Ontario City Council
October 1, 2024

X A global timer can be set for property disposition. It is not possible to set seperate timers for each statute at this time.
232.00 The proposed solution must maintain a disposition history for a specified time period or if retained indefinitely for future investigative purposes.

X
233.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for the agency to configure an item numbering sequence. X
234.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for the agency to override a numbering sequence, based on permissions. X
235.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to designate property and evidence types for the following: -- -- -- --
235.01 Evidence X
235.02 Fo und property X
235.03 Safe keeping X
235.04 Lost X
235.05 Stolen X
235.06 Recovered X
235.07 Agency-defined X
236.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to associate NIBRS codes with property. X 237.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link a property record to an incident and/or case report. X
238.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for each agency to define storage locations and identifiers/descriptors (e.g., shelf, bin, bag, garage). X 365
239.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide easily duplicate a change-of- custody entry for items under the same tag. X
240.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for property and evidence reports to be exported into other file formats such as MS Excel. X
241.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to import property information from an incident or case report into a property record. X
242.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a receipt for items entered into property and evidence. X
243.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to automatically assign storage locations based on: -- -- -- --
243.01 Available locations X
243.02 Property type X
244.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for users to manually enter a storage location, if desired. X
244.01 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following information related to a drug seizure: -- -- -- --
244.02 Drug type X
244.03 Quantity X
244.04 Weight X
244.05 Estimated value X
245.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following information related to a weapon: -- -- -- --
245.01 Type X
245.02 Description X
245.03 Owner information X
245.04 Size X
245.05 Make X
245.06 Caliber X
245.07 Serial number X
245.08 Manufacturer X
246.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to maintain a balance of currency held. X This can be done with reporting in OnCall Analytics. 247.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to track forfeited currency. X 248.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a receipt for currency taken into property or evidence. X
249.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to attach digital property / evidence (e.g., photographs, video, emails, etc.). X
250.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to print digital property / evidence. X 251.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to batch upload digital property / evidence. X
252.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to restrict access to digital property / evidence by security permissions. X
253.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to purge digital evidence. X 254.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to email digital property / evidence and record the email information in the chain of custody. X 255.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to reject submitted property / evidence and indicate a reason (e.g., improperly packaged or documented). X 256.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify submitting personnel that an item was rejected.. X
257.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report showing the number of rejected items. X
258.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to resubmit rejected items after required corrections have been made. X
259.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track the chain of custody for blood kits: -- -- -- --
259.01 Date the kit is mailed X Hexagon clarifies that if desired fields are not in the COTS product, agency administrators have to ability to add all needed fields. 259.02 Date results are received
X Hexagon clarifies that if desired fields are not in the COTS product, agency administrators have to ability to add all needed fields. 260.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify a single user or multiple users of changes in chain of custody status for a defined property item. X 261.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track the viewing of a property item, including but not limited to: -- -- -- --
366
261.01 Start and end time of viewing X End time of viewing is not tracked. 261.02 Evidence viewed X
261.03 Location of viewing X IP Address of computer used is tracked. 261.04 Person(s) present during viewing X User accessing is logged. 261.05 Reason for viewing X
262.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to include due dates for items to be returned, with notifications. X
263.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide automatic reminders (at agency-defined intervals) that checked-out items are overdue. X 264.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a chain of custody report for an item. X
265.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to query a property item and identify its location from the chain of custody information. X
266.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to document users conducting a property / evidence audit. X
267.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to document on a property record that an item was included in an inventory or audit. X
268.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a list of all property located in a specified area. X
269.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to scan all items in a specified location to ensure that items on a list of property are in their proper location. X 270.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report of missing property items. X
271.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify investigators of items that require review: -- -- -- --
271.01 Manually X
271.02 Automatically (based on agency-defined business logic) X 272.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to alert property and evidence personnel of items that require review. X
273.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to alert property and evidence personnel of property items eligible for disposition. X 274.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for the agency to configure property / evidence disposition types. X
275.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report of property eligible for return to an owner. X
276.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate an owner notification letter based on disposition status. X
277.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to add disposal information to a property / evidence record. X
278.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track the information associated with property / evidence destruction in a report. X
279.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to require multiple levels of approval prior to property / evidence being eligible for disposal. X 280.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to produce automated scheduled reports indicating property / evidence eligible for disposal. X 281.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to assign a disposition to all items attached to a case simultaneously. X
282.00 The proposed solution must support the entry of all identifying information for each vehicle type (eg., passenger cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, airplanes, etc.). X 283.00
The proposed solution must allow the personnel entering an impound to record information as the officer who initiates the impound, impound reason, and information about the vehicle (eg., VIN, description, license plate number, and the condition of the vehicle, as well as information about the owner and driver).

X
284.00 The proposed solution must check the vehicle against the master vehicle record in RMS and automatically perform an NCIC query. X The NCIC query does not run automatically. 285.00 The proposed solution must provide for users to include the name of the tow company and impound lot a vehicle is towed to. X
286.00 The proposed solution must provide for CAD or mobile users (if applicable) to enter vehicle and impound information, which transfers to RMS. X 287.00 The proposed solution must allow an initial estimate of the vehicle’s value to be entered. X
Crash / Accident Reporting
Vehicle Impounds
367
288.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to import crash / accident report information from an electronic crash reporting system. X Hexagon has included an interface to Crossroads for Crash/Accidents for the City. 289.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record all crash / accident data as required by the state. X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record accident data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
290.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to manually enter and update crash / accident information into RMS, if desired.

X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record accident data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
291.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to print crash / accident reports.

X
292.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide standard crash / accident reports. X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record accident data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
293.00 The proposed solution must provide for personnel to collect data on the demographics of persons involved for statistical reporting.

X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record accident data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
294.00 The proposed solution must support the ability to attach diagrams and photographs to a crash / accident report.

X
295.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link crash / accident records to ticket / citation records. X
296.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to import ticket / citation information from an electronic ticketing system. X Hexagon has included an interface to Crossroad for Citations for the City. 297.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record all data for tickets / citations as required by the state. X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record citation data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
298.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record all data required of tickets / citations as required by the agency, for local ordinances.

X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record citation data, we have included an interface to Crossroads. 299.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain compliance with state data collection requirements as modifications are required by the state.

X Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to record citation data, we have included an interface to Crossroads.
300.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to export ticket / citation information to the state.

X
Hexagon clarifies while OnCall Records does have the ability to export citation data to the state, we have included an interface to Crossroads. We have not included an export interface to the state at this time. 301.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to manually update ticket / citation information.

X
302.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to manually add written citations to RMS and add attachments to the ticket / citation records. X 303.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to update a ticket / citation with a disposition from the court system, if provided and desired. X 304.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link ticket / citation person information to master name records. X
305.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link ticket / citation vehicle information to master vehicle records. X
306.00
The proposed solution must query RMS and state databases that contain information regarding previously issued tickets / citations and warnings. The query must also check for any outstanding protection orders, warrants or other alerts.

X
307.00
The proposed solution must provide for personnel to collect data on the demographics of persons involved for statistical reporting and/or demographic profiling.

X
308.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to produce standard reports for tickets / citations. X
309.00 The proposed solution must allow tickets / citations to be associated with case reports or created without a case report. X
310.00 The proposed solution must have allow users to save, print, or email a summary list of ticket / citation records directly from a list-view window. X Authorized users have the ability to send the search lists to Excel or a PDF which can then be emailed.
311.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to enter warrants and protection orders in RMS.

X
312.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to enter caution / risk information on a person. X
313.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify users if there are alerts (eg., cautions or risks) associated with a person. X
314.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to enter an unlimited number of warrants and protective orders associated with a person. X 315.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to use agency-defined warrant statuses (e.g., active, pending, reactivate, inactive, recalled, etc.). X 316.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to associate multiple statutes to a single warrant. X
317.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to attach documents to warrant and protection order records. X
Warrants and Protection Orders
Tickets / Citations
368
318.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to query the state / NCIC from within RMS when entering a name into a warrant record. X
319.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to submit warrants to the state / NCIC system from within RMS. X
320.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to supplement, modify, and cancel a warrant within the state / NCIC system from RMS. X
321.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the circumstance of service (e.g., voluntary, law enforcement initiated, etc.). X
322.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to allow multiple numbers to be included in the warrant record (eg., NCIC, docket, state case, OCA, etc.). X 323.00
The proposed solution must automatically create a system-wide alert on the master name and appropriate locations (such as current address of the persons) upon entry of warrants, and protection orders. This includes the ability to alert CAD and mobile users performing inquiries on the person, if applicable.

X
324.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide for users to add comments and narratives to the warrant record. X
325.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide dedicated fields to track service attempt history. X
326.00 The proposed solution must provide for a reason for a warrant cancellation to be recorded, if the court cancels a warrant. X
327.00
The proposed solution must track any warrant-related activity or status changes including the type of activity, contact with the subject (if any), the date of the activity, and the result of the activity.

X
328.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to create a warrant affidavit requesting that the court issue a warrant. X
329.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to enter the following: -- -- -- -- 329.01 Offense tracking number X
329.02 Court / Magistrate office the warrant was issued from X 330.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the personnel name that performed a state/NCIC criminal history inquiry and who it was confirmed by. X 331.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track subpoenas received from the District Attorney's office. X
332.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a court calendar with the following information: -- -- -- --
332.01 Case number X
332.02 Date of trial X
332.03 Personnel X
332.04 Defendant name X
332.05 Purpose of the trial X
333.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to inquire and generate a report of warrants that are awaiting extradition from other agencies. X 334.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to create automatic alerts based on warrant status (eg., "in custody", "awaiting trial", "awaiting extradition", etc.). X 335.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to import warrant information from the court system. X Hexagon clarifies that this would require an interface to the City's court system.

Further discussion is required.
336.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to record DNA information.

X
337.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record information specific to a search warrant. X
338.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate reports on open and cancelled warrants within user-specified date and time ranges. X 339.00
The proposed solution must record conditions within a protection order record, such as anti-harassment orders and no-contact orders, including all persons named in the orders and their relationships.

X
340.00
The proposed solution must store information related to protection order conditions, such as the issuing authority, effective time period, location, distance, restrictions, and types of contact prohibited.

X
341.00 The proposed solution must notify the appropriate designated personnel when a protection order record requires validation. X
342.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify and track when a protection order is in effect. X
343.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to automatically expire a protection order based on the expiration date of the order. X
369
344.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report of all protection orders expiring within a specified date and time range. X 345.00 The proposed solution must ensure that intelligence case reports include all of the standard functionality and workflow as standard case reports. X 346.00 The proposed solution must provide for agency-defined security permissions for all information within intelligence case reports. X
347.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to ensure that intelligence case reports include links to protection orders, field contacts, other intelligence case reports, and standard case reports.

X
348.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to link master name records associated with an intelligence record and provide for entering information such as informant ID and the M.O., with agency-defined security permissions.

X
349.00
The proposed solution must allow authorized users to add and track notes on informants to document all contacts with the person(s), with agency-defined security access.

X
350.00 The proposed solution must provide for authorized users to choose not to submit intelligence cases for state and NIBRS reporting. X Could be done with specific offense codes or a specific agency configuration. 351.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to notify intelligence personnel if a master name record involved an intelligence case is queried in the system. This notification must not notify the user performing the inquiry.

X RMS does not send an alert on query, but can on view. 352.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to notify users inquiring on a person to any relevant alerts on the person. X Alerts can be displayed on view, not on query. 353.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to notify agency-defined personnel if a location involved an intelligence case is queried or entered as a new report in the system.

X Entered or view is supported.
354.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track tips, including but not limited to the following: -- -- -- --
354.01 Date and time X
354.02 Source X
354.03 Narrative / comments X
354.04 Category (e.g., suspected trafficking) X
354.05 Any reward for valid tips X
354.06 Contact information (if provided) X
355.00
The proposed solution must allow names, offenses, property, and vehicles to be copied from an intelligence case into a standard case without the need to re-enter the information.

X
356.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to provide case management functionality for intelligence-related investigations, but have intelligence-related investigations secured separately from other investigation types.

X
357.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to establish intelligence investigation groups / units (e.g., SWAT, Narcotics, etc.). X
358.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track the workload activity of each specialty unit. X
359.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to flag individuals with confirmed or suspected gang involvement in the master name index. X
360.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to distinguish between confirmed and suspected gang members. X
361.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record criteria used to identify a person as a gang member. X
362.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for gang information to be made available to the JMS and vice versa (if applicable). X
363.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to auto-populate the gang module with information from a master name record once a person is identified as a gang member.

X
364.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to prompt personnel to forward gang information to an investigator when new information is entered into agency-defined fields.

X
365.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to manually remove gang alerts. X 366.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide security provisions at the user level to: -- -- -- --
366.01 Create gang records X
366.02 Modify gang records X
366.03 Indicate a person as a gang member X
Gangs
Narcotics / Intelligence
370
367.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to prevent gang information from displaying on a master name record. X
368.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to transfer agency-defined gang information to NCIC from within RMS, based on agency-defined criteria. X 369.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide dedicated fields to record the following gang-related data: -- -- -- --
369.01 Person name X
369.02 Person "street name" or alias X
369.03 Date of birth X
369.04 Gender X
369.05 Race X 369.06 Ethnicity X
369.07 Known associates X
369.08 Height X
369.09 Weight X
369.10 Hair color X
369.11 Eye color X
369.12 Gang name X
369.13 Street address X
369.14 Phone number X
369.15 Employer X
369.16 Employer address X
369.17 Work phone X
369.18 Occupation X
369.19 Active member (Y/N) X
369.20 Physical characteristics X
369.21 Scars, marks, tattoos X
370.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track associates of gang members, with the same data fields listed above. X
371.00 The proposed solution must have ability to restrict security access to agency-specified fields, including photos, within the gang database by: -- -- -- -- 372.00 Person X
372.01 Rank X
372.02 Agency X
373.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to identify juvenile gang members. X 374.00 The proposed solution must provide for tracking and registering sex offenders. X 375.00 The proposed solution must link sex offender records to master name records. X 376.00
The proposed solution must automatically create a system-wide alert on the master name and appropriate locations (such as current address of the offender) upon entry of sex offender information. This includes the ability to alert CAD and mobile users performing inquiries on the person, if applicable.

X
377.00 The proposed solution must provide the ability to generate a list of registered sex offenders that is accessible by authorized users. X
378.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain separate personnel records for each agency on the system. X
379.00 The proposed solution must have the ability maintain the following personnel information at a minimum: -- -- -- --
379.01 Agency X
379.02 Name X
379.03 Employee ID X
379.04 Unit ID (if applicable) X
379.05 Driver's license number and class X
379.06 Hire Date X
379.07 Termination / separation date X
379.08 Promotion history (start and end date) X
379.09 Blood type X
379.10 Phone number(s) X
Personnel and Training
Sex Offenders
371
379.11 Address X
379.12 Sex X
379.13 Race X
379.14 Marital status X
379.15 Rank X
379.16 Badge number X
379.17 Employment status X
379.18 Special sk ills X
379.19 Email address X
379.20 Assignment X
379.21 Injury history X
379.22 Exposure history X
379.23 Supervisor(s) X
379.24 Education X
379.25 Sworn date X
380.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to assign an employee a role or position. X 381.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to attach a photo to a personnel record. X 382.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following information regarding disciplinary action: -- -- -- --
382.01 Type X
382.02 Disciplinary action start date and time X
382.03 Disciplinary action end date and time X
382.04 Status of disciplinary action X
382.05 Rank X
382.06 Evaluation dates X
382.07 History X
383.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report of pending expiration dates for disciplinary action. X
384.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track all changes to personnel information (e.g., promotions, transfers), including but not limited to: -- -- -- -- 384.01 Date of change X
384.02 Person making the change X
384.03 Before and after values X
385.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to attach files to a personnel record. X 386.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain the history of personnel information that may change over time (e.g. address, phone, etc.). X 387.00 The proposed solution must support the tracking of required vaccinations and medical information. X
388.00 The proposed solution must generate reports to supervisors for upcoming expirations and required medical procedures, such as vaccinations. X This can be done with Reporting and Analytics. 389.00 The proposed solution must maintain information on current health-related duty restrictions affecting personnel. X
390.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for inquiries to be conducted on RMS data to identify potential personnel and organizational issues, including: -- -- -- -- 390.01 Biased-based policing X
390.02 Uses of force X
390.03 Vehicle pursuits X
390.04 Vehicle crashes X
390.05 Personnel injuries X
390.06 Citation data X
390.07 Field contact reports X
390.08 Citizen complaints X
390.09 Civil and criminal actions X
391.00 The proposed solution must maintain personnel information that includes Line of Duty Death (LODD) information (e.g., personnel wishes, contact information, etc.). X 392.00 The proposed solution must allow for the creation and maintenance of various schedule patterns (e.g., days on, days off, and assigned hours). X 372
393.00 The proposed solution must record personnel assignments, shifts, and locations. X 394.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a duty roster for a specified time period. X
395.00 The proposed solution must provide for tracking personnel attendance to agency- defined training courses, programs, and certifications (e.g., NCIC, CPR, etc.). X 396.00 The proposed solution must provide a training function that includes tracking required and recommended courses by category, classification, and specialty. X 397.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to assign training to: -- -- -- -- 397.01 Personnel X
397.02 Agency X
397.03 Role X
398.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain the following training Information: -- -- -- --
398.01 Attendee(s) X
398.02 Hours X
398.03 Cost X
398.04 Course description X
398.05 Narrative / comments X
398.06 Training provider X
398.07 Training location X
398.08 Score (pass / fail) X
398.09 Method of training X
398.10 Recertification required X
398.11 Date of recertification X
399.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain separate personnel training records for each agency on the system. X
400.00 The proposed solution must provide user configurable alerts or notifications for expiring certifications, required trainings etc. X
401.00 The proposed solution must provide a training function that includes the ability to attach documents to training records. X
402.00 The proposed solution must provide for tracking awards and commendations. X 403.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to allow personnel to view (not edit) their training records. X
404.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to for authorized personnel to modify training records. X
405.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a report of training and associated expiration dates by: -- -- -- --
405.01 Agency X
405.02 Personnel X
406.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to maintain a list of instructors. X 407.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to document hours of instructional time per instructor. X
408.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track required / mandatory training requirements. X
409.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to track continuing education hours. X 410.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track follow-up training for personnel that fail certification tests. X
411.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate a notification to participants of upcoming trianing information (e.g., class location, time, date, etc.). X 412.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to report on personnel that were scheduled but did not attend a scheduled training. X
413.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for individuals to request training electronically. X
414.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to post training information online. X 415.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to search training records by: -- -- -- -- 415.01 Name X
415.02 Group / unit X
373
415.03 Course X
415.04 Assignment X
415.05 Shift X
415.06 Agency X
415.07 Training provider X
416.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to generate a report on training costs by: -- -- -- -- 416.01 Name X
416.02 Group / unit X
416.03 Course X
416.04 Assignment X
416.05 Shift X
416.06 Agency X
416.07 Training provider X
416.08 Source (e.g., grants, department-f unded, etc.) X 417.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain equipment (including personnel-issued items), agency assets, and inventory. X 418.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain equipment by agency- defined categories. X
419.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain equipment by agency- defined equipment types. X
420.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain equipment purchase information, including cost and vendor. X
421.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain equipment purchase date, in-service date, and replacement date. X
422.00 The proposed solution must provide for assigning equipment to personnel, units, buildings / stations, or indicating that it is inventory for future assignment / use. X 423.00 The proposed solution must provide for indicating the date / time and location when assigning equipment. X
424.00 The proposed solution must generate reports on the physical location of agency equipment to support inventories and audits. X
425.00 The proposed solution must support the generation of reports for overdue, lost, stolen, or destroyed equipment. X
426.00 The proposed solution must maintain a log of all equipment activity X 427.00 The proposed solution must record information regarding the condition of equipment (e.g., new, used, damaged, etc.). X
428.00 The proposed solution must provide for equipment maintenance, including agency- defined maintenance activity types. X
429.00 The proposed solution must provide for notifications and recurring notifications for when maintenance is due on equipment. X
430.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to track inventoried items. X 431.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to associate inventoried items by agency. X
432.00 The proposed solution must track spare parts and related inventory. X 433.00 The proposed solution must generate reports to support equipment and inventory audits, which will assist in managing repairs and disposal. X 434.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for agency to establish threshold levels per specific equipment and inventory item. X
435.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to generate an automatic alert to designated personnel when inventory levels fall below agency-defined levels (e.g., threshold levels).

X
436.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track vendor information for equipment and inventory items: -- -- -- --
436.01 Vendor name X
436.02 Contact information X
436.03 Items provided X
436.04 Cost per item X
437.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to manage and track equipment and inventory using barcoding including, but not limited to the following functions: -- -- -- -- 437.01 Perform a mass update X
437.02 Locate an item a by barcode X
Equipment / Asset Management / Inventory
374
437.03 Generate a barcode X
437.04 Read a barcode using a wireless or connected hand-held device X 438.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate equipment and inventory reports by: -- -- -- --
438.01 Agency assigned to X
438.02 Ppersonnel assigned to X
438.03 Vehicle / unit assigned to X
438.04 Inventory on hand X
439.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to track the disposal of inventory. X 440.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track disposal methods by equipment and inventory type. X
441.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate reports for inventory items used (e.g., rubber gloves, etc.). X
442.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to associate costs to: -- -- -- -- 442.01 Inventory (e.g., equipment, parts, etc.) X
442.02 Labor X
443.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to track fleet vehicles. X 444.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to differentiate fleets by all agencies on the system. X
445.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track all maintenance activity associated with a vehicle. X
446.00 The proposed solution must provide for agency-defined maintenance activity types. X 447.00 The proposed solution must provide for notifications and recurring notifications for when maintenance is due on a vehicle. X
448.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track vendors when maintenance or repairs are performed, including services provided and cost. X 449.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to generate reports for all repairs made to vehicles, with any costs incurred. X
450.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link an assigned fleet vehicle to a mobile application user with a vehicle ID number, if applicable. X 451.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to prompt mobile application users to enter the vehicle ID number they are assigned to at the beginning og their shift, with a prompt for current mileage, if applicable.

X
Hexagon clarifies that this functionality can be achieved through the City's purchased Hexagon MPS.
452.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to prompt mobile application users for ending mileage at end of shift, if applicable.

X
Hexagon clarifies that this functionality can be achieved through the City's purchased Hexagon MPS.
453.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the date, cost, and amount of fuel purchased at each fill-up, as well as the vehicle’s mileage.

X
Hexagon clarifies that this functionality can be achieved through the City's purchased Hexagon MPS.
454.00
The proposed solution must have the ability for personnel to conduct a vehicle inspection using a mobile application and record the information in the RMS vehicles / fleet module.

X
Hexagon clarifies that this functionality can be achieved through the City's purchased Hexagon MPS.
455.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record all personnel in a vehicle performing a vehicle inspection.

X
Hexagon clarifies that this functionality can be achieved through the City's purchased Hexagon MPS.
456.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following information for vehicle inspections:
-- -- -- --
456.01 Inspection date and time X
Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.
456.02 Personnel performing the inspection
X
Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.
456.03 Shift X
Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.

Fleet Vehicles
375
456.04 Fuel level X
Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.
456.05 Number of gallons of fuel added (if applicable) X Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.
456.06 Number of quarts oil added (if applicable) X
Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence.
456.07 Equipment condition with list of equi pment and choices of conditions with separate comments field X Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence. 456.08 Vehicle condition and cleanliness, with a separate comments field X Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence. 456.09 Body damage, with a separate comments field X Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence. 456.10 Narratve / comments field X Hexagon clarifies that all of these fields can be added to the maintance section of Fleet Maintanence. 457.00 The proposed solution must produce the following reports with a date / time range: -- -- -- -- 457.01 Vehicle inspections by personnel X
457.02 Vehicles by fuel, oil, and mileage X
457.03 Vehicles by assignment X
457.04 Vehicle maintenance by type X
457.05 Vehicles with assigned equipment X
457.06 Vehicles with missing equipment X
457.07 Vehicles with repairs needed X
458.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to enter agency-defined permits (e.g., parade and assembly permits, massage parlors, dance permits, alcohol licenses, alarms, etc.).

X
459.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to track the status of permits including the permit application, granting the permit, denial, revocation, and expiration. X 460.00 The proposed solution must generate the appropriate system-wide alerts for permits (e.g., locations and/or persons that are issued the permit). X 461.00 The proposed solution must generate the appropriate notifications or reports for a change of status or an upcoming alert expiration date. X 462.00 The proposed solution must track payments associated with the issuance of licenses and permits. X
463.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide the following standard reports for: -- -- -- --
463.01 Permit applications granted based on varying search criteria X 463.02 Permit applications denied, with reason indicated X 464.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to automatically create a system-wide alert when a person is granted a concealed weapon or gun permit. X 465.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to maintain information required for obtaining approval on a gun permit such as medical and background checks, including the date and time sent and received back.

X
466.00 The proposed solution must have the ability link persons with gun permits to master name records. X
467.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following regarding personnel: -- -- -- --
467.01 Citizen complaints X
467.02 Agency infractions X
467.03 Accidents X
467.04 Use of force X
467.05 Injuries X
467.06 Pursuits X
468.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to support a threshold alerting feature for agency-specified activity or charge types, including but not limited to: -- -- -- -- 468.01 Accidents X
468.02 Complaints X
468.03 Discipline X
468.04 Use of force X
468.05 Injuries X
Professional Standards / Internal Affairs
Permits
376
468.06 Pursuits X
469.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility for threshold alerts to be unique for: -- -- -- -- 469.01 Each agency X
469.02 Each charge type X
470.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following fleet vehicle accident information: -- -- -- --
470.01 Date of accident X
470.02 Time of accident X
470.03 Location of accident X
470.04 Type of accident X
470.05 Personnel name, rank, and division X
470.06 Case number X
470.07 Supervisor who investigated accident X
470.08 Agency that investigated the accident X
470.09 Disposition X
471.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the following information on complaints: -- -- -- --
471.01 Personnel name, rank, and division X
471.02 Complaint type (e.g., informal, informal, fact finding, administrative review, etc.) X 471.03 Date the complaint was assigned X
471.04 Personnel and/or supervisor the complaint was assigned to X 471.05 Date the investigation was completed X
471.06 Narrative X
471.07 Case number X
471.08 How the complaint was reported X
471.09 Date the incident occurred X
471.10 Date the incident was reported X
471.11 Indicate if the incident occurred off-duty X
471.12 Name of the person that received the complaint X 471.13 Complainant name, gender, race, address, phone number X 471.14 Witness name, gender, race, address, phone number X 471.15 Date witness was contacted X
471.16 Type of witness X
471.17 Name, rank, and division of other personnel involved X 471.18 Disposition of complaint X
472.00
The proposed solution must have multiple levels of security for the internal affairs module, for individual records or groups of records, and for individual fields or groups of fields.

X
473.00 The proposed solution must provide for the encryption of information maintained within the professional standards / internal affairs module. X 474.00
The proposed solution must have security levels within the professional standards / internal affairs module that limit availability of information accessible through other RMS modules and indices.

X
475.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to attach documents to records in the module. X
476.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link (e.g., hyperlink, attach, etc.) a report to the internal affairs incident. X
477.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to link all reports written by personnel to their internal affairs incident. X
478.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to view and print a summary of all internal affairs activity for personnel. X
479.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to record the user name, date, and time an internal affairs record was added, changed, viewed, and printed. X 480.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to send and receive messages within the RMS. X
481.00 The proposed solution must include the ability to send and receive messages regardless if the recipient(s) are logged on or off the system. X 482.00 The proposed solution must include the ability to create message groups within the system. X
Link Analysis
Messaging
377
483.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to provide link analysis within RMS. X Hexagon has included HxGN OnCall Analytics | Link Analysis as an option for the City's consideration.

Please note it is not accessed through RMS but through a secure URL. 484.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to click on a linked element within the application to show links based on that element and drill into the information.

X Hexagon clarifies that users will access the optional Link Analysis from a secure URL not from within OnCall Records. 485.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to print and export information, detailing how people, locations, property, and vehicles are linked. X Via the optional HxGN OnCall Analytics | Link Analysis 486.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to search all fields of operational data within any module in the RMS, including narrative fields. X 487.00 The proposed solution must provide the ability to filter search results for selected categories similar to (MS Excel filtering). X
488.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to save searches from any module. X 489.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to produce standard and ad-hoc statistical and analytical reports for all modules in the RMS. X 490.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to create report templates and to allow for redacting and masking data. These reports are to be stored in the system to allow for auditing and future retrieval.

X
491.00 The proposed solution must provide web browser-based reporting capabilies to search and pull up reports (e.g., cases, etc.). X
492.00 The proposed solution must provide for users to schedule reports. X 493.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to produce Compstat or similar reports. X 494.00 The proposed solution must support Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reporting and/or a specific FOIA module. X
495.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to create user-defined and role-based dashboards with lists, graphs, charts, and maps within RMS, for activity in any module.

X
496.00
The proposed solution must have the ability for each agency to define and configure the print format of reports that incorporates agency logos or other identifiable information in the header / footer.

X
497.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to export search results to MS Excel and PDF. X
498.00
The proposed solution must provide the ability to automatically export RMS report data in a manner to support reporting, business intelligence or data analysis using stand alone or 3rd party tools.

X
499.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to automatically export data or schedule the export of data to analytical support tools for crime-mapping, link-analysis, data mining, etc.

X Hexagon clarifies that this would be based on the tools used. 500.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to produce crime distribution analysis reports. X
501.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to establish incident / case crime thresholds. X
502.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to alert specified users when crimes exceed thresholds. X
503.00 The proposed solution must have the ability for threshold alerts to notify agency- defined personnel via email, visual alert, etc.. X
504.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to aggregate data on various conditions and time periods (e.g., current quarter vs previous quarter and current quarter vs. historical average, etc.).

X
505.00
The proposed solution must provide for standard and agency-configured form letters that pre-populate agency-defined information from RMS modules, with the ability to capture signatures.

X
506.00 The proposed solution must provide the ability to produce reports for crime trends and predictions. X
507.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to plot activity from any relevant module on a map. X
508.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to produce density maps. X 509.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to produce heat maps (hotspot / trouble spot maps). X
510.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to export data with geographic coordinates (case locations, etc) to ESRI-based feature classes or web services. X Reporting and Map Analysis
378
511.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to export data with geographic coordinates (case locations, etc) to ESRI-based feature classes or web services. X 512.00 The proposed solution must have the ab ility to search by radius on a map. X 513.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to search any system map layers and polygons. X
Hexagon clarifies the OnCall Records will support seaching on map layers, but the polygons would need to be searched through mapping reports.

Records does allow users to search by radius and and rectangles. 514.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to use different icons to display data on a map.

X
515.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to print a map, with plotted results (pins). X
516.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to provide a crime mapping application that allows the public to plot and search for agency-defined information. X 517.00 The proposed solution must have the ability to obtain information for a Public Records Request (PRR). X
518.00
The proposed solution must have the ability to provide a sub-module (or other area) within every module, to capture the information that was requested and what information was disseminated
X
519.00
The proposed solution must provide a module or application similar to the Ontario Holding Cell system, since the agency needs to maintain records of inmates that were in their custody as well as having the ability to view how long a subject has been in custody.

X
520.00
The proposed solution must provide the ability to save certain information to the master name history as information changes such as address, phone numbers, employers, etc.

X
749 TOTALS (Sum of numbers in columns C, D, E, F should equal column A 593 124 32 0 Total Items: 749
Total Items Completed: 749
Difference (NO ANSWERS will appear in red): 0
Completion Progress
Public Records Requests
Detention Center
379
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 89
Attachment H – Interface Descriptions
Standard Interfaces
Coplogic Records Xalt Interface
Description:

Hexagon will install the standard CopLogic Xalt interface that will monitor a shared directory for XML files provided by CopLogic system. The interface will import the data into the incident module in OnCall Records.

Assumptions:
 Hexagon has worked with the CopLogic system before and assumes that file formats and the data exchange will be the same as in the past.
 Data will be provided via either a shared directory on the Customer’s network or via a web service where the data can be pulled.

Constraints:
 The Customer is responsible for providing complete and accurate description of the API needed to interface, and for any software/hardware/data required to implement communications with the external systems.

Anti-Bias Reporting Application (CA RIPA)
Description:

The Anti-Bias Reporting application is a web-based solution used by law enforcement officers to collect perceived demographic and other detailed data regarding pedestrian and traffic stops in compliance with California Assembly Bill 953 (AB-953), also known as the Racial and Identify Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA).

The application receives initial inputs from Hexagon’s dispatch and mobility applications including Mobile for Public Safety (MPS).

The data collected will contain the following:
 Report Details – contains the officer and stop details.  Person – contains the data elements required to document the demographics of the person(s) contacted.
 Stop Reason – contains the reason for the interaction, a brief narrative to explain the reason, and dynamic elements required depending on the reason for the interaction.  Search – used to notate any actions taken during the interaction and if a search of the person/property was conducted.
 Stop Result – contains the result of the stop.

Finalized records are transmitted directly to California DOJ’s Web Portal electronically. Any errors are reported immediately to the user for corrections and resubmission.

The application is hosted locally within the cCustomer's environment and utilizes Kestrel web server in ASP.NET Core
380
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 90
Requires:
 I/CAD 9.4 or OnCall Dispatch 10.00.2309 and above
 Microsoft AspNetCore-runtime-6.0.21-win-x64 and above  Microsoft WindowsDesktop-runtime-6.0.21-win-x64 and above Assumptions:
 To meet state-specific requirements, Hexagon has included our standalone Anti-bias Reporting Application that connects to I/CAD; it is not integrated to OnCall Records.

Constraints:
 This scope was provided based on the requirements of the California AB953 legislation that went into production on January 1, 2024, including data collection requirements and the API documented by California DOJ for electronically submitting the event.

Custom Interfaces
DataWorks
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface that will import mugshot images. These images will be attached to the related booking and/or name record in the OnCall Records environment. This integration will be a one- way exchange of information from DataWorks to OnCall Records. The interface will monitor a shared folder, at a configurable intervals, for incoming files. Incoming files will consist of a .DAT text file and a associated .ZIP file with compressed image(s), both files may have multiple records and both files will have the same name. Upon receipt of a .DAT and corresponding .ZIP file, the images will be decompressed, and the mugshot(s) attached to the designated Master Name Index (MNI) as well as the originating Booking or Arrest record.

CrossRoads
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface necessary to import citation and crash data provided by Crossroads.

Assumptions:
 Data will be provided by Crossroads in XML format to a shared directory on the Customer's network (or alternatively to a FTP site or web service that Hexagon can access in order to pull the data).
 Citation warnings and standard Uniform Traffic Citation data will be imported for citations along with the standard state crash data.
 For the crash import, if pdf copies of the crash report or crash diagram images are provided by Crossroads, Hexagon will import these and attach to the imported records as attachments.

FileonQ
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface that will export new property and evidence items to FileOnQ. When a new item is created in OnCall Records, that item, along with the associated incident data, will be exported 381
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 91
to FileOnQ to initiate a chain of custody record. In addition, case disposition information entered in OnCall Records will be exported to FileOnQ to trigger property disposition activities. OnCall Records includes the ability to link to FileOnQ records, given a URL. If allowed by FileOnQ, the URL would show the status of evidence analysis and other information. If FileOnQ does not support URL links to evidence, then an interface will be provided to import evidence information when provided by FileOnQ.

Livescan
Description:

Hexagon will create interfaces that will:
 (1) export Arrest/Booking/Name Demographic information and send to a shared directory on the customer's network that is accessible by the Livescan devices.  (2) Import and update name ID information returned by the Livescan as well as import and attach mugshot images returned by the Livescan.

Assumptions:
 The data will need to be provided in XML or NIST format.  Alert triggers will need to be setup in the OnCall Records environment that defines when the data is exported to the Livescan devices (i.e. on record add/modify, picklist set to configurable value).

Evidence.com
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface that will create hyperlinks to video/photo files from the Evidence.com system. Hyperlinks to the video/photo files will be created as attachments to related RMS records based on alert triggers that are created that tell the interface when an incident needs a link to Evidence.com. An ICD will be created that explains the interface and the customer must approve and sign the ICD before any development work can begin.

DA Portal
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface that will send arrest, incident, case management data to the DA Portal system via SFTP, API or file share. It is expected that the data will need to be sent in XML, PDF and/or .zip format. An alert trigger will be created that will determine exactly when records will be sent to the DA Portal system (i.e. picklist value for "Send to DA Portal"). An Interface Control Document (ICD) will be provided for this interface that describes the interface and data elements exchanged. The ICD will need to be approved and signed by the Customer before any development can begin.

SWITRS
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface that will export new/modified/approved Crash information and send to SWITRS. A configurable alert trigger will be created in the RMS environment that will determine when accident records are sent to the SWITRS system (i.e. record is added, record is modified, picklist value set to "Send to SWITRS", etc). It is expected that the data will be provided in a common data format and exchanged via an API provided by SWITRS. That data will be sent to SWITRS on a periodic bases that is configurable by the customer. An ICD will be provided for this and must be agreed to and signed by the 382
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 92
customer before any development work can begin in order that complete workflow and technical details can be completely understood.

In addition to the Crash export to SWITRS, Hexagon will provide, as part of the OnCall Records implementation, the ability to capture information for and print the "Traffic Collision Report" CHP 555 (version 4-11) and CHP 556 (version 7-90) pages of the California Crash Report. The CHP 555 and 556 reports will be provided in SSRS.

Data Ticket
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface necessary to import parking citation data provided by the Data Ticket system. An ICD will be provided to explain the interface and will need to be approved and signed by the customer before any development work on the interfaces can begin.

Assumptions:
 Data will be provided by in XML format to a shared directory on the customer's network (or alternatively to a FTP site or web service that Hexagon can access in order to pull the data.  Only parking citation data will be imported into the Citation module in OnCall Records.

Phoenix Group
Description:

Hexagon will create an interface to import citation data provided by the Phoenix Group system. An ICD will be provided to explain the interface and will need to be approved and signed by the customer before any development work on the interfaces can begin.

Assumptions:
 Data will be provided in XML format to a shared directory on the customer's network (or alternatively to a FTP site or web service that Hexagon can access in order to pull the data).  Only citation data will be imported into the Citation module in OnCall Records.

CLETS/NCIC
Description:

Hexagon will develop an interface for supported transactions between I/Informer and CLETS is documented in the "I/CAD Message Suite For California State Switch (CLETS)" document.  Person / Mastername Supersearch - (QW, DQ, QM,QMJ, UQ, WQ,QWS)  Person / Court Document Modules – Warrants
 Adult module: (QW, DQ, EW, MW, LW, XW, CW)
 Juvenile module: (QW, DQ, EWJ, MWJ, LWJ, XWJ, CWJ)
 Person / Court Document Modules - Civil (Protective/Restraining Orders)  Adult module: (QW, EPO, MPO, XPO, CPO, IPO)
 Juvenile module: (QW, ETO, MTO, XTO, CTO, ITO)
 Vehicle (In State and NLETS) / Master Vehicle - (QV, RQ, VQ, XQ, Parts, EV, MV, LV, XV, CV) 383
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 93
 Boat (In State and NLETS) / Master Vehicle - (QB, BQ, CBQ, EB, LB, MB, XB,CB )  Gun by (serial, caliber, make) / Master Property - (QG, CGQ, EG, MG, LG, XG, CG)  Article (serial, type) / Master Property - ( (QA, CAQ, MQ, EA, MA, LA, XA, CA)  Aircraft Query / Master Vehicle - (GQ)
 Sex Offender - / Mastername (QWS in SuperSearch,QWS, EXS, MXS, XXS, CXS, EXSN)  UnIdentified Person - / Mastername (MUPS, EUP, MUP, EUID, MUID, EUD, MUD, RPS)

Assumptions:
 I/CAD Informer is connected direct to CLETS.
 OnCall Records will connect with I/CAD Informer directly to facilitate transactions.

Constraints:
 Not all transactions are available in all modules. Each transaction is listed in the module it is available/included in.
 Transaction codes will be matched to the document noted above.

RMS Vendor Views
Coplink
Hexagon will work with the customer to determine the information needed by Coplink and will create vendor views on the OnCall Records database (Live or replication) so that Coplink can export the data directly.

Lexis Nexis AVCC
Hexagon will provide vendor views of the database. In addition to the views, Hexagon will provide consultation sessions with LexisNexis necessary for them to understand the necessary views enough to pull the data they need. These views will either be created on the production database or a reporting database depending on the customer's database architecture.

384
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 94
Attachment I – Glossary of Terms
Capitalized terms that are not defined below or within the body of the SOW, shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Master Terms Glossary.
“Acceptance” to mean acceptance of a Task in accordance with Task Acceptance Process. “Agreement” shall have the same meaning as set forth under the header “Terms and Conditions.” “Benchmark Criteria” or “Specifications” means the objective criteria which identifies an intended outcome as reflected in, as applicable, an ICD, a Design Document, or Software Requirements (whichever document having last addressed the functionality in question being dispositive) “Blocker Defect” means a Test Case has failed to satisfy the Benchmark Criteria that would correspond to a Level One Defect or Level Two Defect, or a Level One or Level Two Defect. “Code Freeze” means a point in the Project where Customer may not make any change, configuration change, or other modification to the Software implemented as part of the Project. “Core Team(s)” means all of the respective Subsystem Core Teams pertaining to the Project, which depending on the Project will collectively include: the Dispatch Core Team, the Mobile Core Team(s), and the Records Core Team.
“COTS Interfaces” means those Interfaces specifically identified in COTS Interface Questionnaire Completion Task in the SOW
“Customer Responsibilities” means (1) those specific tasks and obligations identified in the SOW as being the responsibility of the Customer and (2) those obligations, not stated in the SOW, but which would otherwise be reasonably considered as being Customer obligations and responsibilities. “Custom Interfaces” means those Interfaces specifically identified in the applicable Task “Customization” means a modification of the source code of Software. “Cutover Plan” means a document reflecting the Activities and actions necessary to Cutover the System.
“Design Document” means a document articulating the design and intended output of a Customization. “Documentation” means, whether in printed or electronic format, all documents (digital or hardcopy) delivered by Hexagon as part of the Project. Unless otherwise specified, it shall mean COTS Documentation.
“Facility” means a Customer provided facility/building/room that: (i) Can accommodate up to twelve (12) Customer participants; (ii) Has a projector and screen for displaying the content being presented, (iii) has Project Workstations for each participant; and a Customer workstation available for Hexagon’s use while in the Facility.
“Functional Testing” means that testing process described in the Customer Functional Testing Task(s). “GIS” means geographic information system
385
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 95
“Initial Schedule” means the initial iteration of the Project Schedule, which is contained in Attachment C of the SOW.
“Interface Control Document” or “ICD” means a document reflecting the design and requirements of a Custom Interface or certain I/Informer Interfaces, if any. “Help Desk Portal” the electronic portal through which Customer may access the Help Desk to among other actions, log Services Requests, review the Knowledge Base, “Hexagon Project Manager” means the person authorized by Hexagon to coordinate and manage the providing of Hexagon Services and Deliverables for the Project on behalf of Hexagon, in addition to being responsible for other duties specified in the Agreement and SOW. “Master Terms Glossary” means that certain Common Terms Glossary set forth at https://www.hexagonsafetyinfrastructure.com/-/media/Legal/Hexagon/SI/TPS/CTG 06-2021.pdf “Network Infrastructure” means the provision of adequate network and internet connectivity to provide sufficient operational bandwidth for the operation of the System in a manner consistent with the Product System Specifications together with all industry-standard network security, monitoring, and protection. “Permissive Defect” means a substantially failed Test Case that would correspond to a Level Three or Level Four Defect, or a Level Three or Level Four Defect. “Project Assumptions” means assumptions regarding the Project, which are listed in the SOW.

Changes in any of the assumptions will affect the scope, schedule, and/or cost of the Project. “Project Team” means the applicable Core Team and other resources assigned to provide information or services in connection with the Project, or applicable part thereof. “Project Workstation” means a computer workstation (expressly excludes tablets or other smart devices) that has: (i) a modern web browser installed and ready for use; (ii) Internet access; (iii) at least one (1) external monitor with a resolution no smaller than 1920x1080 (understanding two (2) external monitors are recommended); (iv) the ability to connect to the web conference audio; and (v) a headset. “Required Facilities” means a facility provided by the Customer that: (i) can accommodate up to twelve (12) Customer participants with workstations and monitors meeting the specifications for the Software described herein for each participant and (ii) has a projector and screen for displaying the content being presented. If the Customer’s policies preclude connecting Hexagon-owned equipment to their network, a computer workstation for use by Hexagon for presenting content shall be made available. “Server Setup Worksheet” means a document reflecting, among other details, the identification of servers, IP addresses, and node names for the System.
“Site Configuration Document” means a document reflecting the configurations made to the OnCall System.
“Software Requirements” means the functionality and capabilities affirmatively included in the OnCall Software as expressly specified in OnCall Functional Matrix (Attachment G-1 and G-2, as appropriate to the Subsystem).
“SR” or “Service Request” a request logged into Hexagon’s Help Desk Portal identifying a request for Hexagon to address a Defect, question, provide an Update, or provide an enhancement request, among other requests.
386
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 96
“Subject Matter Expert” or “SME” means a person(s) who has particular knowledge about a specific topic(s).
“System Administrator(s)” means a person or persons having the appropriate education, training, and/or experience in information technology to provide first tier support of the System. “Task Prerequisites” means those events, deliverables, or accomplishments that are required to occur prior to the commencement of the applicable Task, except as may otherwise be agreed to through Conditional Acceptance.
“Test Case” means a set of conditions and parameters agreed to by the Parties which the Parties shall use to test whether the intended functionality identified in the Benchmark Criteria is reflected in the System.
“Test Case Failure” means a situation in which an executed Test Case has substantially failed in meeting the passage criteria set forth in the applicable portion of the Benchmark Criteria. “Updated Initial Project Schedule” means the Initial Project Schedule updated by the Parties’ Project Managers during Project Kickoff Meeting Task and reflecting the actual Notice to Proceed date. “VPN” means virtual private network.
“Warranty Period” means that one (1) year period beginning at Cutover for a Subsystem during which the applicable Project Software is subject to the warranty described in Attachment K.

387
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 97
Attachment J – Warranty
In accordance with Section 7.2 of the Agreement, Hexagon warrants the Hexagon Software provided in this Order shall materially conform to its Specifications for one (1) year from Cutover of the applicable Subsystem, provided that in the event of a nonconformity during the Warranty Period, Hexagon shall address the reported Defect in accordance with the Maintenance Terms within the Agreement.

388
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 98
Attachment K – Regional Provisions
The following terms, including any sub-attachments to this Attachment L, modify provisions set forth above to accommodate regional requirements. To the extent there is any conflict between the terms specified below and the terms set forth in the remainder of the SOW, the following shall control.

1. A Business Day includes up to eight (8) Business Hours, including breaks, during a twenty-four (24) hour period.

2. Upon Customer request, Hexagon personnel may undergo a criminal background check consisting of biographical information necessary to initiate an NCIC query and fingerprinting. To the extent the Customer requires Hexagon personnel to undergo such criminal background check, the Customer shall arrange for such criminal background check and fingerprinting and be responsible for all costs associated with the criminal background check and fingerprinting. Any remote personnel shall only be required to provide biographical information necessary to initiate a NCIC query and a fingerprint card completed by any law enforcement agency.

3. Per CJIS security policy, customers who wish to access U.S. national databases using mobile devices must use data encryption that is FIPS 140-2 certified and meets other CJIS requirements. The Customer is responsible for ensuring that their data communications infrastructure and devices comply with CJIS and applicable State requirements.

389
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 99
Attachment K-1 – CJIS Security Addendum

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES

SECURITY ADDENDUM
The goal of this document is to augment the CJIS Security Policy to ensure adequate security is provided for criminal justice systems while (1) under the control or management of a private entity or (2) connectivity to FBI CJIS Systems has been provided to a private entity (contractor). Adequate security is defined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130 as “security commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of information.”
The intent of this Security Addendum is to require that the Contractor maintain a security program consistent with federal and state laws, regulations, and standards (including the CJIS Security Policy in effect when the contract is executed), as well as with policies and standards established by the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB).

This Security Addendum identifies the duties and responsibilities with respect to the installation and maintenance of adequate internal controls within the contractual relationship so that the security and integrity of the FBI's information resources are not compromised. The security program shall include consideration of personnel security, site security, system security, and data security, and technical security.

The provisions of this Security Addendum apply to all personnel, systems, networks and support facilities supporting and/or acting on behalf of the government agency.

1.00 Definitions

1.01 Contracting Government Agency (CGA) - the government agency, whether a Criminal Justice Agency or a Noncriminal Justice Agency, which enters into an agreement with a private contractor subject to this Security Addendum.

1.02 Contractor - a private business, organization or individual which has entered into an agreement for the administration of criminal justice with a Criminal Justice Agency or a Noncriminal Justice Agency.

2.00 Responsibilities of the Contracting Government Agency.

2.01 The CGA will ensure that each Contractor employee receives a copy of the Security Addendum and the CJIS Security Policy and executes an acknowledgment of such receipt and the contents of the Security Addendum. The signed acknowledgments shall remain in the possession of the CGA and available for audit purposes. The acknowledgement may be signed by hand or via digital signature (see glossary for definition of digital signature).

3.00 Responsibilities of the Contractor.

3.01 The Contractor will maintain a security program consistent with federal and state laws, regulations, and standards (including the CJIS Security Policy in effect when the contract is executed and all subsequent versions), as well as with policies and standards established by the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB). 390
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 100

4.00 Security Violations.

4.01 The CGA must report security violations to the CJIS Systems Officer (CSO) and the Director, FBI, along with indications of actions taken by the CGA and Contractor.

4.02 Security violations can justify termination of the appended agreement.

4.03 Upon notification, the FBI reserves the right to:
a. Investigate or decline to investigate any report of unauthorized use; b. Suspend or terminate access and services, including telecommunications links. The FBI will provide the CSO with timely written notice of the suspension. Access and services will be reinstated only after satisfactory assurances have been provided to the FBI by the CGA and Contractor. Upon termination, the Contractor's records containing CHRI must be deleted or returned to the CGA.

5.00 Audit

5.01 The FBI is authorized to perform a final audit of the Contractor's systems after termination of the Security Addendum.

6.00 Scope and Authority

6.01 This Security Addendum does not confer, grant, or authorize any rights, privileges, or obligations on any persons other than the Contractor, CGA, CJA (where applicable), CSA, and FBI.

6.02 The following documents are incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement: (1) the Security Addendum; (2) the NCIC 2000 Operating Manual; (3) the CJIS Security Policy; and (4) Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20. The parties are also subject to applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

6.03 The terms set forth in this document do not constitute the sole understanding by and between the parties hereto; rather they augment the provisions of the CJIS Security Policy to provide a minimum basis for the security of the system and contained information and it is understood that there may be terms and conditions of the appended Agreement which impose more stringent requirements upon the Contractor.

6.04 This Security Addendum may only be modified by the FBI, and may not be modified by the parties to the appended Agreement without the consent of the FBI.

6.05 All notices and correspondence shall be forwarded by First Class mail to:

Information Security Officer
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, FBI
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306
391
City of Ontario, CA
On-Premise OnCall Records Implementation
Statement of Work 101
Attachment L – White Box ART Tool SOW
[following this page]

392

H EXAGON S AFETY AND I NFRASTRUCTURE
CITY OF ONTARIO – STATEMENT OF WORK

ARCHIVE REPORT TOOL (ART)

This document contains confidential and proprietary information of White Box Inc.

Do not copy or disclose without prior written permission of White Box executive management _________ _________

PROJECT NAME: ONTARIO - ART DATE: AUGUST 11, 2024 This Statement of Work sets forth the roles and responsibilities, assumptions, scope, constraints (with an estimated schedule TBD) that will govern the project detailed below. The content of this document is intended to provide a framework for the project processes to ensure mutual understanding, clear expectations, and successful results. And is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the Master Purchase Agreement dated May 10, 2021

PROJECT SUMMARY: Convert legacy access data to a readable portable format and provide a searchable solution and reporting tool to access legacy source data with an interface for queries and data lookups to the historical source (Tiburon) data information within the parameters specified below. Where Agency/Ontario is referenced below, Hexagon will assume the responsibility to work with Ontario to complete the task.

Roles and responsibilities:

Hexagon
• Implementation Manager and System Engineer
o Manage project scope and performance, coordinate activities and Assist with adherence to schedule, and issue resolution
o Inform White Box of any issues with plan to resolve

Ontario
• Legacy System Subject Matter Expert and IT Support
o Work with White Box to retrieve data and layout information from legacy system in a usable format o Inform White Box of any issues impacting the project
o Work with White Box to retrieve data and outline which queries are needed o Clarify and answer promptly any potential questions
o Ensure prompt and accurate delivery of source data for mock and final data extraction o Review, provide feedback and approve any Mapping Document and iterations per schedule White Box
• Project Manager
o Manage project scope, schedule, and performance
• Data Analyst/Engineer
o Retrieve and prepare source data and setup other applicable systems o Build, test, and run application interface and deliver converted data Assumptions and Constraints:

• This project includes one test iteration and the final “go live”, consisting of the source data provided to White Box Technologies. Data must be in either a CSV, flat files with table header layouts or in a portable (e.g.

SQL) format. And must match the same layout as previously provided. • White Box will not be analyzing, populating, migrating, cleansing, or manipulating any legacy data into any Ontario production RMS/CAD or JMS system. Legacy data is static, no new data can be added to the Archive Report Tool solution.
• White Box will deliver the converted data and application either via FTP or Hard Drive via mail. • If hosting the solution on premise, Ontario is responsible to acquire the hardware and any software licenses to house the converted data; both the SQL Database(s) and the ART application. (If database size is under 393

H EXAGON S AFETY AND I NFRASTRUCTURE
CITY OF ONTARIO – STATEMENT OF WORK

ARCHIVE REPORT TOOL (ART)

This document contains confidential and proprietary information of White Box Inc.

Do not copy or disclose without prior written permission of White Box executive management _________ _________

10GIG then the free version of SQL Express can be utilized). Hardware for the Application is minimal-any modern processor with approximately 100 MB of free space needed for the ART Solution. Hosted solutions are available as a separate option
• Work performed under this SOW is under warranty by White Box for thirty (30) days following delivery of the converted data and Archive Report Tool. White Box is not responsible for any source data issues and since no cleansing of data is included with this SOW, the source data will only be searchable in its existing form.

White Box is not responsible for the integrity or cleanliness of the source data. Errors or omissions in converted data that result from application, database, or source data changes by Ontario are not covered by this warranty. Ongoing support will need to be added after the first year of use. Support and any additional licensing as well as other hosting solutions will be in a separate Work Order. (As of the date of this agreemnt, annual licensing is 15% year of the total White Box SOW price per ART installation). This SOW grants Ontario a one-year license after the final delivery.
• Ontario will set up a test environment that White Box can utilize for testing purposes, as well as access to any required hardware or software, prior to production.
• A project schedule will be developed and mutually agreed to during the initiation of this project. Any delay in the delivery of milestones or related sub-steps to the schedule, which is the responsibility of Ontario, can result in a day-for-day delay in subsequent milestones that White Box is responsible for. • Following a White Box deliverable, unless otherwise specified Ontario has 10 business days to report any issues. If White Box receives no response within that time, the deliverable will be considered accepted as delivered and if tied to a billable milestone, the deliverable will be invoiced. Issues reported after that period of time will be resolved on a case-by-case basis and may or may not be subject to additional charges and / or a change request.

Estimated Key project milestones:

Estimated Date Milestone Responsibility
TBD Deliver Source data and code tables to White Box Ontario TBD Develop Technical Specifications/Requirements, fields to be queried and report format
White Box/Ontario
TBD Finalize Mapping Doc White Box/Ontario
TBD Deliver first iteration White Box
TBD Cut off for providing feedback on first iteration Ontario TBD Develop and finalize interface build-test as needed White Box TBD Deliver source data for go live Ontario
TBD Deliver final converted data and interface build White Box TBD Cut off for reporting post ART development issues (30-day Warranty period)
Ontario

Source System:

Source: Tiburon
Work Scope:

The base app is a tool for allowing staff without database experience to search for and view historical database records in a spreadsheet style environment.

Once getting the data the first step is to convert the legacy data to a SQL format. Then, the application will be built to query data from that SQL database converted from the legacy database. Data can be queried by name, case name/number, and/or any event. The base app allows for records to be deleted (expunged) by a specified user. All queries or lookups and/or expungements will need to be done through the base application with a customizable 394

H EXAGON S AFETY AND I NFRASTRUCTURE
CITY OF ONTARIO – STATEMENT OF WORK

ARCHIVE REPORT TOOL (ART)

This document contains confidential and proprietary information of White Box Inc.

Do not copy or disclose without prior written permission of White Box executive management _________ _________

report. Ontario may choose any existing hardware to house the data and the ART application if no hosted solution is chosen.

White Box recommends that customizable reports are the easiest way to view data that’s based on an event and present that in a searchable, human readable format. Report(s) will have the capability to print, save, and save as and show attachments/mugshots that are linked to the selected record. The customizable report(s) have the capability to present all applicable data for a selected record.

One report is included with this SOW and includes up to 6 sections* with no more than 80 total fields. The first step of the kickoff meeting will be to refine those data elements to be included as well as the report format. * (A section on a report is a logical main header of data e.g. a general details section, involvement section etc)

This SOW assumes that all report values from the source data are static values stored in a database table and that there are no values in the report that are generated that WB would have to spend time and effort to re-create the logic from the app, to generate those values for the report. It also assumes that the report doesn’t have additional sections that were excluded due to the source tables being empty.

Additional custom interfaces, customizations, reports and enhancements can be developed if needed to perform searches, views and expungements, which will require a separate SOW for both time and cost.

395
Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Charity Hernandez
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 17
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO A DISPOSITION AND

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND LAUREL

INVESTMENT PROPERTY GROUP FUND, LLC,

WITH RESPECT TO APPROXIMATELY

2.13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 404, 416 AND 414 NORTH EUCLID AVENUE AND 401 AND 418 NORTH LEMON AVENUE (APNS: PORTION OF 1048-363-02, 1048-363-03, 1048-363-04, AND 1048-363-05)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October
1, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider and:

A
.

Adopt a Resolution approving a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development Agreement (on file with the Records Management Department) between the Laurel Investment Property Group Fund, LLC.

B
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all documents necessary to implement the Disposition and Development Agreement.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

The purchase price of $2,200,000, which represents the current fair market value of the property, remains unchanged.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

In July of 2022, the City entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") with Ontario Place D Block, LLC for the development of approximately 109 market rate rental housing units and approximately 4,040 square feet of ground level retail and service commercial space fronting on Euclid Avenue. The Downtown Euclid Avenue Mixed-Use Development (“Development”) is located on approximately 2.13 acres of land, containing an area bordered by "E" Street to the north, Lemon Avenue to the east, "D" Street to the south, and Euclid Avenue to the west.

396
Ontario Place D Block LLC had permitted transfers rights under the DDA, in which they exercised only after City approval, transferring all right and obligations to Laurel Investment Property Group Fund, LLC ("Developer").

Staff is recommending approval of the First Amendment to the DDA which will allow for a slight adjustment to the schedule of performance, accelerating the sale of the property which will also permit project financing and commencement of construction ahead of schedule. All other Developer
duties and obligations, and City safety measures and rights, remain unchanged and in place under the terms of the original DDA.
397
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO A

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY

OF ONTARIO AND LAUREL INVESTMENT PROPERTY GROUP FUND,
LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404, 416 AND 414 NORTH EUCLID AVENUE AND 401 AND 418 NORTH
LEMON AVENUE (APNS: PORTION OF 1048-363-02, 1048-363-03, 1048- 363-04, AND 1048-363-05).

WHEREAS, the City and Ontario Place D Block LLC, a California limited liability company (“Prior Developer”) entered into that certain 2022 Disposition and Development Agreement (Downtown D Block) dated July 5, 2022 (the “DDA”) with respect to Prior Developer’s purchase from the City and development of that certain 2.13-acre property commonly known as 404, 416 and 414 N. Euclid Ave. and 401 and 418 N. Lemon Ave., Ontario, California (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Prior Developer, as “Assignor,” and Laurel Investment Property Group Fund, LLC (“Developer’), as “Assignee,” entered into that certain Agreement for Assignment of Disposition and Development Agreement (“Assignment Agreement”) made as of August 23, 2024, pursuant to which Assignor desired to sell and Assignee desired to purchase all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the DDA and all other intangible property owned or licensed by Assignor relating to the Property; and WHEREAS, on or about September 12, the City executed that certain City of Ontario Consent to Agreement for Assignment of Disposition and Development Agreement (Downtown D Block) (“City Consent”), thereby consenting and approving to the Assignment Agreement and the assignments from Prior Developer to Developer, as more particularly described the Assignment Agreement, in accordance with Sections 8.2 and 8.13 of the DDA; and
WHEREAS, with that assumption of the DDA, and for the purposes of expediting the acquisition of the Property, Developer has requested of the City, and the City is willing to agree, to accelerate the closing date of the Escrow (as assumed by Developer) and to waive and release Developer from the conditions precedent in the DDA that otherwise would have required the Escrow to close only after entitlements have been approved by the City, the Developer ready to pull building permits, and the Developer demonstrate proof financing for the entire project prior, as more particularly set forth in the First Amendment to the DDA (the “Amended DDA”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has represented to the City that Developer is considering revisions to the project under the DDA, and Developer also has represented that it will either proceed with the currently entitled project or will have submitted a complete application for revised entitlements and an updated DDA within six months of the closing of Escrow.
398

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. Approval of the Amended DDA . The City hereby approves the Amended DDA, in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A,” subject to any non-substantive revisions that do not increase the City’s liability and are approved by the City Attorney; authorizes the City Manager to sign and enter into the Amended DDA; and directs the City Manager to perform the obligations of the City under the Amended DDA.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council declares that the City Council would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
399

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 October 1, 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 October 1, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
400
EXHIBIT “A”
First Amendment to the
Disposition and Development Agreement
[attached behind this cover page]
401
-1-

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Downtown D Block)
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Downtown D Block) (“Amendment”) is dated as of October 1, 2024 (“Date of Amendment”), for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the City of Ontario, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Laurel Investment Property Group Fund, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ Developer”). City and Developer are sometimes referred to in this Amendment, each individually, as a “Party,” or collectively, as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
This Amendment is entered into with reference to the following recitals (“Recitals”):

A. City and Ontario Place D Block LLC, a California limited liability company (“Prior Developer ”) entered into that certain 2022 Disposition and Development Agreement (Downtown D Block) dated July 5, 2022 (the “DDA”) with respect to Prior Developer’s purchase from the City and development of that certain 2.13-acre property commonly known as 404, 416 and 414 N. Euclid Ave. and 401 and 418 N. Lemon Ave., Ontario, California (the “ Property”), which Property is more fully described in the DDA; and
B. Prior Developer, as “Assignor,” and Developer, as “ Assignee,” entered into that certain Agreement for Assignment of Disposition and Development Agreement (“ Assignment Agreement”) made as of August 23, 2024, pursuant to which Assignor desired to sell and Assignee desired to purchase all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the DDA (collectively, defined therein as the “ DDA Rights ”) and all other intangible property owned or licensed by Assignor relating to the Property (collectively, defined therein as the “ Other Rights ”; and, together with the DDA Rights, collectively, defined therein as the “ Rights”), including, without limitation, (i) all plans, surveys, maps, reports, studies and other items relating to the Property listed on Exhibit A attached to the Assignment Agreement (collectively, defined therein as the “Plans and Reports ”), (ii) all governmental permits, approvals and other entitlements listed on Exhibit B attached to the Assignment Agreement (collectively, the defined therein as the “Entitlements”), and (iii) the escrow opened in connection with the DDA (identified as escrow number 188634 held by Chicago Title Company) (collectively, defined therein as the “Escrow”), including the $60,000 earnest money deposit currently held in the Escrow, all as more particularly described and set forth in the Assignment Agreement; and C. On or about September 12, 2024, the City executed that certain City of Ontario Consent to Agreement for Assignment of Disposition and Development Agreement (Downtown D Block) (“City Consent”), thereby consenting and approving to the Assignment Agreement and the assignments from Prior Developer to Developer, as more particularly described the Assignment Agreement, in accordance with Sections 8.2 and 8.13 of the DDA.

D. With that assumption of the DDA, and for the purposes of expediting the acquisition of the Property, Developer has requested of the City, and the City is willing to agree, 402
-2-
to accelerate the closing date of the Escrow (as assumed by Developer) and to waive and release Developer from the conditions precedent in the DDA that otherwise would have required the Escrow to close only after entitlements have been approved by the City, the Developer ready to pull building permits, and the Developer demonstrate proof financing for the entire project prior, as more particularly set forth in this Amendment; and
E. Developer has represented to the City that Developer is considering revisions to the project under the DDA, and Developer also has represented that it will either proceed with the currently entitled project or will have submitted a complete application for revised entitlements and an updated DDA within six months of the closing of Escrow.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the City, Agency, and Developer, the Parties agree as follows:

TERMS OF AMENDMENT

1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS . The Recitals of fact set forth preceding this Amendment are true and correct and are incorporated into this Amendment in their entirety by this reference.

2. CAPITALIZED TERMS. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the DDA, unless meanings were ascribed from the Assignment Agreement, in which case Capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed in the Assignment Agreement.

3. RATIFICATION OF CONSENT . The City Council hereby ratifies the City Manager’s action to consent and approve the Assignment Agreement and the assignments from Prior Developer to Developer, as more particularly described the Assignment Agreement, as a valid and binding action by the City.

4. WAIVER AND RELEASE BY THE PARTIES FROM CERTAIN
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DDA PRIOR TO CLOSING ESCROW . Notwithstanding Sections 3.2.1 [Developer’s Conditions to Closed of Escrow] and subsections 3.2.1.7, 3.2.1.8,

3.2.1.9 therein, notwithstanding Sections 3.2.2 [City’s Conditions to Close Escrow] and subsections 3.2.2.4, 3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.7, 3.2.2.8, 3.2.2.9, 3.2.2.10, and notwithstanding any other provisions in the DDA to the contrary, the Close of Escrow and Escrow Closing Date may occur:
(a) prior Developer having obtained all of the Entitlements, (b) prior to Developer delivering to the City and the City accepting the Financial Commitment(s) applicable to the Property, (c) prior to Developer receiving City’s approval of the Construction Loan and Construction Lender applicable to the Property, and (d) prior to City having issued approved Building Permits or having stamped and issued plans in “Ready to Issue Permits” status.

5. REVISED ESCROW CLOSING DATE . Notwithstanding Section 3.6 or any other provisions in the DDA to the contrary, the Escrow Closing Date shall occur no later than October 15, 2024.
403
-3-

6. PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS BY DEVELOPER . If Developer wants the City to consider revisions to the Project, Developer shall, no later than the date that is six (6) months after the date for the Close of Escrow, submit to the City a complete application for revised Entitlements and any proposed additional amendments to the DDA as amended by this Amendment. If Developer does not timely submit said complete declaration, then Developer may proceed with the Project with the Entitlements issued or the City may exercise its right of reverter in the Property pursuant to Section 7.6 of the DDA.

7. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all of the terms, conditions, and provisions set forth in the DDA shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the Date of Amendment, wherever the term “Agreement” or “DDA” appears in the DDA, it shall be read and understood to mean the DDA, as amended by this Amendment.

In the event there is any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the DDA, the terms of this Amendment shall govern and control.

8. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS . This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when all Parties hereto have signed this Amendment, shall be deemed an original. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or email transmission of a file in .pdf or similar format or via electronic signatures (using platforms including, but not limited to, DocuSign and Digi-Ink) and, upon such delivery, each signature shall be deemed to have the same effect as if the original signature had been delivered. (Signatures on Following Pages)
404

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Downtown D Block)
CITY:

THE CITY OF Ontario
a California municipal corporation
Dated:_________________, 2024 By:

City Manager
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

By: _______________________
City Attorney
(Signatures continue on next page)
405
-2-

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Downtown D Block)
DEVELOPER:

Laurel Investment Property Group Fund, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By: Hutton Ontario, Inc.,
a California corporation
its Manager Member
Dated:_________________, 2024 By:

Scot Felix, President
406
Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Charity Hernandez
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 18
SUBJECT:

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR

THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE

AND VINEYARD AVENUE FOR THE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October
1, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution of Necessity declaring that the acquisition of a fee simple interest in certain real property located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Number's 0218-101-03, 0218-101- 04, 0218-101-05 and 0218-101-06 ("The Property"), is necessary for the Regional Sports Complex Project.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy FISCAL IMPACT:

Appropriations of $3,710,000 are included in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget in the Capital Projects Fund. Additional appropriations will be added at a future quarterly budget update, as necessary. The deposit necessary to file the Resolution of Necessity for prejudgment possession of the Property is approximately $37,100,000.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City is in the process of developing a 200 acre state-of-the-art regional sports complex to meet the region’s growing demand for sports recreation amenities.

The Property consists of four parcels located on the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue in Ontario, California, as shown in Exhibit 1.

The City obtained an appraisal of the Property from John G. Ellis, MAI, CRE, FRICS of CBRE Valuation and Advisory Services, Inc., and made an offer of just compensation to the property owners for the acquisition pursuant to California Government Code section 7267.2. 407
A litigation guarantee was ordered to determine and confirm the identity of the record owner.

Following a standard public records request and due diligence search for ownership information, a notice of this public hearing was mailed to the affected property owner.

The power of eminent domain is used by the City only as a last resort to obtain interests necessary for projects after 1) negotiations have stalled, or 2) the owner has requested that the City proceed directly to eminent domain for tax or other advantages, or 3) the eminent domain process is necessary to clear title to the property. In this case, an offer of just compensation was made to the owner for the full Fair Market Value, as determined by an independent appraisal. California’s definition of Fair Market Value is one of the most inclusive definitions in the United States and requires the appraiser to consider the highest and best use of the property and to consider the highest price a willing buyer and seller would agree to. The City’s appraisal must use this definition of Fair Market Value.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED:

The Property affected by the proposed acquisition is
located within the City of Ontario, southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, California 91764, and more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Number's 0218-101- 03, 0218-101-04, 0218-101-05 and 0218-101-06.

HEARINGS AND REQUIRED FINDINGS:

The recommended actions of the City Council pertain to the acquisition of a fee simple interest in the Property owned by JCLIN Investment, LP, a California limited partnership. A true and correct of the legal definition, legal description, and map of the Property sought to be acquired is attached to the Resolution of Necessity as Exhibit A.

California eminent domain law provides that a public entity may not commence an eminent domain proceeding until its governing body has adopted a Resolution of Necessity, which resolution may only be adopted after the governing body has given each party with an interest in the affected property or their representatives a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the following matters:
1 .

The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. 2 .

The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
3 .

The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project. 4 .

The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner.

Since an agreement has not been reached with the property owner, it is necessary to acquire the property by eminent domain to meet critical project deadlines. Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedures, a notice of this hearing was sent by first class mail on September 11, 2024, to the record owner, and stated the City’s intent to consider the adoption of a resolution, the right of the property owner to appear and be heard and notice that failure to file a written request to appear may result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard.

The above four required findings are addressed as follows:

408
The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project Property is 37 acres of vacant unimproved land. The City seeks to acquire a full fee interest in the Property to allow for the development of a Regional Sports Complex. The City is in the process of developing a 200 acre state-of-the-art regional sports complex to meet the region’s growing demand for sports recreation amenities. With participation rates in baseball, soccer, and softball well above the state and national averages, Ontario’s Regional Sports Complex will be a haven for the community, sports enthusiasts and athletes of all ages and backgrounds. It will be the largest premier sports complex in the Inland Empire and a catalyst for future growth and investment in the City. The regional sports complex includes: a professional league baseball stadium, baseball/softball/soccer/football/little league fields, batting cages, basketball/volleyball courts, tennis/pickleball courts, skatepark, aquatics facility, community center, playground, 10-acre public park, picnic space, and other amenities to serve the sports complex.

The Project is Planned or Located in a Manner That Will be Most Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury
The proposed Project will support the City Council’s goals and objectives and implement land use and development goals as stated in the Policy Plan component of the General Plan. The Property to be acquired is best suited for the Project and will cause the least private injury. To move this Project elsewhere would require significant land use policy changes, cause a greater impact on local property owners, and would effectively be cost prohibitive.

The Real Property to be Acquired is Necessary for the Proposed Project The Property affected by the proposed acquisition is located within the City of Ontario, at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761, Assessors Parcel Number's 0218-101-03, 0218-10-04, 0218-101-05, and 0218-101-06 (owned by JCLIN Investment, LP.) The acquisition is necessary to allow for the Regional Sports Complex Project,

in Ontario,
California.

The Offer of Just Compensation Has Been Made
Appraisals were prepared by John G. Ellis, MAI, CRE, FRICS of CBRE Valuation and Advisory Services, Inc., to establish the Fair Market Value of the fee interest of the Property the City is seeking to acquire. An offer of just compensation was made to the record owners to purchase the fee interest in the Property to be acquired, as established by the approved appraisal and as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code. Although negotiated settlements may still be possible for the fee interests cited above, it would be appropriate to commence the procedures to acquire the necessary interest through eminent domain.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15183 there has been compliance by the City with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
409

EXHIBIT “1”

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND VINEYARD AVENUE

410
RESOLUTION NO. ________

RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT

DOMAIN OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND

VINEYARD AVENUE IN THE ARMSTRONG SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 0218-101-03, 0218-101-04, 0218-101- 05 AND 0218-101-06, FOR THE ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS

COMPLEX PROJECT, IN ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (the "City") proposes to acquire, by eminent domain, a fee simple interest in vacant real property located in the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue in the Armstrong Specific Plan Area of Ontario, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 0218-101-03, 0218-101-04, 0218-101-05 and 0218-101-06, for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 37350.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. at the Ontario City Hall, Council Chambers, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the City and each person whose property is to be acquired by eminent domain was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and
WHEREAS, the City may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to Section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure and California Environmental Quality Act. There has been compliance by the City with the requirements of Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and the California Environmental Quality Act.

SECTION 2. Public Use. The public use for which the real property interest is to be acquired is to provide a location for which a sports complex will be built for public use through the City of Ontario’s Regional Sports Complex Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Section 37350.5 of the California 411
Government Code authorizes the City to acquire by eminent domain real property necessary for such purposes.

SECTION 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit A is the legal definition, description and depiction of the real property to be acquired by the City, which describes the general location and extent of the property to be acquired with sufficient detail for reasonable identification.

SECTION 4. Findings. The City hereby finds and determines each of the following:
(a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury;
(c) The fee simple interest described in Exhibit A is necessary for the proposed project;
(d) The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made.

SECTION 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use:

Some or all of the real property to be acquired may be subject to easements and rights- of-way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights-of-way are on file with the City and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights-of-way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the City is authorized to acquire the fee interest subject to such existing public use(s) pursuant to Section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

SECTION 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property to be acquired may be subject to easements and rights-of-way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the City finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use.

Counsel for the City is authorized to acquire the real property appropriated to such existing public use(s) pursuant to Section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the real property being acquired that it determines is reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use.

SECTION 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the City is hereby authorized to file legal proceedings necessary to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the City by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to 412
institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the City to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non-material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action or other proceedings or transaction required to acquire the subject real property.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
413

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 October 1, 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 October 1, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
414

EXHIBIT A

415
Legal Definition of Property to be Acquired

The following is the definition of the legal rights to be acquired by the City of Ontario:
"Fee," also known as fee simple or fee simple absolute, grants to the City of Ontario absolute ownership of the property.
416

EXHIBIT “A”

ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOTS 7, 8, 9 AND 10 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE

AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO MAP OF SUBDIVISION OF PART OF RANCHO SANTA ANA DEL CHINO,

IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT

RECORDED IN

BOOK 6 OF MAPS, PAGE 15

, RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING FROM LOT 7 THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1951 IN BOOK 2708, PAGE 572, OFFICIAL RECORDS

,

MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID LOT 7, (SAID POINT BEING IN THE CENTER

LINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHINO AVENUE AS NOW ESTABLISHED); THENCE SOUTH 0° 47' 33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 33 FEET TO A POINT (SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING); THENCE SOUTH 0° 47' 33" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 59.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 79° 12' 57" WEST AS DISTANCE OF 131.12 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 10° 45' 53", WHOSE RADIUS IS 1967 FEET A DISTANCE OF 369.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 58' 50" EAST PARALLEL TO AND 33 FEET DISTANT SOUTHERLY FROM THE CENTER LINE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE A DISTANCE OF 497.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 0218-101-03 , 0218-101-04, 0218-101-05 and 0218-101-06 417

418
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Rudy Zeledon
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 19
SUBJECT:

AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION FOR FILE NOS. PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015 AND PDET23-016

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October
1, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing on the Appeals and after receiving all public testimony,
uphold the Planning Commission's decision to uphold Zoning Administrator Decision No’s. ZA23-024 (File No. PDET23-005), ZA23-030 (File No. PDET23-007), ZA23- 031 (File No. PDET23-008), ZA23-032 (File No. PDET23-009), ZA23-033 (File No. PDET23-010), ZA23- 038 (File No. PDET23-015) and ZA23-039 (File No. PDET23-016) and deny the Appeals.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On September 3, 2024, the City Council introduced and conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Application and continued the item to the October 1, 2024, City Council meeting.

In 2020, the Executive Director of Finance ("License Official") sent out a Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) (''Notice of Assessment"), which found that the following business operators (hereinafter referred to as “Hotels") were delinquent with unpaid Transient Occupancy Taxes (Attachment “A” on each Planning Commission Resolution).

Hotel Hacienda (File No PDET23-005), located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23-007), located 1530 West Mission Boulevard; Days Inn Ontario Motel (File No. PDET23-008), located at 1405 East 4 th
Street;
Economy Inn (File No. PDET23-009), located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue; Mayfair Inn (File No. PDET23-010), located 1120 East Holt Boulevard; Sands Motel (File No. PDET23-015), located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard; and West Coast Inn (File No. PDET23-016) located at 1211 North Grove Avenue. 419
In 2021, the License Official, sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held hearings for the Hotels listed above. 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.

The Hotels were represented by Attorney Frank A. Weiser. Mr. Weiser argued that under Section 3-

6.03 of the TOT Ordinance, the transient occupancy tax is imposed only on transients and argued that transients are defined in Section 3-6.02(g) as any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy, for a period of 30 calendar days or less. The operators provided evidence that the Hotels rent rooms to guests for longer than 30 days and argued that these guests, having stayed longer than 30 days at the Hotels, are exempt from taxation as they no longer meet the definition of transient. Under Ontario Development Code section 5.03.250(E)(1), no hotel can rent to a guest for longer than 30 days.

The License Official’s jurisdiction is to determine the proper tax to be remitted and give such determination and the amount of such tax, interest, and penalties (O.M.C. § 3-6.09). The License Official does not have the jurisdiction to interpret or make a determination regarding the applicability of the Ontario Development Code (ODC), that the Hotels where a guest exceeds 30-day occupancy are exempt from the definition of transient as described in ODC Section 5.03.250(E)(l).

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. After the testimony was completed, 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) to the Hotels.

In November and December of 2023, the Zoning Administrator issued Determination of Use Decisions for each of the Hotels and made the findings that the ODC Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Hotels (Attachment “A” on each Resolution). ODC 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 Hotel or Motel is 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. A Hotel or Motel permitting guests occupancy longer than 30 days are in violation and not exempt from ODC Section 5.03.250(E)(1). Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

On May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator denial. Following the staff’s presentation and after receipt of all public correspondence and testimony, the Planning Commission noted agreement with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator 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. Further, the Planning Commission found that the 420
appellant introduced irrelevant legal arguments which did not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellant takes issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For example, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT, was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. To address these constitutional arguments for a legislative action that occurred in 1965 goes beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. Thus, the Zoning Administrator’s power is limited to interpretation of the code and its application to a particular set of facts.

As a result, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to adopt Resolution No’s PC24-018 (File No.

PDET23-005), PC24-019 (File No. PDET23-007), PC24-020 (File No. PDET23-008), PC24-021 (File No.

PDET23-009), PC24-022 (File No. PDET23-010), PC24-023 (File PDET23-015) and PC24-024 (File No.

PDET23-016) upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision and denying the appeals.

APPEAL TO COUNCIL:

On June 6, 2024, the Appellant submitted an Appeal to the City Council, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The Appellant raises the argument that the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the information, findings, and recommendations presented in the Background and Analysis Section of the Zoning Administrator’s Decision report.

The Appellant argues that the Planning Commission was required to adopt an Environmental Impact Report as part of their decision, and that the Zoning Administrator’s decision violated 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.

A copy of the Appeal applications and Appellant’s statement is included as Appendix A of this report. Staff has reviewed the appeals and provides a response for each issue raised by the Appellant’s:

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:
421
The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and The 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 Guidelines Section15378(B)(4).

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

Appellant's Issue #2:

The Zoning Administrator’s decision violated 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 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.

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 Appellant takes issue with the implementation of legislation of the ODC. Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT, was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

The Zoning Administrator 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.
422
Case Planner: Rudy Zeledon CDA Assistant Director Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB N/A N/A N/A
PC 05/28/2024 Final
Submittal Date: 11/16/2023 and 01/11/2024 CC
F
ILE NOS: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
SU
BJECT: An appeal of 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 of the following hotels and motels: 1) Hotel Hacienda (File No. PDET23-005), located at 2423 South Archibald Avenue; 2) Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23-007), 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) West Coast Inn (File No. PDET23 -016), located at 1211 North Grove Avenue; (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 PR
OPERTY OWNER: See attached Exhibit A.

R
ECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and deny the appeals and uphold Zoning Administrators Decision No’s. ZA23-024 (File No. PDET23-005), ZA23-030 (File No. PDET23-007), ZA23-031 (File No. PDET23-008), ZA23-032 (File No. PDET23-009), ZA23- 033 (File No. PDET23-010), ZA23-038 (File No. PDET23-015) and ZA23-039 (File No. PDET23- 016), pursuant to the facts and reaso ns contained in the staff report and attached Resolutions.

P
ROJECT ANALYSIS:

Background — In 2020, the Executive Director of Finance Arman Harkalyan ("License Official"), sent out a Notice of Assessment for Transient Occupancy Tax (''Notice of Assessment"), which found that the following business operators (hereinafter referred to as “Hotels’) were delinquent with unpaid Transient Occupancy Taxes (Attachment “A” on each Resolution).
• Hotel Hacienda (File No PDET23-005), located at 2423 South Archibald Avenue; • Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23-007), located 1530 West Mission Boulevard; • Days Inn Ontario Motel (File No. PDET23-008), located at 1405 East 4th Street; • Economy Inn (File No. PDET23-009), located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue; • Mayfair Inn (File No. PDET23-010), located 1120 East Holt Boulevard; 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
May 28, 2024
Denied
423
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

• Sands Motel (File No. PDET23-015), located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard; and • West Coast Inn (File No. PDET23-016) located at 1211 North Grove Avenue.

Chapter 6: Transient Occupancy Taxes of the City of Ontario Municipal Code (“OMC”), allows the City of Ontario to impose a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of eleven and three-quarters percent (11¾%) of the rent, charged by operator, to transient guest for the privilege of occupancy of any hotel or motel. The Ontario Municipal Code (Section 3.6.02 Definitions) defines “Transient” as 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.

All hotel or motel operators are required to collect and hold in trust for the account and benefit of the City the tax imposed at the same time as the rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount of the rent charged. In addition, hotel and motel operators are required to report and remit TOT imposed on or before the last day of the month following the close of each calendar month, make a return to the Tax Administrator, on forms provided by him or her, of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. Any hotel/motel operator who fails to report and remit TOT are subject to penalties and become delinquent.

In 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 hearings for the hotels/motels as stated above. 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.

T
he Hotels were represented by attorney Frank A. Weiser who offered legal arguments orally at the hearings. Under the representation of Mr. Weiser, the Hotels argued that under the Section 3-6.03 of the TOT Ordinance, the transient occupancy tax is imposed only on transients and argued that transients are defined in Section 3 -6.02(g) as any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy, for a period of 30 calendar days or less. The operators provided evidence that the Hotels rent rooms to guests for longer than 30 days and argued that these guests, having stayed longer than 30 days at the Hotels, are exempt from taxation as they no longer meet the definition of transient.

The License Official’s jurisdiction is to determine the proper tax to be r emitted and give such determination and the amount of such tax, interest, and penalties (" O.M.C. § 3 -

6.09). The License Official does not have the jurisdiction to interpret or make a determination regarding the applicability of the Ontario Development Cod e that the Hotels where a guest exceeds 30 -day occupancy is exempt from the definition of transient as described in Ontario Development Code (ODC) Section 5.03.250(E)(l). The Zoning Administrator, under Section l.02.015(A)(l) of the ODC, has jurisdiction of, and is 424
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of this Development Code. After the testimony was completed, 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 the hotels/motels.

In
November and December of 2023, the Zoning Administrator issued Determination of Use Decisions for each of the Hotels and made the findings that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the H otels (Attachment “A” on each Resolution) . The 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 f ull days. The intent of a Hotel or Motel is 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. A Hotel or motel permitting guests occupancy longer than 30 days are in violation and not exempt from the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1). Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).

A
ppeal — On November 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024, Frank A. Weiser, Attorney at Law (Appellant representative), submitted appeals to the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decisions that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section

5.03.250(E)(l) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the following hotels and motels:
• Hotel Hacienda (File No PDET23-005), Appellant: Naman Patel; • Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23-007), Appellant: Purushottam Patel/Esha Smah; • Days Inn Ontario Motel (File No. PDET23-008, Appellant: Kisham Patel; • Economy Inn (File No. PDET23-009), Appellant: Mehesh Patel; • Mayfair Inn (File No. PDET23-010), Appellant: Dilip Payaran; • Sands Motel (File No. PDET23-015), Appellant: Purushottam Patel; and • West Coast Inn (File No. PDET23-016) Appellant: Anil Patel.

A copy of the Appeal applications and Appellant’s statement is included as Appendix A of this report. Staff has reviewed the appeals and provides a response for each issue raised by the Appellant’s:

1. A
ppellants’ 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 425
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 prevai l. 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 426
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 that 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 infe rence 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.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report , Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.

427
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Exhibit A – Property Owners

1. PATEL & JOSHI HOSPITALITY CORP (Hotel Hacienda (File No PDET23-005), located at 2423 South Archibald Avenue).

2. PATEL, RAMANBHAI G & MANJULABEN R RV (Bright Star Motel (File No. PDET23- 007), located 1530 West Mission Boulevard).

3. BRIGHT MORNING STAR LLC (Days Inn Ontario Motel (File No. PDET23-008, located at 1405 East 4th Street).

4. DESAI, JAY P & SMITA ET AL (Economy Inn (File No. PDET23-009), located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue).

5. SHIVASMT, INC (Mayfair Inn (File No. PDET23-010), located 1120 East Holt Boulevard).

6. SANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Sands Motel (File No. PDET23-015), located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard).

7. PATEL, NARAYAN AMBALA (West Coast Inn (File No. PDET23-016) located at 1211 North Grove Avenue).

428
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PDET23-005, PDET23-007, PDET23-008, PDET23-009, PDET23-010, PDET23-015, and PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Appendix A

(Appeal Applications to follow this page)
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-018

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATION DECISION (FILE NO. PDET 23-005) THAT THE ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5.03, SECTION 5.03.250(E)(L) 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.

W
HEREAS, Noman Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Hotel Hacienda 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 Hotel Hacienda, File No. PDET23 -005, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as " Application" or "Project"); and
W
HEREAS, 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
W
HEREAS, on April 30, 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 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)(l) as to Hotel Hacienda; and
W
HEREAS, 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 W
HEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and W
HEREAS, in 1988, the Motel was constructed; and
465
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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: 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.

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 466
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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.

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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 Cod e 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). 467
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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

468
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

(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 469
470
471
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
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 485
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 486
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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

487
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 488
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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.

(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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 489
490
491
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
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
501
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

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

502
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

(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.

503
504
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

505
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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, 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.

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. 506
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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
507
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 508
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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 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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 509
510
511
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520

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.

ANALYSIS: 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

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
521
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

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 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 522
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

(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.

(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. PDET23-008, 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.

523
524
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, 525
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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, 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.

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.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 526
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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

527
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 528
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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).

(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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 529
530
531
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540

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.

ANALYSIS: 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) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations

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
541
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

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
542
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

(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 Economy Inn; 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 Motel 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 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.

(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. PDET23-009, 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.

543
544
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, 545
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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, 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.

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.

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 546
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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

547
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 548
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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.

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 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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 549
550
551
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560

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.

ANALYSIS: 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

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
561
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

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 .

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 (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
562
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

(c) In 1987, City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Motel; and

(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 Mayfair Inn; 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 Motel 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 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. PDET23-010, 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).

563
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

(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

564
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

565
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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.

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 566
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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

567
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 568
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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.

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 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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 569
570
571
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580

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.

ANALYSIS: 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

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
581
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

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 .

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 (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
582
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

(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

(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 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

(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. PDET23-015, 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.

583
584
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 585
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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.

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. Th e 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.

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 586
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 Z oning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.

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

587
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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

(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, 588
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

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 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.

(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: 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 589
590
591
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024