Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, September 3, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to t he Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

461
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission has determined that this Resolution does not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above- referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Hotel Hacienda. ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 30, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby Approves to uphold the Zoning Administrator Decision herein described Application.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees 462
463
464
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-019

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-007) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE BRIGHT STAR MOTEL, LOCATED AT 1530 WEST

MISSION BOULEVARD SOUTH ARCHIBALD AVENUE , WITHIN THE

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1011-221-15.

WHEREAS, Purushottam Patel and Esha Smah ("Applicant") operator of the Bright Star Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Bright Star Motel, File No. PDET23-007, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Application applies to the Bright Star Motel, located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Bright Star Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and

WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Bright Star Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to Bright Star Motel; and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits, between 1956 and 1962, for the construction of Motel; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior 478
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Bright Star Motel; and

WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and

WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and

WHEREAS, Section 3- 6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and were entitled to an individualized hearing under the First Amendment Petition Clause, Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Substantive and Procedural) and Equal Protection of the United States Constitution.

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 479
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

Administrator. Issues like the adoption and amendment of zoning ordinances are legislative acts rather than administrative or quasi -judicial acts. Arnel Dev. Co. v City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 C3d 511, 514. Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter

5.03.250(E)(1) which prohibits hotels from having a guestroom rented for longer than 30 days is inapplicable because Ontario Municipal Code chapter 3- 06.02(g) states than an occupant can have an occupancy for longer than 30 days (with a written agreement).

Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator’s application of ODC § 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Appellants’ hotels was proper. Where the Development Code imposes a greater restriction than is imposed or required by an existing law, the provisions of the Development Code shall prevail. ODC § 1.02.005. To the extent that there is an external inconsistency between the provisions of the Ontario Development Code and the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Code, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. ODC § 1.01.015(D). Thus, if there is a conflict between the Ontario Municipal Code and the Ontario Development Code, the Zoning Administrator must make a decision pursuant to the Development Code.

Here, Appellants argue that because OMC § 3-06.02(g) states than a person can have an occupancy of longer than 30 days (with an agreement in writing), that Appellants can rent their hotels to occupants for longer than 30 days and be exempt from the TOT.

However, under the Development Code, “no guestroom shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days for a hotel or motel. ODC § 5.03.250(E)(1). This is an explicit restriction on hotels. To the extent that there exists any conflict by inference with OMC section 3-602(g), the ODC’s restriction on hotels applies. ODC § 1.01.015(D).

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

480
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 481
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

and the Planning Commission has determined that this Resolution does not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Bright Star Motel . ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 22, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 482
483
484
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
Reviewed: RZ
DE
CISION NO.: ZA23-030
FIL
E NO.: PDET23-007
DE
SCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Bright Star Motel (“Hotel”), located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceabilit y of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 1011-221-15); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PAR
T 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
THE
CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23-007, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DE
SCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Bright Star Motel , located at 1530 West Million Boulevard, with in the Light Industrial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

ANAL
YSIS: Under the ODC Section 1.02.015(A), the Zoning Administrator shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of this Development Code. Subsequently, the ODC Table 2.01- 1 (Review Matrix) establishe s that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations
Th
e Bright Star Motel property is zoned Light Industrial. Between 1956 and 1962 the City of Ontario Building Departmen t issued permits for the construction of Motel. The permitted Motel was constructed in conformance with all regulations of the Municipal Code at the time of development; however, at present, it i s not in compliance with the current Light Industrial z oning district. Consequently, the existing Motel use is deemed “ legal nonconforming ”. Division 3.01 (Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures), Section 3.01.015: Nonconforming Land Uses, outlines the regulations for the continuance of a nonconforming use.

The
Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkwa ys consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Bright Star Motel . Hotels are defined as lodging facilities, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION:

LAND USE DETERMINATION
December 21, 2023
494
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

additional services, such as restaurants, meet ing rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom , for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days are in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3-6.02(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified by the City of Ontario Development Code, and anticipating that new uses will evolve over time, Ontario Development Code Section 1.02.101 (Interpreta tions and Land Use Determinations) establishes the Zoning Administrator’s authority to review and act upon a Determination of Use, comparing and measuring a proposed use against those listed in the Development Code, which have similar impacts, functions and characteristics; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:
(a) The Bright Star Motel is located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the light industrial zoning district. The existing Bright Star Motel is a legal nonconforming use;

(b) The City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits, between 1956 and 1962, for the construction of Motel; and

495
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(c) Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient acco mmodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Bright Star Motel; and

(d) ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and

(e) Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and

(f) Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days ; and

(g) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(h) Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC provides for exemptions from the TOT under limited circumstances and pursuant to Section 3 -6.04(b) no such exemption shall be granted except upon a claim made at the time the rent is collected and made under penalty of perjury upon a form approved by the Tax Administrator.

(3) The Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Determination of Use is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-007, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Bright Star Motel . ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, co unting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3 -6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occup ancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

496
497
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-020

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-008) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE DAYS INN ONTARIO MOTEL, LOCATED AT 1405 EAST 4

TH STREET, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 0108-381-32.

WHEREAS, Kisham Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Days Inn Ontario Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Days Inn Ontario Motel, File No. PDET23-008, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Days Inn Ontario is located at 1405 East 4th Street, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

WHEREAS, on April 2 , 2021, Executive Director of Finance A rmen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Days Inn Ontario. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to Days Inn Ontario Motel; and

WHEREAS, in 1985, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3225 -CUP) to establish 53 -unit Days Inn Ontario Motel (known as Youngs Motel); and

WHEREAS, in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Days Inn Ontario Motel (Known as “Youngs Motel”); and

498
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Days Inn Ontario; and

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Page 3 ends

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. Issues like the adoption and amendment of zoning ordinances are legislative acts rather than administrative or quasi -judicial acts. Arnel Dev. Co. v City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 C3d 511, 514. Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter

Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator’s application of ODC § 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Appellants’ hotels was proper. Where the Development Code imposes a greater restriction than is imposed or required by an existing law, the provisions of the Development Code shall prevail. ODC § 1.02.005. To the extent that there is an external inconsistency between the provisions of the Ontario Development Code and the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Code, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. ODC § 1.01.015(D). Thus , if there is a conflict between the Ontario Municipal Code and the Ontario Development Code, the Zoning Administrator must make a decision pursuant to the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and
500
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 501
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Days Inn Ontario. ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 2, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 502
503
504
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513

Reviewed: RZ

DECISION NO.: ZA23-031

FILE NO.: PDET23-008

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Days Inn Ontario(“Hotel”), located at 1405 East 4
th Street, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 0108-381-32); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

THE CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23-008, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Days Inn Ontario , located at 1405 East 4th Street , within the C ommunity Commercial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

The Days Inn Ontario is 1405 East 4
th Street and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. In 1985, the Planning Commission appro ved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3225-CUP - Youngs Motel) to establish a 53-unit motel at 1405 East 4th Street . In 1987, t he City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel (Known as “Youngs Motel”).

The Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkwa ys consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Days Inn Ontario . Hotels are defined as lodging facilities, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide additional services, such as res taurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION:

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
514
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidenc e presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:

(a) The Days Inn Ontario is located at 1405 East 4th Street , within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

(b) In 1985, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3225-CUP) to establish 53-unit motel; and

(c) In 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel (Known as “Youngs Motel”); and 515
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(d) Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Days Inn Ontario; and

(e) ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and

(f) Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of M otel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and

(g) Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days ; and

(h) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(i) Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC provides for exemptions from the TOT under limited circumstances and pursuant to Section 3 -6.04(b) no such exemption shall be granted except upon a claim made at the time the rent is collected and made unde r penalty of perjury upon a form approved by the Tax Administrator.

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-008, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Days Inn Ontario . ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full d ays. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3 -6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by rea son of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

516
517
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-021

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-009) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE ECONOMY INN, LOCATED AT 2301 SOUTH

EUCLID AVENUE, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN:
1051-071-04.

WHEREAS, Mehesh Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Economy Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination d ecision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Economy Inn, File No.

PDET23-009, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Economy Inn is located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Community Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit ; and

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Economy Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to Economy Inn; and

WHEREAS, in 1984, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3051-CUP) to establish 47-unit Economy Inn Motel; and

WHEREAS, in 1985, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of the Economy Inn Motel; and

WHEREAS Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 518
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Economy Inn; and

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 519
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter

Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator’s application of ODC § 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Appellants’ hotels was proper. Where the Development Code imposes a greater restriction than is imposed or required by an existing law, the provisions of the Development Code shall prevail. ODC § 1.02.005. To the extent that there is an external inconsistency between the provisions of the Ontario Development Code and the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Code, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. ODC § 1.01.015(D). Thus , if there is a conflict between the Ontario Municipal Code and the Ontario Development Code, the Zoning Administrator must make a decision pursuant to the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

520
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 521
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Economy Inn . ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the February 5, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 522
523
524
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-032

FILE NO.: PDET23-009

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Economy Inn (“Hotel”), located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 1051-071-04); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

THE CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23-009, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Economy Inn, located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue , within the Co mmunity Commercial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

The Economy Inn is located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue and zoned Community Commercial. In 1984, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3051-CUP) to establish a 47-unit motel at 2301 South Euclid Avenue . In 1985, t he City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel.

The Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkwa ys consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Economy Inn . Hotels are defined as lodging facilit ies, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION:

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
534
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom , for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days are in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hote l to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3-6.02(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified by the City of Ontario Development Code, and anticipating that new uses will evolve over time, Ontario Development Code Section 1.02.101 (Interpretations and Land Use Determinations) establishes the Zoning Administrator’s authority to review and act upon a Determination of Use, comparing and measuring a proposed use against those listed in the Development Code, which have similar impacts, functions and characteristics; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:

(a) The Economy Inn is located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue , within the Community Commercial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Community Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

(b) In 1984, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3051-CUP) to establish 47-unit motel; and

(c) In 1985, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel; and
535
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(f) Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and

(h) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(i) Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC provides for exemptions from the TOT under limited circumstances and purs uant to Section 3 -6.04(b) no such exemption shall be granted except upon a claim made at the time the rent is collected and made under penalty of perjury upon a form approved by the Tax Administrator.

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-009, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Economy Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom , for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirt y (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

536
537
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-022

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-010) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE MAYFAIR INN , LOCATED AT 1120 EAST HOLT

BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1049-141-25.

WHEREAS, Dilip Payaram ("Applicant") operator of the Mayfair Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination d ecision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Mayfair Inn , File No.

PDET23-010, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Mayfair Inn (formally known as the Knights Inn) is located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard, within the Industrial Park zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Industrial Park zoning district. The existing Mayfair Inn is a legal nonconforming use; and

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, Executive Director of Finance A rmen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Mayfiar Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to Mayfair Inn; and

WHEREAS, in 198 5, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294-S) for the construction of 37-unit Mayfair Inn motel; and

WHEREAS, in 1987, City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Mayfair Motel; and

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 538
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Mayfair Inn; and

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 539
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

540
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 541
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Mayfair Inn . ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 16, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 542
543
544
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-033

FILE NO.: PDET23-010

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Mayfair Inn (“Hotel”), located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard, within the Industrial Park zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section

5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 1049-141-25); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

THE CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23 -010, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Mayfair Inn (Formally known as “Knights Inn”) , located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard, within the Industrial Park zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

The Mayfair Inn is located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard and zoned Industrial Park. In 1985, t he Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294- S) for the construction of 37 - unit motel. In 1987, City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Motel.

The permitted Motel was constructed in conformance with all regulations of the Municipal Code at the time of development; however, at present, it is not in compliance with the current Industrial Park zoning district . Consequently, the existing Motel use is deemed “ legal nonconforming ”.

Division 3.01 (Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structu res), Section 3.01.015: Nonconforming Land Uses, outlines the regulations for the continuance of a nonconforming use.

The Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Mayfair Inn. Hotels are defined as lodging facilities, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide additional 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION:

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
554
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified by the City of Ontario Development Code, and anticipating that new uses will evolve over time, Ontario Development Code Section 1.02.101 (Interpretations and Land Use Determinations) establishes the Zoning Administrator’s authority to review and act upon a Determination of Use, comparing and measuring a proposed use against those listed in the Development Code, which have similar impacts, functions and characteristics; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:

(a) The Mayfair Inn is located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard , within the Industrial Park zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Industrial Park zoning district. The existing Mayfair Inn is a legal nonconforming use;

(b) The Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294 -S) for the construction of 37-unit motel; and
555
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(f) Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and

(h) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(i) Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC provides for exemptions from the TOT under limited circumstances and pursuant to Section 3 -6.04(b) no such exemption shall be granted except upon a claim made at the time the rent is collected and made under penalty of perjury upon a form approved by the Tax Administrator.

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-010, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Mayfair Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom , for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3 -6.029(g) of the Ontari o Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

556
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(c) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 16, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

(5) The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario .

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21
st day of December 2023.

Rudy Zeledon
Zoning Administrator

557
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-023

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-015) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE SANDS MOTEL , LOCATED AT 1240 WEST

MISSION BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN:
1101-211-03.

WHEREAS, Purushottam Patel and Andy Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Sands Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an A ppeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Sands Motel , File No. PDET23-015, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Sands Motel is located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Sands Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and

WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Sands Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to Sands Motel; and

WHEREAS The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Sands Motel in the 1956; and

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Sands Mote; and

558
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Page 3 ends

legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

560
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 561
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Sands Motel . ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 1, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 562
563
564
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-038

FILE NO.: PDET23-015

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Sands Motel (“Hotel”), located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 1101-211-03); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

THE CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23-015, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the Sands Motel, located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard , within the L ight Industrial zoning d istrict, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

The Sands Motel is located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard and zoned Light Industrial. The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of the Motel in the early 1956. The permitted Motel was constructed in conformance with all regulations of the Municipal Code at the time of development; however, at present, it is not in compliance with the cur rent Light Industrial zoning district. Consequently, the existing Motel use is deemed “legal nonconforming”.

Division 3.01 (Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures), Section 3.01.015: Nonconforming Land Uses, outlines the regulations for the continuance of a nonconforming use.

The Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Sands Motel. Hotels are defined as lodging facilit ies, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION:

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
574
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified by the City of Ontario Development Code, and anticipating that new uses will evolve over time, Ontario Development Code Section 1.02.101 (Interpretations and Land Use Determinations) establishes the Zoning Administrator’s authority to review and act upon a Determination of Use, comparing and measuring a proposed use against those listed in the Development Code, which have similar impacts, functions and characteristics; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:

(a) The Sands Motel is located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Light Industrial zoning district.

The existing Sands Motel is a legal nonconforming use;

(b) The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of a Motel in the 1956; and
575
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(c) Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Sands Motel ; and

(f) Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of th irty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days ; and

(g) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-015, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Sands Motel. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3 -6.029(g) of t he Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

576
577
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-024

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-016) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE OPERATION TO THE WEST COAST INN , LOCATED AT 1211 NORTH

GROVE AVENUE, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 1047-451-25.

WHEREAS, Anil Patel ("Applicant") operator of the West Coast Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrator s interpretation and determination d ecision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation West Coast Inn, File No.

PDET23-016, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the West Coast Inn is located at 1211 North Grove Avenue, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district . Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the West Coast Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to West Coast Inn; and

WHEREAS in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of West Coast Inn Motel ( known as “Grove Avenue Motel”) ; and

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the West Coast Inn; and 578
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant issues that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Page 3 ends

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Ontario Development Code chapter 5.03.250(E)(1) which prohibits hotels from having a guestroom rented for longer than 30 days is inapplicable because Ontario Municipal Code chapter 3-06.02(g) states than an occupant can have an occupancy for longer than 30 days (with a written agreement).

The Zoning Administrator’s application of the ODC’s more restrictive provision prohibiting Appellants’ hotels from renting to a person for longer than 30 days was proper.

Thus, the appeals should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions should be upheld; and

580
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and

WHEREAS, on May 28 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 581
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the West Coast Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3- 6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 8, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 582
583
584
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax
(''Notice of Assessment")

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593

Reviewed: RZ/12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-039

FILE NO.: PDET23-016

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the West Coast Inn (“Hotel”), located at 1211 North Grove Avenue , within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel (APN: 1047-451-25); submitted by the City of Ontario Transient Occupancy Tax License Official.

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

THE CITY OF ONTARIO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LICENSE OFFICIAL, (herein after referred to as “Applicant”) has filed a request that Zoning Administrator provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel. Land Use Interpretation or Determination, File No. PDET23-016, as described in the subject of this Decision (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project").

DESCRIPTION: Referral to Zoning Administrator and Stay of Decision for the West Coast Inn, located at 1211 North Grove Avenue , within the Community Commercial zoning district, to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l) as to the Hotel.

The West Coast Inn (Formally known as the Grove Ave nue Motel) is located at 1211 North Grove Avenue and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. In 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel (Known as “Grove Avenue Motel”).

The Ontario Development Code, Division 9.01 (Definitions), defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the West Coast Inn. Hotels are defined as lodging facilit ies, which offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. The definitions for a Motel and Hotel both clearly state the intent for transient accommodations at a daily rate .

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
594
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-016
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

as full days. Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days are in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3-6.02(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.

PART 2: RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has received a request for an interpretation or determination, as described in Part I, above; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01 -1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act u pon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified by the City of Ontario Development Code, and anticipating that new uses will evolve over time, Ontario Development Code Section 1.02.101 (Interpretations and Land Use Determinations) establishes the Zoning Administrator’s authority to review and act upon a Determination of Use, comparing and measuring a proposed use against those listed in the Development Code, which have similar impacts, functions and characteristics; and

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Ontario as follows:

(1) All facts set forth in the preceding sections of this Interpretation and Determination of Use are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

(2) Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator hereby concludes as follows:

(a) The West Coast Inn is located at 1211 North Grove Avenue , within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

(b) In 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel (Known as “Grove Avenue Motel”); and

(c) Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the West Coast Inn; and 595
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-016
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

(g) The Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and

(h) Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC provides for exemption s from the TOT under limited circumstances and pursuant to Section 3 -6.04(b) no such exemption shall be granted except upon a claim made at the time the rent is collected and made under penalty of perjury upon a form approved by the Tax Administrator.

(4) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Parts 1, 2 and 3 above, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds and determines, File No. PDET23-016, the following:

(a) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the West Coast Inn . ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate . Section 3 -6.029(g) of t he Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

(b) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 -6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel.

(c) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 8 , 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

596
597
-1-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

May 28, 2024

CONTENTS PAGE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ................................................................................................ 2

SPECIAL CEREMONIES .................................................................................................... 2

ANNOUNCEMENTS............................................................................................................ 2

PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2

CONSENT CALENDAR

A-01. Minutes of April 23, 2024 .......................................................................................... 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. File No. PDA21-010 ................................................................................................. 2

C. File No. PMTT22 -022 .............................................................................................. 3

D. File No. PDEV22-017 ............................................................................................... 4

E. File No. PUD23-004 ................................................................................................. 5

F. File No. PDCA24-002 .............................................................................................. 6

G. Appeal File No. PCUP23-018 ................................................................................... 7

H. Appeal File Nos. PDET23-005, PDET23-007 PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015 AND PDET23-016 ......................................................................................... 10

MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ........................................................ 12

DIRECTOR’S REPORT ........................................................................................................ 13

ADJOURNMENT .......................................................................................................... 13

598

-2-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

May 28, 2024

REGULAR MEETING: City Hall, 303 East B Street
Called to order by Chairperson Ricci at 6:30 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Present: Chairperson Ricci, Vice-Chairman DeDiemar, Anderson, Del Turco, Gage, Lampkin

Absent: Dean

OTHERS PRESENT: Community Development Assistant D irector Zeledon, City Attorney Guiboa, Planning Director Noh, Sustainability Manager Ruddins, Principal Planner Eoff IV, Senior Planner Ayala , Senior Planner Grahn, Associate Planner Aguilo , Associate Planner Torres, Assistant City Engineer Lee, and Planning Secretary Berendsen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Del Turco.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Noh stated there were no changes to the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No person from the public wished to speak at this time.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

A-01. MINUTES APPROVAL

Planning/Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of April 23, 2024.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

It was moved by DeDiemar, seconded by Lampkin, to approve the Consent Calendar as written.

Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Lampkin, Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Dean, Gage. The motion was carried 5-0.

PLANNING/HISTORIC COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDA21-010: A public hearing to consider a Development Agreement (File No.

PDA21-010) between the City of Ontario and SL Ontario Development Company, LLC to 599

-10-

Mr. McDonald stated they either stay in the lobby area or go to the area businesses.

Ms. DeDiemar wanted to clarify that they give economic output.

Mr. McDonald stated yes.

Mr. Del Turco wanted to know if the facility would be used for Ontario residents or from other cities.

Mr. Wong stated for participants within surrounding cities.

Mr. Del Turco wanted to clarify they have vendors contracts to supply food.

Mr. Wong stated that is correct.

Mr. Del Turco wanted to clarify that they won’t be using the surrounding restaurants in the area.

Mr. Wong stated they would use the restaurants in the area.

Ms. Anderson wanted to know if the clients that attend the facility aloud to go out of the building.

Mr. Wong, during business hours they use their transportation and have supervised outings.

Ms. Anderson wanted to know what kind of food vendors they buy food from.

Mr. Wong stated they use bakeries and Chinese food and food for events is kind of a mix.

Ms. Anderson wanted to know the percentage of various ethnicities that attend.

Mr. Wong stated that the majority are Asian but will take anyone who would like to join the program.

As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ricci closed the public testimony.

Mr. Lampkin spoke regarding the need for senior facilities and spoke regarding concerns and the characteristics of the building for the use.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Anderson; to deny the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision for File No. PCUP23 -018, subject to conditions of approval . Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Del Turco, Lampkin; NOES, DeDiemar, Ricci ; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Dean, Gage. The motion was carried 3-2.

H. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION FOR FILE NOS. PDET23 -005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, AND PDET23 -016:

An appeal of Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the follow ing hotels and motels; 1) Hotel Hacienda (File No PDET23- 005), located at 2423 South Archibald Avenue; 2) Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23- 005), located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard; 3) Days Inn Ontario Motel (File No.PDET23- 008, located at 1405 East 4th Street; 4) Economy Inn (File No. PDET23 -009), located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue; 5) Mayfair Inn (File No. PDET23-010), located 1120 East Holt Boulevard; 6) Sands Motel (File No.

PDET23-015), located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard and 7) and the West Coast Inn (File No.

PDET23-016), located at 1211 North Grove Avenue. The appeal is not subject to the California 600

-11-
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (APNS: 1083-071- 26, 1011-221- 15, 0108- 381-32, 1051-071- 04, 1049-141- 25, 1101-211- 03 and 1047-451-25).

Submitted by Frank A. Weiser – Attorney at Law

Mr. Zeledon introduced Andrew Lopez, the attorney representing the City for this item.

Assistant Community Development Director Zeledon presented the staff report. Mr. Lopez explained the appellant’s issues and city’s response to them. He stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision for, File Nos. PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015 AND PDET23 -016, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and the attached Resolutions.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Frank Weiser explained his procedural objections regarding CEQA applying, and that this issue relates to housing and the due process clause with the TOT audit and that they were due a hearing before the Zoning Administrator. He stated the motels are grandfathered in and there are constitutional issues , and that there can ’t be contradictory ordinances. He requested they either deny the Zoning Administrator hearing or have an EIR be produced and there should be a hearing.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that Mr. Weiser believes that staff believes that CEQA doesn’t apply.

Mr. Weiser stated he believes CEQA does apply because it is a housing issue and an EIR should be done.

Mr. Lampkin asked the deputy city attorney how CEQA applies to this appeal.

Mr. Zeledon responded and stated CEQA doesn ’t apply as there are no physical change s to the environment. He clarified the TOT, and 30-day limitation was approved in 1965 and amendments have been made since then.

Mr. Weiser stated the D evelopment Code was amended in 2017 or 2018 and his clients did not receive notification and that there cannot be contradictory applications of an ordinance.

Mr. Lampkin asked the Zoning Administrator if it is his opinion that CEQA does not apply in this situation because it is not a new development.

Mr. Zeledon stated that is correct, it is not a project defined under CEQA.

Mr. Lampkin clarified that’s why Mr. Zeledon didn’ t abdicate that they comply with CEQA as it didn ’t apply.

Mr. Zeledon stated that is correct and the CEQA exemption is sited in the Zoning Administrator decision and in the Planning Commission agenda report.

Mr. Weiser stated he respectively disagreed.

Mr. Lampkin asked the attorney what his opinion is regarding the Toronto Open Space Committee vs.

Marion Counties decision in regard to property not developed.

Attorney Lopez diverted to the specifics of the case as he hasn’t been briefed on the case.

Ms. DeDiemar wanted clarification on the definition of transient. 601

-12-
Mr. Weiser stated under the TOT it is defined as 30 days or less and these people were given a permanent exemption beyond that.

Attorney Lopez explained that Ontario Development Code does have the transient definition as written , which states hotels can’t rent longer than 30 days.

Ms. DeDiemar asked if this would be considered a lease or rent after 30 days.

Attorney Lopez stated the Zoning Administrator based the decision on the Development Code, which says longer than 30 days is not permitted.

Mr. Zeledon responded with the definition of transient within the Development Code which states a 30- day max., which is what he needed to apply for this decision.

Mr. Weiser rebutted, disagreed with Attorney Lopez.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ricci closed the public testimony.

Mr. Lampkin spoke regarding the staff addressing the issue succinctly and the issues from the appellant that didn’t apply.

Mr. Del Turco asked Mr. Zeledon if the hotels were aware of the standard.

Mr. Zeledon stated yes.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Del Turco , to deny the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision for File Nos. PDET23 -005, PDET23- 007, PDET23 -008, PDET23 - 009, PDET23- 010, PDET23- 015 AND PDET23 -016. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Lampkin, Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Dean, Gage.

The motion was carried 5-0.

Mr. Ricci stated that this decision can be appealed within 10 days.

Attorney Guiboa stated that there was confusion regarding the voting for Item D and that some Commissioners did not intend to deny the EIR and asked the Commission if they would like to reconsider that vote and make a motion to continue that item to the next Planning Commission meeting.

It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Anderson, to reconsider the Item D decision and to continue that Item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Lampkin, Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Dean, Gage.

The motion was carried 5-0.

MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Old Business Reports From Subcommittees

Historic Preservation (Standing): Did not meet this month.

New Business
602
603
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-005) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE HOTEL HACIENDA, LOCATED AT 2425 SOUTH

ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 1083-071-26.

WHEREAS, Noman Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Hotel Hacienda has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Hotel Hacienda, File No. PDET23-005, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to the Hotel Hacienda (Formally America’s Best Value Inn) (“Hotel”), located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Hotel Hacienda. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Hotel Hacienda; and
WHEREAS, the Hotel Hacienda was approved (File No. 3472-S) by the City of Ontario in 1986 as a 55-unit Motel (known in 1986 as the Knice Inn); and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and WHEREAS, in 1988, the Motel was constructed; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 604
to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Hotel Hacienda; and WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

1. Appellants’ Issue No. 1: The Planning Commission was required under California Environmental Quality Act to provide an Environmental Impact Report as the issue of the applicability of the Development Code may have a negative impact on the environment.

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a process through which public agencies, the public, and project developers can evaluate a project, understand its environmental impacts, and develop measures to reduce these impacts. CEQA applies to projects that may result in a change in the environment; a full environmental review is only required where the project could result in a significant adverse impact.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
605
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Moreover, if the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision comprises a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the " common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061( b)( 3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question (interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of the Development Code) may have a significant effect on the environment."
Additionally, the “creation of government funding mechanisms or other fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project. . .” are not considered a “project” under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(B)(4).

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-018 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-005; and
607
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council has determined that this Resolution does not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and (3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Hotel Hacienda. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of 608
calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 30, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 3: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby Approves to uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator Decision herein described Application.

SECTION 4: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
609

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held September 3, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held September 3, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
610
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-007) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE BRIGHT STAR MOTEL, LOCATED AT 1530 WEST

MISSION BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN:
1011-221-15.

WHEREAS, Purushottam Patel and Esha Smah ("Applicant") operator of the Bright Star Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Bright Star Motel, File No. PDET23-007, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to the Bright Star Motel, located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Bright Star Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Bright Star Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Bright Star Motel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits, between 1956 and 1962, for the construction of Motel; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Bright Star Motel; and
611
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
612
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Moreover, if the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision comprises a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the " common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061( b)( 3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question (interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of the Development Code) may have a significant effect on the environment." Additionally, the “creation of government funding mechanisms or other fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project. . .” are not considered a “project” under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section15378(B)(4).

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of 613
the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-019 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-007; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and 614
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Bright Star Motel. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. 615
(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 22, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
616

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
617
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-008) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE DAYS INN ONTARIO MOTEL, LOCATED AT 1405 EAST 4 TH STREET, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 0108-381-32.

WHEREAS, Kisham Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Days Inn Ontario Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Days Inn Ontario Motel, File No. PDET23-008, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Days Inn Ontario is located at 1405 East 4th Street, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Days Inn Ontario. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Days Inn Ontario Motel; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3225-CUP) to establish 53-unit Days Inn Ontario Motel (known as Youngs Motel); and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Days Inn Ontario Motel (Known as “Youngs Motel”); and WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior 618
walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Days Inn Ontario; and
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
619
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Ontario Development Code (“ODC”). The Zoning Administrator, under Section l.02.015(A)(l) of the ODC, has jurisdiction of, and is responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of the Development Code. The Zoning Administrator’s power is limited to interpretation of the Code as applied to a particular case. ODC § 1.02.010(B)(1). Thus, the Zoning Administrator’s power is limited to interpretation of the code and its application to a particular set of facts.
620
Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-020 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-008; and
621
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Days Inn Ontario. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of 622
calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 2, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
623
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
624

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
625
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-009) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE ECONOMY INN, LOCATED AT 2301 SOUTH

EUCLID AVENUE, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN:
1051-071-04.

WHEREAS, Mehesh Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Economy Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Economy Inn, File No.

PDET23-009, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Economy Inn is located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Community Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Economy Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Economy Inn; and
WHEREAS, in 1984, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3051-CUP) to establish 47-unit Economy Inn Motel; and WHEREAS, in 1985, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of the Economy Inn Motel; and WHEREAS Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Economy Inn; and 626
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
627
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 628
Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-021 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-009; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and 629
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Economy Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). 630
(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the February 5, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
631

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
632
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-010) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE MAYFAIR INN, LOCATED AT 1120 EAST HOLT

BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1049-141-25.

WHEREAS, Dilip Payaram ("Applicant") operator of the Mayfair Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Mayfair Inn, File No.

PDET23-010, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Mayfair Inn (formally known as the Knights Inn) is located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard, within the Industrial Park zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Industrial Park zoning district. The existing Mayfair Inn is a legal nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Mayfiar Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Mayfair Inn; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294-S) for the construction of 37-unit Mayfair Inn motel; and WHEREAS, in 1987, City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Mayfair Motel; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Mayfair Inn; and 633
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State 634
CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which 635
imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-022 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-010; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 636

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).
(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. 637
(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 16, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
638

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
639
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-015) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE SANDS MOTEL, LOCATED AT 1240 WEST

MISSION BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN:
1101-211-03.

WHEREAS, Purushottam Patel and Andy Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Sands Motel (“Hotel”) has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Sands Motel, File No. PDET23-015, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Sands Motel is located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Sands Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Sands Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Sands Motel; and
WHEREAS The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Sands Motel in the 1956; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Sands Mote; and WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
640
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will 641
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator 642
to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-023 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-015; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 643

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).
(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. 644
(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 1, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
645

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
646
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET23-016) THAT THE
ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION

5.03.250(E)(1) IS APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEABLE TO THE
OPERATION TO THE WEST COAST INN, LOCATED AT 1211 NORTH

GROVE AVENUE, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 1047-451-25.

WHEREAS, Anil Patel ("Applicant") operator of the West Coast Inn (“Hotel”) has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation West Coast Inn, File No.

PDET23-016, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the West Coast Inn is located at 1211 North Grove Avenue, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the West Coast Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to West Coast Inn; and
WHEREAS in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of West Coast Inn Motel (known as “Grove Avenue Motel”); and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the West Coast Inn; and 647
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

Staff Response: Appellants’ argument is flawed because the TOT ordinance was not a “project” under CEQA requiring an Environmental Impact Report.

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State 648
CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Here, there is no physical project undertaken. The TOT’s effect is fiscal. Thus, the TOT ordinance is a funding mechanism is not a “project” and an EIR is not required under CEQA.

2. Appellants’ Issue No. 2: Subject hotels never received notice of the zoning change and adoption of Ontario Development Code (“ODC”) Division 5.03 Section

Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that go beyond the limited scope of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which 649
imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-024 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-016; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 650

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the West Coast Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. 651
(3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 8, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
652

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
653

Ontario City CouncilSeptember 3, 2024

Ontario City Council
September 3, 2024