of morphed into this whole we're
·going to actually shut you down because we don't think ·you've been continuously operating.
· · · · · Well, they have been continuously operating -- ·Everyone agrees with that, even Mr. Burns -- from 2003. ·And they bought the property on the promise from the
·City that they could be operating as a trucking
·facility.
· · · · · The only question here is whether you're going

57 ·to shut a business in your city just because of an
·oversight, a clerical error about their business
·license.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Going back to Exhibit 31, the way ·I look is it's a letter to the City.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· That's right.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· And is there any acknowledgment by ·the City that the letter was received, or is it just one ·way?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We don't have that in the file. ·But you'll see Mr. Michow's declaration.· He says that ·Dionna Natelyn was a very competent transactional
·paralegal, and he has great faith that she -- this is a ·normal thing she would do in the course of her due
·diligence, which is just confirming a conversation that ·she had had with Mr. De Soto with this letter.
· · · · · We also don't see anything with the City that ·says, hey, we never said that; right?· This is just
·evidence; right?· It's one brick in a wall.· It's
·evidence that this was the discussion at the time that ·the City said, it's fine.· You'll continue this use.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Is there a pathway to legal
·conforming for this business?· What would that take, a ·zone change, and what else would it take to actually
·make that happen, if that's something we really wanted

58 ·to pursue?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.· It would take zoning
·change.· No one is contending here that the zoning
·allows for the trucking use, generally speaking, we're ·just contending that it's been grandfathered.· We've
·been doing this since 2003.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· What would the zoning need?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It's within the HUB City.· If I
·may, Chair, if it's okay?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yeah.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· The location is within the HUB
·City Centre Specific Plan.· So we would have to find a ·designation that would work within the HUB City Specific ·Plan.· It presently does not allow for logistic centers ·such as presently exists.
· · · · · So it would be -- we would have to invent
·something.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I think Mr. Priest could speak ·to whether there would be perhaps even a waiver.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Again, get there is no --
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· There's no -- just to
·clarify, there is an industrial park just to the south ·of it.· Is that what the use to the south of the
·property is?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· South of the property is a

59 ·business park and we can go off the zoning, if you'd ·like.
· · · · · If you want me to pull up a map to be exact.
·But at this present time, it's within the HUB City
·Centre Specific Plan.· Now if the Commission wants it
·here and wants to look at different alternatives or
·wants to request information from Staff about the
·proposal and the crux of the proposal, we can go over it ·when you're ready.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· ·Mr. Chair, if I may?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· The issue we have here is that the ·HUB City Centre Specific Plan does not permit this use. ·It's just not a listed permitted use at all.
· · · · · So really the issue is have they established
·legal nonconforming use and possess legal nonconforming, ·not illegal use, of the past.· But have they established ·legal nonconforming use going back to -- prior to 1996 ·when there was the West Valley Specific Plan as well?
·Because it's a prohibited use under both plans.
· · · · · So they need to go back pretty far to do that, ·and the record does not establish that.· To date at
·least, that's the City's position.
· · · · · That is the Hearing Officer's position with
·respect to the policy's issues.

60 · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· May I speak to that?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· If you give me a minute.· With
·respect to the policy issues -- I don't mean to sound
·insensitive to the policies issues.· This is a very real ·business, with real jobs, and real people; and I
·acknowledge that.
· · · · · But to solve this issue would really be a
·legislative solution, an amendment to the Specific Plan. ·It would be some policy made in a legislative initiative ·where you make a recommendation.· It would go to the
·City Council.· They would make some change that repair. · · · · · An alternative would be if Ms. Brackmann and
·Mr. Thies were able to sit down and the parties settled ·the matter in some way.· And I know they've been in
·negotiations for quite a while attempting to do that.
· · · · · But what's before you this evening is:· Have
·they or have they not established legal nonconforming
·use going back to 1996?· If you believe that the
·evidence shows they have, then you'll overturn the
·Hearing Officer, they continue to operate.
· · · · · If you don't believe they have shown that in
·the record, then you uphold the Hearing Officer's
·decision.· It is an illegal use under the code and they ·forward from that.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· If I may just briefly respond?

61 ·We have established legal nonconforming use going back ·that far, and the way that you can see that is that in ·2000 the City issued a business occupancy permit to the ·predecessor that was for trucking use.
· · · · · The City wouldn't have issued that if there
·hadn't been an in place legal use at that time.· So that ·brings us actually to 2005.· At that point Crown has
·been on the property for two years and been operating as ·a trucking operation and with that prior business
·occupancy permit.
· · · · · And then just again, we have the clerical
·error.· We've established a continuing use since 2003, ·and that it was certainly legal at least as of 2005.
·That's what we contend.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, if you grant me some
·latitude, I wanted to ask Mr. Suarez a question,
·actually.
· · · · · As we're getting into this business occupancy ·permit issue -- and again, Mr. Thies, I'm sorry if I'm ·stomping around here a bit, but the business occupancy ·permit.
· · · · · First of all, on the record there's a business ·occupancy permit application and there's a number in it. ·That suggests that some permit was issued and there's
·some other document on the record that suggests the BOP

62 ·was issued to Crown Western, which as I understand it -- ·please correct me if I'm wrong, is not Crown
·Enterprises.· Different companies, different entities. · · · · · The code also -- the business occupancy permits ·are to the owner.· Because if there's a change of
·ownership in the property, you, new owner, need to get a ·BOP.
· · · · · So as the Commission you consider, you know,
·the evidentiary value of a BOP issued to Crown Western ·in 2000 when the property was sold.· That the BOP under ·the code -- as I read across me.· If I'm wrong, Staff, ·that BOP didn't apply to Crown.· It didn't carry over. · · · · · It wasn't like a long term entitlement that
·runs with the land.· You've got to get a new BOP, if
·you're a new buyer of the property.· Correct me if I'm ·wrong, Staff, is that the City's position there?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Yes.· That is the City's position ·pursuant to Title 18, 1850 of the code.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· If we may, Mr. Chair?· We would ·like to address that point briefly.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· My family owned Crown Western.
·That's what it was called before they owned in
·California.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· But legally different entities.
·There was a purchase of legal sale to Crown Enterprises.

63 · · · · · MR. MOROUN:· It was the exact same thing.
·These employees worked for Crown Western.· It's the same ·business; it's the same company.· It's the same people ·that work in my company that failed to keep applying for ·more and more business licenses are the same people that ·applied for that one.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· So, Chair, if I may, and
·Mr. Priest.
· · · · · So in that case your business license would be ·showing and those documents showing Corporation and
·entities being the same.· If they could provide that
·information.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Was there anything in the record ·that indicates that was provided?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· No, sir.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Well, it's 30 jobs and a
·company's business.· They were never asked about it as ·far as Mr. Moroun just said.· But if that's a question ·and we've got a lot riding on this, we would be happy to ·provide that evidence.· If you don't take Mr. Moroun's ·word for it.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Suarez, I assume the usual
·policy is you would require a BOP?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Correct, yes.· A new business
·would require a BOP.· That was the determination and the

64 ·extensive research in giving every expectation to the ·business owner to provide that information.· There was ·none provided.· That's why we ended up where we ended
·up.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Even if it is a corporation, a
·limited partnership or a LLC, it would still require a ·new BOP?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Right.· There's nothing happening ·with the ownership.· And that is part of the process
·that they need to show.
· · · · · That being the case, that's recorded documents ·with the state and those documents are on file and they ·could provide it to our business license division.· They ·can look at that.· We could still require a new BOP at ·that point.
· · · · · They still need to show that they've been
·operating and, I think, as I recall, we had a hard time ·putting that together.· We didn't show any business
·operations during a long period of time, which I think ·was the crux of the problem.
· · · · · And the bottom line, I think we provided some ·correspondence from the former director of that case,
·and I think that was Exhibit 33.
· · · · · We're looking it up.· Give me a second.
·Exhibit 33 from director Tomlinch requesting

65 ·information.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· On the business license permit it ·was written Crown Western closeout status?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Right.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· And if the owner of Crown wanted ·to apply for a Business occupancy waiver, is that like a ·BOP?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· That was a potential offer at that ·time.· The City Staff has a policy:· either doing a
·business occupancy permit or looking at a waiver,
·depending.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· But neither was issued?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Nothing was issued.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I take it that no environmental
·impact report or anything was ever done?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· You know, 20 years ago and if it ·was, it would be lost by now.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Not that I'm aware of.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· And just to clarify, there was a ·lot on this timeline.· In January 2010, was that just
·how far back rent leases could go for Central Trucking? · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yeah.· That was how far back
·our lease files went.· But based on the testimony at the ·prior hearing, which again, we don't have two hours here ·today.

66 · · · · · But based on the testimony, which actually is ·in the record, Mr. Burns felt the use had been
·continuous since 2003.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.· But then between 1996 and ·2003, there's no -- neither evidence or anecdotal
·evidence or what can we know about 1996 to 2003?
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Sir, if I could help.· I started ·-- I started work in 1995.· I don't have a specific
·knowledge as to the exact date in the 90s when Central ·Transport, Crown or our company Crown Western began
·leasing this property from ABF, another LTL carrier.
·Just like ours, that was a trucking company that ended ·before us.
· · · · · Then, I specifically authorized a real estate ·department to purchase this property myself.· I did in ·the early 2000s from ABF.· And I know we moved in.· And ·I know we operated a trucking business since that time. ·I can swear to it.· I have personal knowledge of it.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Do we know when the buildings -- ·you mentioned that earlier when those buildings were
·actually erected.
· · · · · MR. MORAN:· I do not know.· I mean ABF used the ·property prior to us for at least a few years, and we
·rented it from ABF in like 1997, '98, something like
·that.

67 · · · · · And it wasn't brand new when we moved in.· So I ·think it would be very easy to find the construction
·documents for that terminal and prove that that terminal ·was in existence as a truck terminal prior to 1996.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· No upgrades, improvements have
·been done since you owned it or can remember?
· · · MR. MOROUN:· We'd like to do a lot, but I don't
·think the City would approve it until this matter was
·finished.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Also, I wanted to point out
·this occupancy permit is going back to 2005.· So that's ·also evidence that the use was continuing as a trucking ·use legally approved by the City all the way until 2005, ·and that is Exhibits 35 and 34.
· · · · · Right.· I think you were asking what evidence ·you have that it was continuous use prior to 1996.
·Well, we've got a business occupancy permit in place of ·a trucking use as of 2000 going to 2005.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· So then correct me if I'm wrong, ·but technically it's a business occupancy permit
·application.· Like you said, was an actual license
·administered?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· It was administered and issued. ·It was issued.· Again, I can bring up the exhibits, or ·you can look at Exhibits 35 and 34.· Those are the ones

68 ·cited in my timeline, but it was issued and it was
·effective until 2005.· It was issued to be effective
·until 2005.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, if I may?· Can I ask
·one last question?· This is to Mr. Suarez, again.· Oh, ·I'm sorry.
· · · · · I'm sorry.· Mr. Chair, is it okay if I ask
·Mr. Suarez a question?· Looking at Exhibit 5 really
·quick, just to go through that.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.· Exhibit 31 is the
·business occupancy permit.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· It's the application.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I think it says -- okay.· Then ·you've got 34 which references it; right?· You've got
·back from 5 which references it?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Looking at your letter,
·Mr. Suarez, to Mr. Samahatan in 2020.· I just want to be ·clear here.· It says "No business after 2005 is
·registered with the City to obtain a business license
·and/or BOP."
· · · · · Do you take that statement to mean the BOP has ·a 5-year life to it, or was this, we don't have any
·information after 2005?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Correct.· We don't have any

69 ·information as to a new business being established at ·that site.· And that site, as we know, has been vacant ·and not in operation.
· · · · · If you take a look at the aerials, you'll see ·that the site is vacant.· Looking at both the aerials, ·you'll see the site is vacant 2005 to 2006.· We can show ·that.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· But do you take that to mean that ·the BOP has a five-year life?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· No.· The BOP gets a one-time
·approved, inspected, and it's done.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· And if a new owner comes along
·there's no new BOP?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· There's a new application that
·comes along, correct.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Thank you, Mr. Chair.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· So for a little bit of clarity ·just from, like, your guys's end.
· · · · · When a new business comes in or they're trying ·to come in, so right when he purchased the property and ·tried moving everything over, do they get like a
·checklist of everything that as a new business they're ·supposed to complete for everything to be legal, good
·standing, all of that fun stuff?
· · · · · Like is there, like, something clearly written

70 ·out, right?· Because they're saying it's a clerical ·error.· Which I get there's a million papers involved in ·the process; right?
· · · · · But is there something for them to follow,
·where, like, they knew that they needed this?
· · · · · Is it clearly written somewhere on your guys's ·process?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· There are various handouts that we ·have related to the business occupancy permit.· But it's ·changed through the years, and although it had changed ·through the years, each of those handouts have provided ·the customer with the process of what to do
·step-by-step.
· · · · · And that's available on our website today on
·its current state.· I might have copies of the old 2005 ·step-by-step how to do a BOP.· As well as the business ·license applications, those are annual things every
·business knows it that conducts business, comes into the ·City, obtains their business license, and pays an annual ·fee.
· · · · · Whether it's an oversight or not, you know,
·it's -- that's a best guess.· We don't know.· A business ·comes in, tries to establish a use.· In this case
·there's an issue of the land use being retail and the
·use possibly in this case legal nonconforming has lost

71 ·its conformity because of lapse of -- cessation of use. ·That's the basic principle, the zoning principle.· And ·so we then went through the process of doing some
·research, and it ended up where we didn't see there was ·a legal established use.
· · · · · Now, the attorney, Mr. Thies, can probably get ·the legal part to that.· That's where he comes and
·ensures whether our research was correct or not.
·Otherwise, we wouldn't come to this step.
· · · · · Our director said, "Why waste your time?"
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I just want to add to your very
·specific question as well as in terms of a checklist,
·not a single checklist.
· · · · · Have you seen even from -- even just from what ·we bring forward, there are numerous handouts.· But a
·lot of it's based on conversations.· And okay.· So if
·it's this circumstances, you're going to go down this
·path.
· · · · · If it's the circumstance, you're going to do it ·down this path.· But there's too many variables and
·complexities with land use and entitlements to have a
·single checklist that is going to fit for every single ·business that comes.
· · · · · So hopefully that kind of helps as· well.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· So in general, if I were to go

72 ·in and try the process of, like, having a business and ·starting all of that, each business is unique and it has ·different requirements.
· · · · · After talking with the City, would I ever get ·something in writing saying, this is what's required,
·this is when it's due by?· If not, you're out of luck. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Not really a due by, but, you
·know, but is it vacant land you're doing your
·construction on?· Is this an existing zone for it?
·What's the zoning?· Each zoning has different
·requirements.
· · · · · But there is usually going to be a follow-up. ·We do have pre-applications where we also formalize
·that, but even through email where it's okay as we
·understand from X, Y, and Z; you need to apply for this. ·You need to apply, for this code enforcement case, it a ·little bit different as well as time frames.
· · · But if it's not a code enforcement case, we're not ·going to tell you when you need to start your business. ·It's going to be the conditions of approval.
·Sure, but if you're starting a new business that's on
·your timeline.· If it's code enforcement case, we may
·give some time frames.
· · · · · So again, it's incredibly nuanced to the
·specific circumstance of each business.

73 · · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Okay.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Here's the current application.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Okay.· Thank you.· And from the ·business's end, I know that you state that you've had
·continuous use.· I'm kind of piggybacking off of what
·Dr. Peters said.
· · · · · I know to do upgrades, things like that where ·you have to go through the City, you need an active
·business license, an active BOP.· It's required to make ·any upgrades.
· · · · · So in the 15 years where it was lapsed, you
·guys didn't need to make any updates even though you
·were actively in use?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Well,· I would let Mr. Moroun ·answer that question.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· The terminal exists as it has been ·since it was constructed.· If you drove by it, it looks ·like it's been used.· It's a fine place.· It does its
·service.· But it's probably not going to do any
·prettiest awards.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Okay.· Thank you.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I now had a chance to read this
·document that you presented to me, and I just had some ·questions regarding the timeline.
· · · · · So the letter, it's got 04/10 on the bottom

74 ·right.· That was from May 23, 2001. The Exhibit 34 from ·the BOP application was from October, I believe, of the ·year 2000.
· · · · · So before that, the letter specifies that if it ·is confirmed it is a legal pre-existing nonconforming
·use, then they need to have the planning division sign ·it and confirm it.· And it seems odd that you would have ·all of the bread of the sandwich but not the meat.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I'm sorry.· I got interrupted ·while you were talking.· I was trying to get the record ·up, but my laptop got closed, and I had to re-access it. · · · · · DR. PETERS:· No worries.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Can you please repeat your
·question?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Now that I said it, I can say it ·better.
· · · · · Exhibit 34, which is the BOP application, was ·from year 2000- -- it was 2002 through 2005.· It was 01 ·of the year 2000 is the date signed on there.· And then ·the letter, which you provided here.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Exhibit 34 is the application ·for business occupancy permit application from 2000.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Yes.· The number on the bottom;
·right?· There on page 428, that's what I'm looking at. · · · · · The City of Colton business occupancy permit

75 ·application, that's from the year 2000?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Right.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· That's the one that you're talking ·about that expired in 2005.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Right.· According to
·Mr. Suarez's letter.· His looking through the file had ·indicated that it expired in 2005.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· So it was applied for in 2000?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Right.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Commissioners, before we go on, I ·just want to clarify my earlier statement when I was
·asking Mr. Suarez.· The letter says we don't have any
·records of business licenses or BOP after 2005.
· · · · · That is different than an affirmative statement ·by the City saying Crown Enterprises is covered by this ·BOP.
· · · · · And I would point out that the code says that ·if there's a change of ownership -- that the code does ·not distinguish between ownership between two
·individuals or between two corporations.
· · · · · They need to secure a new BOP.· There is no
·carryover of BOP to a new business.· They have to secure ·their own.
· · · · · So I would respectfully disagree with any
·assertion that Mr. Suarez's letter said the BOP is good

76 ·for 5 years and it covers Crown as well as Crown
·Western.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· That's --
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I don't believe it says that.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· We disagree that we have to
·show continuous trucking use.· That we have to go before ·1996 before the 1996 Specific Plan.
· · · · · We've got in 2000 -- you know you got an
·application, right, for business occupancy permit.
·You've got Mr. Suarez's letter indicating that it was
·issued and it existed until 2005.
· · · · · You've got a 2014, the City itself issues its ·new HTSCP, which is the operative specific plan today, ·and references Crown's use in the HCCSP.· The City was ·obviously clear it was an ongoing use.
· · · · · I would think that if there's any legality of ·the use of 2014, that the City would have issued a
·citation at that time.
· · · · · But there is no citation.· And I realize we've ·got a really thin record here.· That's why there is
·limitations, periods, ordinarily right, I mean, files
·don't get saved forever.· But I think you were
·interrupted in your question.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I appreciate the clarification
·from both ends.· Thank you.

77 · · · · · So that the letter that Mr. Michow was
·confirming is from 2001, and it specifies that he's
·trying, whoever wrote this is trying to confirm the
·Crown Enterprises is leasing it and is using it for this ·use.
· · · · · And if that's true, to have a signed and
·executed copy of it.· And then the next one, which is
·from the same day, says, "Thank you."
· · · · · And then there's just the not-signed
·letterhead.· Maybe just help to clarify, it's curious
·that you would have these documents.· The bread of the ·sandwich, if you will, which says that there is a
·sandwich, but there's no good parts to the sandwich.
· · · · · Where's the signed part?· Why would it not be ·in the same file?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I have the same question. I
·don't know why we don't have it.· Our files don't go
·back.· Somebody has that sitting in like their desk
·file.· Or it was found as a result of testimony that
·came out at the administrative hearing.
· · · · · Someone was like, "I might have a copy of
·that."· I know we did our due diligence.· That's sort of ·it.· And my point with presenting the letter to you is ·just that as Mr. Michow states in his declaration,
·"Ms. Natelyn was a competent transaction paralegal.· She

78 ·didn't go around making things up."
· · · · · She started this letter to Mr. De Soto
·memorializing this conversation that they had.· Someone ·said earlier that a lot of these things, it might've
·been my friend here -- I'm sorry.
· · · · · ·MS. DURON:· Heidi.
· · · · · ·MS. BRACKMANN:· A lot of these things are
·conversations that we had with the City and we tried to ·send confirming letters.· I think she wanted to dot all ·her i's and cross all her t's.
· · · · · And certainly the conversation was that she
·memorialized that.· There's no indication on the record ·that she's making anything up in that letter or that
·anyone disagreed.· That's what this discussion was.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.· Sure.· And then the last
·page on here, what is the relevance of this, the tax
·document from 2002?· So this is a year later, and it
·talks about the corporation now has an active status and ·assuming the franchise tax for suspension was resolved. · · · · · What was suspended?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Nothing.· You can disregard the ·contents of the letter.· Mr. Michow attaches that.· It's ·our Exhibit 42 and it's new.· And it's attached to his ·declaration.· It's only that so that you can compare her ·signature, Exhibit 31, versus that.

79 · · · · · He said that in his declaration, "I found this ·other document that compared the documents.· We're just ·dotting our i's and crossing our t's."
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· So this has nothing to do with
·Crown?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· He's authenticating her
·signature so you can see that we're not making anything ·up.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Well, that clarifies a lot for me ·actually.· Okay.· So in the centrum of -- while things ·may or may not have been approved, those were continued ·throughout the time period.
· · · · · There wasn't even a two month period where
·there was no work occurring or no trucks moving because ·Mario said something about vacant lots or unused
·facilities.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· You heard from Mr. Moroun.
·He's testified that he's been around since that time
·frame since 2003 working in the company.
· · · · · And he told you today, testified that this has ·been a continuous use ever since at least 2000 and since ·before 2003 because they were a tenant of them.
· · · · · And that they were continuously operating a
·trucking company since then.· There was also the
·testimony of Michael Sammond, who was also retired from

80 ·the company, believes the president of the company at ·the time we appeared before Mr. Burns.
· · · · · And he also testified to that as well, some
·other employees of the company.· And I believe all that ·testimony was also part of the basis of Mr. Burns's
·conclusion that the trucking use had been ongoing since ·2003 at least.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· And I appreciate testimony, now
·correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're allowed to use ·all available evidence to arise to our conclusion with ·photos and appropriate evidence?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I would suggest to the Commission ·that you confine your investigation into the record as ·before us.
· · · · · If you have questions, if you want to produce ·any additional information, feel free to do that. I
·would urge the commissioners not to do research outside ·of this hearing.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· In the timeline you, again,
·these were in purchased in '01.· So just to give you
·some kind of a safe harbor at least as of 2000, you've ·seen all of the leases in the record.· So we're clear on ·2010.
· · · · · Prior to 2010, you've got the Crown purchase. ·Ms. Natelyn is discussing that they had their tenant and

81 ·they were going to purchase it.· So you know that it's ·an ongoing trucking use at that time.
· · · · · In '03, Crown purchased it to continue
·operating it as an owner of the trucking use.· And so, ·you know, you don't have any evidence in the interim.
·There is no evidence before you in the interim that it ·went, you know -- that it was in use for more than two ·months or that there wasn't continuous use, and you've ·got Mr. Moroun telling you that it was.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.· Thank you.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· If I may, I believe, I guess, this ·question is to Staff.· Something that Mr. Moroun brought ·up about the site and the building.
· · · · · Does the City have any evidence or permits when ·the actual building was built?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· As I recall, I did see some
·building permits showing about when the building was
·built, yes.· And we do concede that it was a trucking
·outfit, and was a trucking outfit for years.· And we are ·not disputing it.
· · · · · The whole issue is the nonoperation cessation ·of use.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Pardon me?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· The nonoperation cessation of use. · · · · · MS. BADEN:· Was this property then -- there are

82 ·building permits that show it wasn't industrial use. · · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It's a legal trucking facility.
·That's not what this whole appeal is about.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· No.· I understand.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Yeah.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· When the building was built --
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Trucking.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Legal trucking use.· So when the
·permits were issued was this property in the City of
·Colton or was it annexed into the City of Colton?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Good question.· It might've been ·within the city.· I'd have to look that up.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Because when I was reading through ·this, I notice that all the utilities are West Valley. ·You have -- it's not City Electric or the water's West ·Valley.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· The water's West Valley.· It still ·is.· The water is West Valley district.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· And these were old interoffice
·correspondence emails.· And so it said that the
·utilities were, even the electric, which I was
·surprised.
· · · · · So this is what I was wondering, if this area ·had been annexed and the building had been there prior ·to the city.· But no, you're saying permits that were

83 ·issued were through the City of Colton?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I believe so.· If I recall that
·correctly, I did see an old building permit for this
·site in the 90s or 80s or it could've been 70.· I could ·be wrong.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· So I would just like to know when ·that building was built and to -- I don't know. I
·guess, establish the use.· Because I know this hearing ·--
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· I'm telling you now it was a
·trucking facility.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· It was?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Yes.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· And there was a business license
·and occupancy for those uses?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It was.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Okay.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Gary.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· I have questions along the same ·line.· So first of all, your Exhibit 31 that was not
·presented at the hearing is that; correct?
· · · · · It was not given in a timely manner.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· It was provided to Mr. Burns
·after the hearing and before he issued his opinion.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· And was that part of his

84 ·consideration?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· When he refused to consider it. · · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· So the initial letter,
·and to Dr. Peter's point, the initial letter to Mr. Soto ·states, as we discussed it is my understanding, the
·property falls under the zoning requirements and that
·the current use of the property is a legal pre-existing ·nonconformed.
· · · · · But as also Dr. Peters stated, the only thing ·that we have before us is an undated, unsigned letter
·that's with the letterhead of the City of Colton.
· · · · · But it's not because, I mean, did your company, ·they represented they authored this letter or was -- how ·did you come into possession of this without it being
·signed?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Crown found it in its internal ·files.· And Crown had a signed copy of that -- or that ·confirmation back from the City.· That doesn't mean, of ·course, that that conversation didn't occur.· I think
·the letter tends to prove --
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· It's stating it did.· That's why ·I brought that up first.· But then I'm also bringing up ·the fact about the meat in the sandwich.
· · · · · That all we have behind us is an unsigned,
·undated --

85 · · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Absolutely.· I acknowledge ·that.· I also want to point out, if we're talking about ·sort of burden of proof; right?· We're here to show you ·that it's more likely than not.
· · · · · It's a 51 percent chance that this has been an ·ongoing use, and that was legal nonconforming, other
·than the failure to obtain the business license, which ·was, again, a clerical error.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· So it seems like listening to
·the whole conversation up to this point, that this issue ·really falls under a couple things.· And you keep
·mentioning what happened after 2000, but the reality was ·for the West Valley Specific Plan in 1996 also calls for ·the same type of requirements, so.
· · · · · And to Commissioner Baden and Doctor, I have
·the same question about when Mr. Moroun came up and said ·the building was built.· When was the building built?
·It should be a pretty simple question to establish when ·a trucking company became built there.
· · · · · And that the issue is -- and this will be a
·question for our Staff.· They're saying there was not a ·continuous use at the property.· It would be interesting ·to find out what date specifically that property was not ·being used as a trucking company, if that's the
·contention of the City's part.

86 · · · · · And I think Commissioner Baden touched on it a ·little bit.· Apparently, that wasn't under Colton
·Electric; is that correct at the time?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· The electric was not provided by ·Colton Electric because there would be ongoing
·utilities, if that business was in constant operation. ·There would be ongoing utility bills.
· · · · · You know, I found out about Electric because we ·have our own electric.· That would be an obvious one.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I think interest in the utility ·point, if you look at the timeline, is on page 73 of the ·record.· It's the third page of our timeline, Mr. Suarez ·and its Exhibits 42 and 43 are the reference.· That
·Mr. Suarez conducts an investigation of the property
·history, including the utility history, and he
·discovered that it's a clean utility history dating back ·to 2000.
· · · · · So I don't know if that's helpful for your
·analysis.· But we do have a clean utility history all
·the way back to 2000.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· So there was always
·utilities provided for the site?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Another question.· Obviously, if ·the site was nonoperational wouldn't the utilities have

87 ·dropped off during that period of time?· So it seems ·like that would be a way to establish -- another way to ·establish a continued use of the property.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Sure.· Absolutely.· And again ·that's Exhibit 42 and 43 in the record.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, if I may, just a couple ·points of clarification.· Utility records may be
·probative.· They may not -- it just shows power.
· · · · · It doesn't necessarily show use of the
·property.· But it may be something worth exploring to
·see whether it does show anything like that.
· · · · · The second thing, and I think Commissioner
·Grossich and Commissioner Peters already touched on this ·with your sandwich analogy, rather apt analogy here.
· · · · · I would just urge the Commission to look at
·Exhibit 31, since it's kind of the star of the show so ·far in this.· You know it is an unsigned letter. I
·mean, it's a letter by a paralegal who reflected a
·conversation as she understood it.· And then where she ·says that, that we are legal nonconforming use, but
·please confirm it.· And unfortunately the record does
·not indicate it.
· · · · · If we had a signed letter from Mr. Soto, I
·think we'd be having a different conversation today, but ·we don't.· So we think you just have to consider that

88 ·and whatever probative evidence to you that that somehow ·establishes legal nonconforming use.
· · · · · But then again, it's not game, set, and match ·evidence.· It's like several of the documents here.
·They stand firm and they are a suggestion on things like ·that and that the Commission is going to have to judge ·that.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· And I'd like to point out,
·another thing that's missing from on the record is any ·citations for illegal use prior to 2020.
· · · · · You've got on the record all kinds of
·discussion.· You've got curb painting for the building. ·You've got complaints about dust.· You've got, in 2018, ·someone discovers that there's no business license.
· · · · · All the way during the entire decade sometime, ·there is no citation for an illegal use.· So if you're ·looking at things that are probative that are missing
·from the record, that is also probative.
· · · · · And if we're also saying -- if Mr. Priest
·is saying, oh, well, if we had a signed confirmation
·from the City that would be different with regard to
·Exhibit 31.
· · · · · You've got Ms. Natelyn, like, and
·contemporaneously at that time as a business record
·memorializing in a letter her conversation with

89 ·Mr. Soto.
· · · · · And everyone's conduct going forward from that ·point, points to that conversation having happened and ·the promise having been made.
· · · · · Point in case -- case in point, Crown actually ·purchased the property with the understanding from that ·conversation.· So you, you're talking about 20 years
·ago.· We don't have a full record of everything that was ·signed or that was in the record.· It may be that
·Mr. Soto may have never signed the document.· Maybe he ·just didn't want to sign that.· He wasn't under any
·obligation to.· But they certainly had that
·conversation.· That is the evidence.
· · · · · It's more likely that -- not that her letter
·accurately reflects the conversation that they had.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· It would seem -- I don't want to ·jump to conclusions, but it would seem that if there was ·a disagreement, Mr. Soto didn't agree that there
·would've been an issue at that particular time.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Don't you think you would have ·responded, hey, I don't agree to this?· There would've ·been some --
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Well, there seems like there
·would've been a problem at the time.· None of us were
·here on staff or ourselves were here at the time, so

90 ·it's hard to know.
· · · · · I do know that being around for a long time,
·that things were done differently back in the day.· And ·we as a city -- and I give all our Staff the kudos.
·They've really done a great job in tightening up our
·ordinances and everything they've done over the years. · · · · · So it's hard to go back and talk about, you
·know, what may or may not have happened 27 years ago.
·You've got to kind of use your, just, common sense more ·or less to figure out, well, what do you see?
· · · · · And like I said earlier, it seems to me that
·the issue is:· Was there a consistent use from prior to ·1996, not 2003, but back before the West Valley came in ·and was there ever a period where the property was not ·in use, and it would've defaulted to the new -- to the ·zoning and you would've not been grandfathered in, so to ·speak?
· · · · · But it would be interesting to know.· I think ·there seems to be the Staff that feel strongly that
·there was a period when the property was not in use, and ·that seems to be one of the major questions.
· · · · · And that would be nice to get that question
·answered.
· · · · · Also another question that I have.· So they
·bought the property.· Your company bought the property

91 ·from ABF.· Was there ever a lapse in the time of the use ·from the purchase price to -- you know, was it an
·immediate thing where they took over?· Was there a lapse ·in that time that would've caused the things to toll and ·that situation needed to occur?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I think that's a great
·question.· I think Mr. Moroun already answered it. I
·think he'll also answer it again.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· I was just going to say, obviously ·and with all practicality, when you're covering a
·30-year period of time, there were points in time where ·transitions are made, trailers aren't in the yard, ABF ·turns the property over to use, we move it.
· · · · · Things change.· There's slowdowns.· We move
·back in.· There are moments in time, but it had a
·continued use.· There are days where you can take a
·picture and not find my car in its driveway.· I still
·live there.· At no time was there any lengthy period
·where this property was not in use.
· · · · · ·It's a valuable property.· We wanted to use
·it, and we did use it.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, if I may.· I want to
·offer a couple quick points of clarification.
· · · · · We've heard a few comments about, you know, we ·don't have clear information in the record.· That is an

92 ·issue for the appellant.· That is an issue for Crown. ·As I indicated at the beginning of this, the violation ·of the code presently is not in dispute.
· · · · · This use does not conform with HUB City's
·Specific Plan.· That's clearly established.· The City
·has met its burden on the issue.· It's now shifted.
· · · · · The burden is on the defense, basically, to
·establish the defense, that we had legal nonconforming ·use.· So when you made comments of "We don't know.· We ·don't have a record," that goes to the issue of their
·burden, not the city's.
· · · · · And so any presumptions you have need to be -- ·they need to produce the evidence of their burden.· So I ·just wanted to clarify that for them.· The other thing I ·wanted to clarify is in Exhibit 31.· Really quickly, I ·just wanted to read part of it because I saw some
·highlighting up here, but I want to just cite the letter ·specifically.
· · · · · It opens with quote, Ms. Natelyn, just saying I ·represent these people.· As we discussed, it is my
·understanding the property fine, unquote.
· · · · · I'm going to use an absurd -- Commissioner,
·right now, I'm going to write a letter to you that based ·on my understanding, it is my understanding that I get ·your house tonight when I come home.

93 · · · · · You could've been saying during the interim ·conversation, no, no, no, no, no.· And I can just write ·it in a letter this way.· Now I'm not trying to cast
·aspersions here.· I'm telling you it's not conclusive
·evidence here.· This is a paralegal expressing a
·position for a client that we understand we have legal ·nonconforming use.
· · · · · But the very next paragraph says, "please
·confirm it," and it was not confirmed.· We have no
·evidence in the record that indicates Mr. Soto saw this ·record.· So I ask the Commission, just establish within ·that.
· · · · · We heard other evidence about continuous use
·but I also emphasize it's got to be continuous legal
·use.· It had to be a legal use in '96, and they had to ·establish that the entire period.· And there was a
·question in here about the record being able to
·establish that.
· · · · · And I'll leave anything further to Mr. Thies on ·that.· But that would be my comments on Exhibit 31 is:
·It proves some things, but I wouldn't say it's
·conclusive.
· · · · · I don't think that's really within the scope of ·this hearing.· I know that the parties have been
·negotiating for quite a while over this.· I assume,

94 ·yeah, we're here tonight so we're still here at an
·impasse.· But I think that's really outside the scope of ·this hearing.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· It's, unfortunately, also
·settlement communications are privileged.· And that's
·the understanding.· So I would love to be able to tell ·you what happened but we can't.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· If the City agrees, we'd be happy ·to fill you in on it.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I have copies of the latest
·draft of the agreement.
· · · · · ·MR. MOROUN:· We really wanted to make that
·settlement.· I'd be happy to tell you about it, if they ·agree.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· That is outside the purview of the ·Commission's decision this evening.· You are making an ·argument of whether legal nonconforming use has been
·established.· It's not the Commission's purview to
·settle this matter.
· · · · · That would be between Mr. Thies and
·Ms. Brackmann on behalf of the clients or as I mentioned ·earlier, if there were to be some policy change in the ·future or an amendment to the Specific Plan, a zoning
·ordinance.
· · · · · That's a completely separate matter that would

95 ·have to be something dealt with legislatively in the ·future.· But that's, you know, settlement discussions. · · · · · And we heard earlier, you know, they would pay ·attorneys' fees.· They would do that.· Again, speak with ·Mr. Thies and maybe there would be room to settle that ·there, but your mission tonight is just to decide on
·legal nonconforming use.· Not to settle it because
·they'll pay attorneys' fees.
· · · · · Settle it because of other policy
·considerations.· There's a very specific factual issue. ·Is there enough evidence in the record to satisfy
·Crown's burden of proof that they've established legal ·conforming use from 1996 until today without abandonment ·without losing that legal nonconforming use?
· · · · · And as Staff has indicated their position, is ·they said they have not conclusively established that
·they had that legal nonconforming use all the way
·through the West Valley Specific Plan and into the HUB ·City Specific Plan.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Questions?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· I don't know.· Is Ms. Brackmann
·almost done?· Mr. Thies has not had much of an
·opportunity.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I'm just here to answer any
·further questions.· I did want to -- obviously, we have

96 ·the burden of proof as Mr. Priest pointed out so I would ·like to have a couple of minutes to respond to what
·Mr. Thies might say.
· · · · · And I believe that the employees are here.
·They're not going to take three minutes each, maybe
·three minutes total.· But I think they wanted to tell
·you their names and how long that they have been working ·at the facility.· If you would entertain that, but I
·think Mr. Thies has a chance to go first.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We're going to listen to our
·attorney, then will go to you.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you so much.· And it's
·been longer than I anticipated.· Thank you for all of
·that time.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· The commission wants to take a
·break.· Go ahead five minutes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It is 7:46.· We'll convene back in ·about 5 minutes.· Thank you.
· · · · · (A short recess was taken at this time.)
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We'll come back and the city
·attorney will speak now.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Well, okay.· I'll keep this brief ·because I know we've been here for a while, but I think ·it's important to go for a couple points here.
· · · · · The main question of this evening and of this

97 ·administrative hearing:· Did Crown establish a legal ·nonconforming use?
· · · · · And the answer is no.· And they still haven't ·tonight.
· · · · · The definition of a "legal nonconforming use" ·is it requires somebody to go back and demonstrate, show ·a point in time, where the use they were doing was legal ·and that is continued up to today uninterrupted.
· · · · · Now, when this dispute arose in my timeline as ·I showed you, Crown came back with some lease agreements ·going back to January 2010.· And the City informed them ·at that point, that's not good enough because the West ·Valley Specific Plan was in before the HUB City Specific ·Plan, and that also didn't have trucking uses.· That was ·in June of 1996.· So you're going to have to show at
·least before that time.
· · · · · No ordinance has ever been pointed to.· Crown ·has not pointed to any ordinance that a trucking use was ·legal in the city.· So we never even got to that point. · · · · · They provided some testimony here tonight
·stating that they were a tenant in the late 90s.· That ·still doesn't establish pre-1996.· You know the City
·provided -- in my timeline I showed you, this dispute
·arose in June of 2020.
· · · · · In October 2020, the City was telling Crown

98 ·about the West Valley Specific Plan because this is part ·of their burden.· It's their burden to show legal
·nonconforming use.
· · · · · They haven't produced anything to show, and
·your testimony tonight "Well, we're actually Crown
·Western, and we were tenants in the 90s."
· · · · · The only evidence they really produced was
·those lease agreements starting January 2010.
· · · · · All this other stuff is pretty thin.· It's
·based on verbal statements.· There's not any documents, ·and the City gives them plenty of time.· We even held
·that administrative hearing till November 30th, 2021.
· · · · · So over a year they've had to do a public
·records request.· A lot of those documents are given as ·part of those public records request.· They weren't
·produced at the administrative hearing.· So we've been ·at this for quite some time.
· · · · · And the City's position is that the record does ·not demonstrate a legal nonconforming use.
· · · · · Also, on the letter about Mr. Soto, again, that ·was their burden.· That's part of their case.· They
·didn't present it at the administrative hearing.· We
·don't know the stories surrounding that letter.· We
·don't have an executed copy.
· · · · · Again, the facts there are thin.· And that's

99 ·ultimately their burden to prove.· And the City's
·position is they did not prove it.· The Hearing Officer ·validated, found they did not prove it.
· · · · · You know, some of you Commissioners were
·curious about the history of that property.· They
·were -- that was their burden to show the history of
·that property.· We gave them more than an opportunity. ·We gave them more than a year to demonstrate it.· They ·did not do so.
· · · · · I'll note that their own internal records,
·which is document 3.31 in our record, they produced a
·spreadsheet showing some lease agreements and that lists ·Crown Western, which ends in 2005.
· · · · · They then start with a different company based ·in Mason-Dixon Intermodal starting in 2006, and that
·expires in February of 2007.
· · · · · The next lease agreement is January 1st, 2010. ·So there's a three year gap there in the documentation ·that really isn't explained.
· · · · · And to the HUB City Plan, the discontinuation ·of use, I think, is 6 months or 180 days.· So there's a ·three year gap there that is just unaccounted for.
· · · · · Besides maybe some sparse testimony that they ·provide, I'll talk about the business occupancy permit ·again too.· Again, the story they are claiming here

100
·tonight that they were Crown Western, there was nothing ·about that at the administrative hearing.· There was no ·documentation provided about that.
· · · · · The City does require that anybody that comes ·in when a new business owner comes in, they first have ·to apply for a business occupancy permit to determine if ·their use is permitted.· And if it is, they can get the ·license.· That was the issue Crown ran into when we
·issued the citation, was that the citation that ordered ·them to obtain a business occupancy permit, they come in ·and the City couldn't issue it to them because the use ·is not issued under the code.· They say that they had a ·business occupancy permit.
· · · · · It is the City's position that Crown is not
·Crown Western.· There's been no evidence really
·provided, some testimony today for the first time.· The ·record before the Planning Commission doesn't have any ·business license from Crown.· It doesn't have any
·business license from Central Trucking.· There's no
·business occupancy permit from either of them.
· · · · · And, finally, I'm just going to note that the ·HUB City Centre's Plan specifically states that it
·discourages long term nonconforming uses.· The plan's
·ultimate purpose is to get nonconforming uses to
·ultimately cease so that it can move forward with the

101
·vision.
· · · · · Here Crown purchased the property in 2003, and ·they've been able to operate there as a trucking
·terminal since that time.· The West Valley Specific Plan ·didn't allow it, and the HUB City Centre plan that went ·into effect in 2014 didn't allow it.
· · · · · So it's now been 10 years since the HUB City
·Centre Plan went into effect.· And the City's position ·is that's a reasonable amount of time to be able to
·recoup their investment costs and to discontinue the
·nonconforming use.· So unless the commissioners have any ·questions for me, I'll close it there.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Any questions?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· So it's your contention that
·from 2007 to 2010 would be the period of time that we're ·talking about that the business was not operating?· Is ·that a fair statement?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· The redefined -- the decision does ·say that he found a use since they purchased the
·property in 2003.· The City says that our position is
·that that's based on some oral testimony that was
·provided essentially at the administrative hearing.
· · · · · The records don't really show that.· And we
·think that there was a gap of a couple years they
·perhaps --

102
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· And you feel there's no ·proof the business was operating?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· We have no proof.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· So we've heard a lot of
·testimony.· Was there ever at any time a BOP on that
·property?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· The City's records seem to indicate ·that this BOP was issued to Crown Western from 2002 to ·2005.· We don't know why that was the case.· We don't
·know how that came to be.· It could have been issued in ·error.· I don't know.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· My concern on that is
·that company that was there, there seems to be little
·dispute about whether that's the current company or not. ·But the City accepted their money and allowed them to
·have a BOP.· So at one point there was a BOP on the
·property after 1996?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· That was my question.
·Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Any other questions?
· · · · · Mr. Peters, go ahead.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· So pre-1996, a trucking terminal ·would've been allowed at that location?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· No.· There's no evidence that it

103
·was ever allowed at any point, and, ultimately, that's ·Crown's burden to show.· They needed to point to a law ·that allowed trucking uses of the property at some point ·in time before 1996, and they never did that.· And the ·record doesn't contain any evidence of that.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· I see.· So you said the City
·Centre HUB Plan, the Specific Plan, says that if use is ·interrupted for more than 6 months or 180 days, that's ·considered a lapse?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yes.· That's why it doesn't permit ·nonuse for more than that time.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· In 2007 to 2010, my understanding ·is that there was a recession.· And did other businesses ·undergo a similar problem, where they maybe stopped
·using their facilities for a couple years?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· It wouldn't have that information. ·I don't know about that.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Like how have we gone about this ·in the past?· Like if the business stopped using their ·facility for 6 months, and what happened to them?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Chair, members of the Commission, ·during that time we were working from home issuing
·permits.· That was one of the items that kept our
·economy going.
· · · · · We know Colton is a small town.· While the

104
·doors were not open, we were still taking BOPs and still ·moving them forward when they came in electronically.
·Yes.· That's correct.· That was during the recession and ·in 2020.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· No.· The 2008-ish recession.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· The 2008 housing crisis.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· That I don't know.· I wasn't there ·at that.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· And if I may, Mr. Chair, I'm not ·sure if that's entirely relevant to the issue because
·the code does clearly say 6 months abandonment of the
·use.
· · · · · There's other rules about nonlegal
·nonconforming use that we have in the code of the
·Specific Plan.· Like, again, Mr. Suarez said he doesn't ·know if was cutting grace -- providing grace to
·businesses or not.
· · · · · But absent a change of policy that can be
·proven somehow.· Like, if there was an ordinance -- the ·council adopted a policy saying, you know, leave these ·guys for now because of the recession.
· · · · · Absent that, we can only speculate.· And I
·don't know if that would definitely be dispositive of
·this deposition.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· And I'll also add this:· The West

105
·Valley Specific Plan, this had -- I brought this up at ·the City's hearing brief and it stated, "Any
·nonconforming use could continue until the property was ·sold."
· · · · · And we produced -- the City produced a property ·title that they reported at the hearing showing that the ·property was sold several times even before Crown bought ·it in 2003.
· · · · · And so we contend that any nonconforming use
·ended at that time when the property was sold at least ·by 2003, when Crown purchased it because the West Valley ·Specific Plan was still in effect at that time.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· That's a good point.
· · · · · So then what is the discontinuation of use
·timeline on the West Valley Specific Plan since that
·would have been enforcement but in 2007, 2010; correct? · · · · · MR. THIES:· There was no set timeframe.· It was ·just the nonconforming use could continue until it was ·sold, when the property was sold.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· But there was no specific
·abandonment clause or something?· In -- I'm trying to
·decide is it the amount of time?· Is it a day?· Is it 6 ·months?· Is it a year until it does something else that ·the use is still going?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Under the West Valley Specific

106
·Plan, it was until the property was sold.· So if you had ·a BOP you could definitely tell you sold the property. ·That's changed now under the HUB City Centre Plan.
·That's 180 days, 6 months.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.· And maybe you could clarify ·this with someone.· You know, it sounds like the Crown ·Western, Crown, Central Trucking are all at least under ·control of one group.
· · · · · Are they just LLCs to distance themselves or, I ·mean, are they different entities?· Are they DBAs?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· I'll allow them to answer that
·question.· Especially for the City, there was some
·evidence establishing, answering those questions.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· If I could, Mr. Chair?
· · · · · All those companies are my family's companies, ·even the other one that he mentioned, Universal.· We all ·owned them 100 percent.· They're all ours.· And, yes, I ·was not able to attend the hearing and give my
·testimony, but we were able to provide some leases
·because we own Crown, the owner of the property, and the ·trucking companies.
· · · · · We don't have -- I'm being straight with you. ·We don't have perfect leases for every day, but we've
·been there for the last 25 years.
· · · · · But because of the common ownership, we were

107
·able to still operate the business and provide the
·property.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· So why the sale of the property
·and why have separate companies under different names, ·if they're all just one entity anyway?
· · · · · Just curious.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Well, just being in the trucking ·business.· There's tons of trucking companies, and
·there's specialties within trucking.· Central Transport ·is less than truckload carrier.· Universal, he mentioned ·them.· ·They're a dedicated carrier.· And Mason-Dixon at ·the time provided international truckage.
· · · · · It's just different fragmentation within the
·trucking business so you can focus that business on that ·particular niche.
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Okay.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· I have a question, if I may,
·Mr. Thies.
· · · · · So you were saying under the West Valley Plan ·that a property could maintain its nonconforming status ·until that property was sold.· Okay.
· · · · · But then under -- so with -- in other words, if ·they sold the property, then he came and would not be
·allowed to have a trucking business.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yes.

108
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Even though the -- Okay.· So under ·this new HUB City Plan, let's say you have a legal
·nonconforming business and they sold it.· Could that
·business continue?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Under the HUB City's Plan, yes.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Okay.· And under the HUB City Plan ·then, the use would change and after conform, if the use ·was abandoned for 6 months or more?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Right.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· And that was in the case with the ·West Valley?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yes, it was.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· So West Valley seemed more
·restrictive on that part.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Perhaps it can be seen that way.
·and it could also be seen -- it can potentially be read ·to read indefinite, if you never sold the property.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Right.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· So it kind of left that choice to ·the property owner.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Well, I'll just ask this,
·theoretically ask you this question.· Under the West
·Valley Plan -- I don't know if this applies.· Let's say ·you know Company A own it and they just changed the name ·but they don't change -- let's say it's called Company

109
·B, but it's still A.· It's still another entity Company ·A.
· · · · · Is that still considered selling the business? · · · · · MR. THIES:· If I -- I think if they executed a ·deed to transfer the property which is how Crown
·purchased the property.· They purchased it by grant
·deed.· We have that in the administrative record.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· I thought I saw something.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· So I think that's where I would
·draw the distinction.· If it was changing hands without ·the same company.· If it was really just a name change, ·I don't think that they would need a grant deed to do
·that.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· They would not need the grant deed, ·if it was just a name change.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· I am not sure if they were.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· So, okay.· You're saying that if
·Company A changed their name to Company B, but just
·strictly name change, it would not be property owner
·change.· So in other words under the West Valley, it
·would still maintain the nonconforming use if it was an ·existing nonconforming.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· I believe so.· I believe if a
·business -- if the City, you know, me and Mario would
·chime in on how they would complete this.

110
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· You know, it's just dependent.· Is ·it just the owner?· It could be the Company did X, Y,
·and Z.· Did the company come in and begin a whole new
·business with all new industry?
· · · · · So it depends on who's coming in.· That's a new ·BOP and a new business license.· It could be Company A, ·Company B changes, and just the owner is changing, and ·just the management changes.· That's a different thing. · · · · · With the same LLC kind of thing, it's just the ·officer is changing.· We look at that little
·differently.· And then they provide the paperwork to
·show that.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· It depends.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· So that was the changes within the ·-- call it an overlay between West Valley and the HUB
·City, well, I'm sure there was many changes.
·But that was one of the changes when it came to the
·definition for legal nonconforming with West Valley.· It ·could be maintained until the property was sold.· But
·then within HUB City, now that was the change they had 6 ·months to do under the nonconforming use?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Right.· And the rest of the City ·is 60 days.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· If I may, Chair?

111
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Correct me if I'm wrong,
·Mr. Thies, but I believe the City's position is twofold ·with respect to each Specific Plan.· The West Valley
·Specific Plan, there were -- I think you had indicated ·in your brief there had been like two or three sales,
·like '98, something like 2000, and then 2003, something ·like that.
· · · · · And I know the City's position is that any of ·those sales that's said for legal nonconforming are the ·West Valley Specific Plan.
· · · · · Then under the HUB City Centre Specific Plan, ·and there's question of, was there discontinuance of use ·between 2007 to 2010 that Mr. Thies had mentioned
·tonight, am I correct on that?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· And I might have misspoken, because ·the HUB City Specific Plan didn't take place until 2014. ·I'm sorry if I misspoke there.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. THIES:· That's really visiting the West
·Valley Specific Plan.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· I know legally you have to
·display your business license.· Is that somewhere in the ·BOP?· Do you have to have that displayed?
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· No.· You don't have to have the

112
·BOP displayed, but the business license does have to be ·displayed.· Within the business license, and our record ·here would show, a connection with the approved zoning ·clearance.
· · · · · So in our records would show a business license ·number, and then in that record, it would show which
·zoning clearance was tied to the business license.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Okay.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· I have a question for Mr. Thies. · · · · · So we talked about the multiple sales of the
·property and that was in the period of the late 1990s
·period, early 2000s; is that correct?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· So based on the West Valley
·Original Plan, that would normally be just considered a ·disqualifier under that plan.· But then in 2003 after
·all the sales, we gave this company, the previous
·company a BOP to operate in that area.· And, you know, ·it brings up some kind of difficult issues.
· · · · · The other thing that you mentioned earlier,
·that a trucking company was never allowed in that area. ·And I would have to kind of push back a little bit on
·that.· Because we permitted it at some point in time.
·We haven't come up with a day, but we permitted a
·building for a trucking company.

113
· · · · · So it's obvious at some point it was allowed. ·And the question becomes was that before 1996 before the ·West Valley Specific Plan came in?
· · · · · So those are some of my concerns regarding the ·timeline on all this and how things transpired.
· · · · · Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Anybody else?
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Okay.· Really quickly, I think
·Ms. Brackmann wanted a few minutes just to briefly
·respond.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Is that okay with you, Chair?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Go ahead.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Thank you.· I hope my laptop
·lasts that long.· Okay.
· · · · · So a couple things.· First of all as someone
·pointed out, the building wouldn't have been built for a ·trucking facility, the City would've never permitted it ·if it wasn't legal to do that at some point.
· · · · · Between 1996 as Mr. Grossich correctly pointed ·out, between 1996 and 2000 when the business occupancy ·permit for trucking use was issued, that's off the table ·because in 2000 the City issued a BOP.· So the evidence ·shows that it's more likely than not that the trucking ·use was legal at the time, otherwise, the City wouldn't

114
·have issued that permit.
· · · · · Now, that takes us to 2005.· In the two hours ·of testimony that you have in the record before
·Mr. Burns, Luis Guzman, a forklift driver from Central ·Transport, which is the successor to all the tenants of ·that time -- he had worked there since 2005.
· · · · · And he testified that in, at least in 2005, it ·continuously operated as a trucking use.· So you have
·testimony from Mr. Guzman, which is probably what was
·why Mr. Burns found that the use had been continuous
·since 2003.
· · · · · If you look at Exhibit 28 that is records of
·our -- Crown's lease, leasing history that Mr. Thies had ·referenced, those leases are also on the record, but
·this summarizes them.
· · · · · There's a one year lease from 2006 to 2008 to ·Mason-Dixon.· Remember, Mr. Guzman testified the use was ·continuous since 2005.· So this 2006 to 2008 lease
·clearly supports his testimony.· So it gives credibility ·to that testimony as well.
· · · · · And from 2007 to 2010 -- you have asked about ·2007 to 2010.· Again, you have Mr. Guzman's testimony. ·And then from 2010 to 2015, you have leases in the
·record that show that it was continuously operated.
· · · · · So I'm hoping that you'll see that the use from

115
·the 2010 gap that we were talking about is really
·satisfied by not only Mr. Guzman's testimony, but also ·by Exhibit 31, which indicates that there was a
·conversation as of 2001; right, that Crown would be
·using it as a trucking use.
· · · · · And Crown again, purchased it in '03, and you ·have Mr. Moroun telling you that we've been using it
·continuously as a trucking use during that entire
·period.
· · · · · And then -- sorry.· The City clearly understood ·as of 2014 that it was being used for trucking use
·because they put it in HCCSP's paper.· It's referenced ·in there.
· · · · · And then Exhibits 26 and 27 show you that the ·use had been continuous after from 2015 forward until we ·had the hearing.· And Mr. Moroun has told you today that ·we are still and have been continuously using it as a
·trucking use.
· · · · · So remember the burden of proof is to the
·degree that it's more likely than not.· And we think
·based on the evidence you should find that it's more
·likely than not that this has been a continuous use all ·along.
· · · · · That it was a legal use, at least as of 2003, ·when Crown purchased it.· The City issued that business

116
·occupancy permit and the continuous has been in place, ·but the only illegality here has been an infraction.
· · · · · It's been the failure to get the business
·license.· And Mr. Moroun has apologized for that.· There ·was a clerical error.
· · · · · Just taking a step back, and the 30,500 foot
·view, it's clear that this trucking use is going on in ·this city.· You'd have to be blind not to see it.
· · · · · The timeline is filled with discussion about
·the City personnel understanding that this was a use.
·The HCCSP references it.· Everyone knew that this use
·was ongoing within the City.· And in the 20 years, no
·citation was issued telling them to stop using this use ·or that they were in violation of any permitting.
· · · · · And the minute that something was issued in
·2020, Crown immediately tried to fix it, but wasn't
·allowed to.· So you're essentially trying to kill a
·business for the crime of simply clerical oversight.
·The crime -- you know, the punishment doesn't fit the
·crime.· And if you don't have any further questions, we ·did want to give the drivers to sort of have their say. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· That's right.· Mr. Chair, if I
·may.· Just -- I wanted to offer a quick comment about
·the citation history and the history of employees
·talking about various things going on at the property.

117
· · · · · My advice to the Commission is that I don't
·believe that is terribly relevant here in this case.
· · · First of all, you can speed for 20 years and not
·get pulled over.· And the day you get pulled over, try ·that with a cop.· It's not going to work.
· · · · · A City cannot code enforce a property for many, ·many years, but that does not prevent the property from ·doing future code enforcement because they didn't
·enforce it in the past.· And that was something that the ·Hearing Officer noted in the decision there.
· · · · · And the conversations about whether we
·red-curbed the area, or are we going to red curb the
·area, provide utilities, as I said earlier, if we had a ·signed Andre De Soto letter in Exhibit 31, we'd be
·having a very different conversation.
· · · · · There would have been an affirmative statement ·by the City saying your zoning is good.· But there isn't ·that on the record.· The other thing, code enforcement ·saying we need to red curb something, utilities saying ·do they have power, do they have water?
· · · · · What you have, and this is just sort of endemic ·to government functions, people work the departments and ·they do their stuff.· And so if you are new, utilities ·are making sure the application is filled out, the
·deposit is down, things can be connected.· You're not

118
·looking at zoning.
· · · · · Same thing with red-curbing the property.· So ·we would advise the Commission that our office thinks
·that's of limited evidentiary value that the City just ·knew about it.· You know, different departments knew
·about it.
· · · · · But at the end of the day, the business
·occupancy permit, that's the system in place to verify ·zoning, and that was never applied for by Crown.
· · · · · Now, the Commission can consider this 2000 BOP ·for its evidentiary value.· But I just wanted to clarify ·that the City knowing about the property and not code
·enforcing it at an earlier time, that doesn't mean that ·the City can't code enforce it now.
· · · · · That does not mean this use became legal
·because the City did not enforce it at that time.
· · · · · Thank you.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Mr. Priest actually pointed out ·something that I forgot to mention.· There's a clean
·utility history going back to 2000.
· · · · · So that also provides evidence that the use was ·in play for the trucking use from that period from '07 ·to 2010.· In addition to Mr. Guzman's testimony and Mr. ·Moroun's testimony, that has been continuously used with ·gaps smaller than 6 months.

119
· · · · · You know ownership changes hands.· And he can ·tell you again if you wanted him to that it's been
·continuously used since it was purchased by Crown '03
·and prior to that.
· · · · · And not to take any more time with me talking. ·I know that some of the drivers and some of the
·employees are here, and they would like just a moment to ·tell you, to be heard, if that's okay.
· · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· If I may, prior to the
·employees talking, I don't know how the board feels
·about this, but, with all due respect, I am unable to
·make a decision tonight.· I really am.· I hate to put
·out -- people out of their jobs.· And I feel for you
·all.· I really do.
· · · · · Especially right now with the holidays, but any ·time.· So I just -- I don't know how all of the board
·members feel, but at this point I'm thinking perhaps
·putting in and requesting a continuance on this and
·carrying it over.
· · · · · I'd like to -- probably next month or February. ·I'd like to see additional evidence on this.· I think
·it's possibly -- it's out there.· And so I don't know. · · · · · But that is how I feel right now.· I'm unable ·to make a decision on this.· So I don't know if I can do ·this in a motion or what.

120
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Ma'am, if you would like to
·make a motion and take it under submission, we would
·like the opportunity to respond to the 24-page Staff
·report that has a lot of legal analysis, which clearly ·would also provide so you have a full picture before you ·make your decision.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· If I may, Chair.· If the
·Commission is considering a continuance, I would
·recommend that you actually continue the hearing and
·then we would have it again in January, January 14th.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· I'm sorry.· I'm in trial the
·first to -- to the first three weeks of January in
·another matter.· But I have my calendar here, and I
·think February is pretty open for me, so if you'll give ·me open --
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Why don't we go to February.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Well, does Mr. Thies have any
·thoughts on this?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Can I just make a comment about the ·Staff report?
· · · · · The Staff report only contains -- it was a copy ·and paste job from the reply brief that we didn't give ·to Crown in May of 2022.· There's nothing different
·about it.· I copied and pasted the brief, the legal
·brief in particular at that time.· So Crown has those

121
·arguments since 2022.
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Actually, the Staff report
·reports our issues on appeal.· And if it's nothing new, ·I don't understand why we only received it on Thursday. · · · · · So we would ask that -- if there is a
·continuance, that we would like to provide you with a
·reply to that report.· Which, again, which we only
·received on Thursday.
· · · · · I know that my client would like to have a
·decision tonight, but I don't want to pressure you, if ·you feel like you need more time.· That's going to be up ·to you.
· · · · · I am available in February, but I guess you
·need to file a continuance before we talk.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Can we check on the date?
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Is January 28th a possibility?
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· It's not because -- I don't
·know that my trial will continue over until the end of ·January.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Can we vote in February the 11th ·or the 25th?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· The 25th.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· February 11th or February 15th.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· I'll go ahead and make the motion. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Before we do that, if they want to

122
·have any public comment from any workers, you might want ·to do that first and then we can entertain any motions. · · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Chair, if I may?
· · · · · There's just two points.· One, our employees
·have waited a long time.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yeah.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Yeah.· If you do propose that
·motion, if I can make a recommendation.· If you could
·ask -- if you could give a strong recommendation during ·the continuance that the City engage with us in genuine ·and fair settlement negotiations so that we can
·hopefully resolve this prior to coming back.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, I'm going to have to
·advise the Commission on that that you decline that
·request politely.· That's really outside of your
·purview.
· · · · · You decided you are having a conforming issue. ·Ms. Brackmann and Mr. Thies can sit down and talk and
·work out a settlement agreement.· But that's not within ·your purview to even suggest it.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· So I would not even suggest it.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· I was told that Mr. Thies does not ·have the power to engage in those discussions unless
·your authorities tell him to.

123
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· That would be -- I assume that
·would be city administration.· This would not be this
·Planning Commission, different arm.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Just trying to make a settlement. ·Please help.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Okay.· So we have a motion.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Well, do we want to have any
·public?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Well, yeah.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Before we go to Letitia's
·motion, I would tend to support that for reasons I won't ·get into.· A couple questions.· So you mentioned leases, ·and you also, Mr. Moroun, he mentioned that you had
·different companies that do different types of hauling ·and everything.
· · · · · Did you have multiple companies?· When you were ·the owner, did you have leases with -- you were
·operating -- was your company operating, Mason-Dixon,
·whoever they were, at the same time?
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Yes, sir.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Yes.· That explains some things. · · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Yeah.· Sorry.· Trucking is very
·fragmented and at certain points, we had multiple
·companies working on the site.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· So when you had leases,

124
·was your company there continuously as one of the
·companies working out of there when you had agreements ·with the seller's leases?
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Yes.· Crown is a real estate
·company.· They own the property.· All of the other
·companies leases, as the tenants, are all of our
·trucking companies.· We own them all.
· · · · · So we do our best to document the leases, and ·we turned over to the Hearing Officer as many of the
·leases that we could find.· They're all internal.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.· But your company was
·operational the whole time, and that, these other
·leases, which are Mason-Dixon's, we don't know who owns ·them?
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· We do.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Okay.
· · · · · MR. MOROUN:· Every lease that we issued, we
·own.· Thank you, sir.
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· So do you boys want to come up ·and speak?· You all have three minutes, so go ahead.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 1:· My name is Dwight.· I really ·have a question.· Is shutting down the business, is that ·punitive?· Is that a punishment?
· · · · · I thought we were just coming here because you ·guys wanted to build the Children's Hospital right there

125
·or save some lives.
· · · · · Is this just punishment for keeping bad
·records?· And it sounds like both sides are pretty bad ·at keeping records.· Is it punishment or is it the
·greater good?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We can't answer questions like
·that.· We're just looking for statements.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 1:· If it's punishment, I like ·him just as much as you can like anyone.
· · · · · And so tonight, the punishment is on us.· The ·only people in this room that's gonna feel it if you
·guys make a decision to shut that terminal down is the ·people that got these uniforms.
· · · · · I mean, he'll feel it a little bit.· But no one ·else is really gonna feel that.· It's not going to
·affect nobody's life right now.
· · · · · We can't -- we're hesitant to buy Christmas
·gifts.· We might need this money that we have to pay
·bills because we don't have a job.
· · · · · Does anyone understand what I'm saying?· It's ·gonna hurt his business, but I'm sure he'll be all
·right.· It's the people in these uniforms that are going ·to hurt and more people that are not here.· There are
·people that are out driving trucks right now.
· · · · · So and the other is, have you guys driven

126
·around your city?· Have you driven around the
·surrounding cities?· What do you think that place
·becomes when you shut that terminal down?· One big
·homeless encampment.
· · · · · Like all these other businesses that shut down ·and turned into a giant homeless encampments.· Pick your ·poison.· He's providing jobs.· That place is providing ·jobs, and if it ain't providing jobs, guess what?· It's ·providing the shooting gallery for drug addicts.
· · · · · Do you want the drugs, or do you want the
·homeless encampments?· Pick your poison.· He'll settle, ·put a new facade on it, and make it look pretty.
· · · · · Let him do it.· ·It sounds like he's willing to ·do almost anything.
· · · · · But it really sounds like he's willing to do
·almost anything and pay any price.· So are you guys just ·out for blood?
· · · · · The people that you guys want to hurt are the ·peoples with these jackets on with these shirts on that ·say Central Transport.· That's it.· That's all I got.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 2:· Good evening, my name is
·William Gavelones, Jr.· And I've been working for
·Central Transport for 14 years now.· And as long as I
·can remember that place has always been going.· It's
·always been some kind of trucking.· Even before I

127
·started working for Central, I used to work for a
·different company, and they were always going in there ·delivering, picking up from that facility.
· · · · · So like the gentleman before me, the only
·people that are going to be hurting if that building is ·closed down is going to be us.· And I am 58 years old, ·and I can't go out and find a job that fast.
· · · · · And I live paycheck by paycheck.· So I mean,
·sure I've got a little something, something for a rainy ·day, but that's not gonna -- that's not going to last
·for very long.
· · · · · So I ask you guys to please keep it open, to go ·for us.· I would gladly appreciate it.· And whatever
·debt we need to be paid, will be paid with a little bit ·of something, something.
· · · · · We basically need both parties to talk.· And I ·don't know enough of the hearsay or whatever.· That's
·enough of it.· It just needs to be settled.· Because
·like I said, you know, I'm too old to be going out and ·looking for a job.
· · · · · I may -- I don't want anyone else to do that, ·you know.· Because it's tough out there.· It really is ·tough.· That's all I have to say.· You guys have a good ·night.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Thank you.

128
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 3:· William Miller.· I'm a line ·hauler.· I deliver for Central Transport.· I've been
·there for eight years.· We call Colton Terminal 923, and ·it's home.
· · · · · So I just really wish you would reconsider
·what's going on, and I'm pretty sure the owner, he's
·gonna make sure that things are done right and
·corrected.
· · · · · As far as occupancy, I've been playing golf
·since I was a little kid, and we share a fence with
·Colton Golf Club.· So ever since I can remember, there's ·always been trucks going in and out of that place.· Even ·long before I drove a truck.
· · · · · So that is a trucking business.· It's a
·trucking property, always has been.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 4:· Good evening.· My name is
·Daniel Mendez.· I'm fairly new to Central Transport.
·I've been here for a little under six months.· I've been ·here for three years as a truck driver.· It's kind of
·hard to find a place to call home.· I had to go on the ·road just over a year and a half just to get enough
·experience to get a local job.
· · · · · And then now they talk about it's going to shut ·down.· So I don't want to have to get back on the road ·to provide, just keep that in mind.· It's not just me.

129
·It's potentially 30 other households who are gonna lose ·income.
· · · · · So there's money on the table that can fix
·things.· But I don't think there's money on the table to ·fix these homes.· So don't put me out of a job; don't
·put these guys out of a job.
· · · · · And trucking is not easy.· Since I've got into ·this industry, it's just been, he's a truck driver, he's ·a truck driver.· It's not easy, man.· It's not an easy ·lifestyle.· I bounced around a lot and I finally found a ·good place to work at.
· · · · · You know, it's a lot of work and it sounds like ·it's an easy fix with money.· And clerical issues and
·jargon your guys said.· But to put it in simple terms, ·the fix is there.· It's just being overlooked.· Both
·sides have good arguments, but it sounds like something ·that is going to be easy to fix and to move forward.
· · · · · There's plenty of land out there if there's a ·project that needs to be put together.· Can't we just
·find another place for it?· That's pretty much all I
·want to say.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 5:· Brad Gamp, and I've been
·working for Central Transport for five years.· It's a
·pretty good company to work for.· I've been able to
·really -- like others, I've been driving trucks for 7

130
·years.· All the guys have been over the road.· That
·means, they'll leave California.· I'm gone for 10 days ·and then I come back home for two to three days.
· · · · · Now I've found somewhere where I can be home. ·I'm off on the weekends.· I can have some kind of life. ·I have been able to buy me a home two years ago.· And
·it's been a great place for me.
· · · · · I've been able to bring my mother with me, make ·sure she's taken care of over the years.· Just like you ·said, this is going to affect a lot of people if you
·guys make the decision to shut this down.· And really, ·thank you for letting me say my piece, and have a good ·night.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 6:· How are we all doing?· My
·name is Marlow.· And I've been working for Central
·Transport for about five years.· And before I found out ·about Central, I couldn't keep a job longer than 90
·days.· So, you know, I don't have too much to say about ·the politics besides it's a good company.
· · · · · They take care of us.· They look out for us.
·But other than that, I've been able to do a lot.· They ·changed my life.
· · · · · So if you vote to keep that would be good for a ·lot of us because a lot of us didn't have nothing. I
·just want to let you all know.· Thank you.

131
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 8:· Good afternoon.· I'm Anthony ·Murillos.· And I've been working for Central Transport ·for the last eight years.· When I first got hired, I
·didn't have much experience.· I'd only been driving for ·a few months.
· · · · · But being away for so long for the six months ·away from home, it was hard being over the road.
·Central is the only company that's given me a chance.
·Over the last eight years I could have jumped around to ·a lot of other companies.· But I stuck here because they ·actually help us and they actually treat us right.
· · · · · And over the last eight years I've had another ·daughter.· One of the pictures that hangs up off my
·bedside is I was lucky enough that my daughter -- sorry. ·My daughters and my wife were able to meet up with me
·one day while I was on my route.
· · · · · I was able to get a picture of them on my
·route.· My kids still talk about that day because even ·for a few minutes, they were able to see me at work.
· · · · · So I'm just asking that you guys help us please ·keep the terminal open.· Help out our company because it ·helps out a lot of us.· Thank you.
· · · · · PUBLIC SPEAKER 9:· Hi.· My name is Rafael.· And ·I've been working for Central for about two three years ·now, and these are the most amazing guys.· Because

132
·before this I was over the road and I wouldn't be home. ·And now I have two kids, and, like, I want to spend time ·with them.· And Central allows that to happen.
· · · · · So I would like for you guys to consider and
·just look at these faces.· And don't leave us without a ·job.· So that's all I want to say.· Thank you.
· · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Sounds like, Mr. Chair, we've
·reached the end of public comments.· So if you'd like to ·close the hearing for now or entertain a motion.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· We're going to keep the public
·comments over.· Letitia, I think you wanted to make a
·motion.
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· It's appropriate now to make the
·motion?· Very well.· Yes, I would like to make a motion ·that we continue this case.· Along with maintain and
·keep the public hearing open.· I was thinking that
·perhaps we could continue this for the Planning
·Commission meeting of February 25th, 2025.
· · · · · And I guess I should ask, I would like to see ·additional evidence and this is my reason for the
·continuance
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Thank you.· I have a couple
·comments first.· So we had a lot of testimony tonight. ·A lot of it was actually new testimony that broke new
·ground that the Hearing Officer didn't even hear.

133
· · · · · And he was a licensed professional attorney,
·and he took three months to render a decision.· So I
·think it's only fair that we take this under submission. ·And there was a lot of questions asked tonight and
·requests made on both sides of the aisle there.
· · · · · And if we could get that information from
·Ms. Brackmann and the City, which -- which should be
·helpful in rendering this decision.
· · · · · Ms. Brackmann, to your point, I'm a business
·owner.· I'm a busy guy.· And I got this 3- or 4-inch
·binder about a week or so ago.· And I really wanted to ·hear the testimony this evening to get a flavor exactly ·of what was going on because this is a complicated
·issue.
· · · · · And we don't see it as a slam dunk.· To me in ·my mind, it comes down to the preponderance of the
·evidence, most likely.· And that's my opinion.
· · · · · And you know I would like to second Letitia's ·motion to take the item under submission and bring it
·back on the date that was brought forward in February. · · · · · MR. PRIEST:· Mr. Chair, if I may just ask a
·quick question.· Mr. Thies, is February 25th okay for
·you?
· · · · · MR. THIES:· Yeah.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Are you okay with that?

134
· · · · · MS. BRACKMANN:· Yes, I am.· That works for me. ·And also I did, again, we made a transcript of the
·proceedings tonight.· Would the Commissioners like to
·have a copy of that as well?
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· So roll call vote, please.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· The motion will continue February ·25th, 2025.
· · · · · Commissioner Dr. Peters?
· · · · · DR. PETERS:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Letitia Baden?
· · · · · MS. BADEN:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· Commissioner Adrianna Escarcega? · · · · · MS. ESCARCEGA:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ: Vice Chair Gary Grossich?
· · · · · MR. GROSSICH:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· And Chair Richard Prieto.
· · · · · MR. PRIETO:· Yes.
· · · · · MR. SUAREZ:· This item will continue February ·25th.
· · · · · Staff will be sending out an email as to
·specific dates and milestones of when we need
·information in order to make that deadline.
· · · · · Thank you.· Meeting ended.
· · · · · · (Proceeding concluded at 8:58 P.M.)

135
·COUNTY OF ORANGE,· · · )
·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · )
· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE PAGE
· · · · · I, Sarah Baker, certified Shorthand Reporter in ·and for the State of California, License No. 14686,
·hereby certify that the deponent was by me first duly
·sworn and the foregoing testimony was reported by me and ·was thereafter transcribed with computer-aided
·transcription; that the foregoing is a full, complete, ·and true record of said proceedings.
· · · · · I further certify that I am not of counsel or ·attorney for either or any of the parties in the
·foregoing proceedings and caption named or in any way
·interested in the outcome of the cause in said cause.
· · · · · The dismantling, unsealing, or unbinding of the ·original transcript will render the reporter's
·certificate null and void.· In witness whereof, I have ·hereunto set my hand this day:
·Tuesday, December 10, 2024.
· · · · · · · ·____________________________
· · · · · · · ·Sarah Baker
· · · · · · · ·CSR 14686

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 4:34 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>; Michael Thies <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Duron <[email protected]>; Mario Suarez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Colton Planning Commission-- June 10-- Is Proposed Amendment No. 2 still on calendar?
Dear Jim,
The snip in the email string below was from the website this morning:

Please let us know on Monday, or sooner if possible. We have dozens of people rearranging their schedules so that they can attend this hearing on extremely short notice, including changes in airline flights as I mentioned below.

I will be sending you our letter of objections and comments under separate cover, very shortly.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve
Eve Brackmann

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>; Michael Thies <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Duron <[email protected]>; Mario Suarez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Colton Planning Commission-- June 10-- Is Proposed Amendment No. 2 still on calendar?
[External]
I didn’t see a notice of cancellation when I went on the website. As for notice, I will have to confirm with staff. City is closed today so I may not hear until Monday.

Talk soon.

Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel
[email protected]
T: (909) 483-6648 | C: (909) 576-9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:31 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>; Michael Thies <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Duron <[email protected]>; Mario Suarez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Colton Planning Commission-- June 10-- Is Proposed Amendment No. 2

still on calendar?
Importance: High

CAUTION - EXTERNAL
SENDER.

Thanks, Jim. Any idea why someone posted a confusing notification that the meeting is cancelled?
Is it possible to put this item over to a July meeting, in order to alleviate the (further) confusion that this has likely caused in the community?
Additionally, I have spoken with about a dozen business owners who would be heavily impacted by this plan to aggressively re-zone and then amortize their uses. None of them received an invitation or any notification about the workshops on this initiative, and many of them didn’t receive notice of the June 10 hearing. This also includes my client, Crown (we received the notice well after its May 17, 2025 date, and it was literally the first we had heard about this initiative).

It seems like having the Planning Commission hear this on June 10 may be premature.

Also, given what happened in Santa Ana a couple of nights ago when something very similar to this proposal was brought before the City Council and not well received and then severely modified, I would think more conversation is in order at this point.

Please let us know if this can be put over to at least July.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:20 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>; Michael Thies <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Duron <[email protected]>; Mario Suarez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Colton Planning Commission-- June 10-- Is Proposed Amendment No. 2 still on calendar?
[External]
Good afternoon Eve. Not quite sure what happened there. We are having a meeting next Tuesday and the amortization ordinance is on the agenda. When I go on the website, I can get the agenda. Here it is for reference.
https://www.coltonca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06102025-1329?html=true Take care.

Jim.

CAUTION - EXTERNAL
SENDER.

Dear Michael and Jim,
I saw this online: Colton, CA - Official Website | Official Website

But when I click on the link, it just takes me to the same June 10 agenda with Proposed Amendment No. 2 (zoning ordinance changes) still on the agenda. Can you please confirm whether this meeting is indeed cancelled and/or whether Proposed Amendment No. 2 is still on the agenda for June 10?
We have over 50 people planning to attend, including myself, and if it’s not going forward then I need to rearrange some airline flights today.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve
Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn

Follow Munck on LinkedIn
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information. If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel
[email protected]
T: (909) 483-6648 | C: (909) 576-9203
bbklaw.com |

EXHIBIT D

From: Michelle Guillen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:17 AM
To: Dhruv Vyas <[email protected]>
Cc: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>; Reed Shankwiler <[email protected]>; Georgiana Nikias <[email protected]>; Stephanie Vargas <[email protected]>; Maria Quijano <[email protected]> Subject: City of Colton - PRA - Dhruv Vyas - 2/3/25 - Extension [External]
Good morning,
The City of Colton received your request for public records on February 3, 2025. The requested records have been collected; however, we are still waiting for them to be reviewed by our city’s legal team. This is a normal part of the process in which we make sure that personal information is not being made public. We will respond with either the records or an update no later than June 12, 2025, as authorized by Gov. Code § 7922.535.

Sincerely,
Michelle Guillen
Office of the City Clerk- Office Specialist II
City of Colton | 650 N. La Cadena Drive | Colton, CA 92324 T: 909.370.5032 | EMAIL: [email protected]

EXHIBIT E

1 Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc.

Sapetto Real Estate Solutions provides expertise for all land use entitlement needs including information for land acquisitions such as due diligence and feasibility, knowledge of current transactions, and jurisdictional relationships for all of Southern California.

We specialize in the preparation and processing of Master and Specific Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments, Plan Modifications, Environmental Review Support and Project Management for all types of Land Development, as well as community outreach for these applications.

CEO/Principal
Pamela Sapetto has been a leader in government and community relations in California for over 30 years and founded Sapetto Real Estate Solutions in 1990 to assist the real estate industry with their entitlement needs. Ms. Sapetto has been responsible for the approval of approximately 70 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail development and approximately 55,000 residential units. As the firm’s President, she has successfully managed important land development projects including public policy, community and government issues for her clients. Ms. Sapetto is currently managing and has managed a variety of significant entitlement projects for Tesla, Equity Residential, Watermarke Properties, Legacy, Fairfield Realty, Toll Brothers Apartments, Crown Enterprises, Concordia University, Westcliff University, The Pacific Group, AMG, The Hines Company, Alliance Residential, Garden Communities, JHREP, K.B. Home, Standard Pacific, Lennar and LNR, Boeing Real Estate Company, Kilroy Realty Corporation, Avalon Bay, Sares-Regis, Legacy, Essex, BRE, The Koll Company, and The Irvine Company and its subsidiaries Irvine Investment Property Groups and Irvine Apartment Communities.

Ms. Sapetto’s civic and community involvement has also proven to be an asset for her clients. She is a member of the Urban Land Institute, Building Industry Association of Southern California, and various local Chambers of Commerce. She currently serves on the Board of Jamboree Housing, and on the board of Ballet Luminario. From 1998 to 2004, Ms. Sapetto served as a Board Member for the Southern California National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. She also has served on the Boards of the Girl Scout Council of Orange County and Ballet Pacifica.

Pamela Sapetto graduated with a B.A. from American University in Washington, D.C.