Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Ontario City Council
October 15, 2024

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
October 15, 2024
Body
Ontario City Council
Pages
39
Original file
66.1 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net. That file is the official record.

1148
REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION REPORT DATE: 15 December 2023
CALCULATED WITH: CALCULATION DATE: 12/15/2023 6:14:46 PM CASE: ORGANIZATION: EPC Environmental
UNITS: ANALYSIS BY: kpcarr
DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: PROJECT/CONTRACT
ATMOSPHERICS: Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED:

3.1.7970.37608

3.1.7970.37608 Sikh
Ontario Sunrise
English
HardSoil
68°F, 50%Average
highway agency substantiates the use of a different
type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receiver-1 1 1 --- 60.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receiver-2 2 1 --- 61.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receiver-3 3 1 --- 47.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

Page 1 of 1 ends

1149
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 | Irvine, California  92618 | t: (949) 878‐3509 www.tjwengineering.com
August 29, 2023
Mr. Moses Kim
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT:   Ontario Sunrise Trip Generation Analysis
and VMT Screening, City of Ontario
Dear Mr. Kim,
TJW Engineering, Inc. (TJW) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening for the proposed project located at 1355 West  5th Street in the City of Ontario. The proposed project includes 70 multi‐family units. A site plan is attached for reference. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the project Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening.

Proposed Project
The proposed site is located at 1355 West 5th Street in the City of Ontario. The proposed project includes 70 multi‐family units. Site access will be provided via a driveway on West 5th Street.

Trip Generation Analysis
Projected trip generation for the proposed project was dev eloped based on the San Bernardino County
Transportation  Authority  (SBCTA)  Recommended  Traffic  Impact  Analysis  Guidelines  for  Vehicle  Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (February 2020). The guidelines state land uses that generate less than 50 peak hour trips will not require a TIA that includes LOS analysis.

The  trip  generation  for  the  pr
oposed  project  was  determined  using  the  Institute  of  Transportation Engineers  Trip  Generation  Manual  (11th  Edition).  Based  on  the  proposed  project’s  intended  use,  the projected trip generation was determined using the Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) Land Use Code 220.

The proposed project is projected to generate 28 AM peak hour trips, 36 PM peak hour trips, and 472 daily trips. A trip generation table is attached for reference.

Trip Distribu
tion
The projected trip distribution for the proposed project is based on anticipated travel patterns to and
from the project site. An exhibit showing the project trip distribution is attached. 1150
Mr. Kim
Ontario Sunrise Trip Gen and VMT Screening
August 29, 2023

Page 2 ends

TJW Engineering, Inc .

WRI23001 Ontario Sunrise Trip Gen and VMT Memo
Existing Traffic Counts
AM  and  PM  peak  period  traffic  counts  at  Elderberry  Avenue  and  5th  Street  were  conducted  on Wednesday August 23, 2023. Detailed traffic count data is attached.

Opening Year With Project Volumes
Since  the  proposed
project  is  expected  to  be  built  and  generating  trips  in  2025,  Opening  Year  With Project volumes include a growth rate of 2% for two years applied to Existing volumes. Opening Year With Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections are attached for reference.

Opening Year With Project Vo
lumes = (Existing (2023) Counts * 1.02^2) + Project Volumes Traffic Signal Warrant
To determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Elderb erry Avenue and 5th Street, Figure
4C‐3 (Urban) contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) has been utilized. Based on Opening Year With Project volumes, a traffic signal is not warranted. Traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are attached for reference.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to  identify  new  metrics  for  identifying  and  mitigating  transportation  impacts  within  the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
). For land use projects, OPR has identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as  the  new  metric  for  transportation  analysis  under  CEQA.  The   regulatory  changes  to  the  CEQA guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28th, 2018 with an implementation date of July 1st, 2020 as the new metric.

The  San  Bernardino  County  Transportation  Authority  (SBCTA)  Recommended  Traffic  Impact  Analysis Guidelines  for  Vehicle  Miles  Traveled  and  Level  of  Service  Assessment  (February  2020)  outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis including screening criteria and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects. The VMT guidelines provide several screening criteria for projects including Transit Priority Area (TPA) Sc
reening, Low VMT Area Screening, and Project Type Screening.

The SBCTA Guidelines indicate projects located within a low VMT generating area are not required to complete a VMT assessment. Based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Screening Tool, the project is located within a low VMT generating TAZ; the screening  for the project is attached to this memorandum for reference. Therefore, based on the SBCTA Guidelines the project is screened from a complete VMT assessment.
1151
Mr. Kim
Ontario Sunrise Trip Gen and VMT Screening
August 29, 2023

Page 3 ends

TJW Engineering, Inc .

WRI23001 Ontario Sunrise Trip Gen and VMT Memo
Summary
This memorandum provides an overview of the tr
ip generation analysis for the proposed project. Based
on  the  County  of  San  Bernardino  Transportation  Impact  Analysis  Guidelines,  the  proposed  project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips and is exempt from a Traffic Impact Analysis. Based on Opening Year With Project volumes and Figure 4C‐3 contained in the CA MUTCD, a traffic signal is not warranted at  the  intersection  of  Elderberry  Avenue  and  5th  Street.  In  addition,  per  County  of  San  Bernardino guidance and regulations, the proposed project would screen out from a Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis as it is located within a low VMT generating area.

Please contact us at (949) 878‐3509 if you have any questions regarding this analysis.

Sincerely,
Gene Kim, PE, TE  David Chew, PTP
Principal Engineer  Transport
ation Planner
Registered Civil Engineer #83175
Registered Traffic Engineer #2684
Brandon Alvarado, PTP
Transportation Planner
1152

32.0'

26.0'

32.0'

26.0'

26.0'

10.0'

15.0'

10.0'

15.0'

10.0'

19.0'
T
10'T Proposed Transformer LocationProposed Transformer Location Guest Parking (typ)
Open Space - ±5,000sfOpen Space - ±5,000sf
Neighborhood
Entry
W 5TH STREET

AC MAC AC AC

AC AC ACAC AC AC
M

AC AC ACAC AC AC

ACM AC AC AC
M
AC Units (typ)

19.0'

4.0'

10.0'

10.0'

25.0'

26.0' 7.7'7.8'

19.5'26.0'19.5'
Open Space
±8,000sf

12.5'
106.0'
8'3'
M
AC AC

ACACACAC
AC AC
M
ACAC

AC AC AC AC
ACAC
M

ACM AC AC AC AC

ACAC AC

ACM ACACACAC

AC ACAC

ACACACACAC
M

ACACACAC
M

AC AC AC AC
M

AC AC AC AC AC
M
M

13.0'

13.0'

9.0'18.0'

20.0'
T

32.5'

45.0'

28.0'

50.0'

16.3'

45.0'
Architecture + Planning
17911 Von Karman Ave,
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
#

ONTARIO SUNRISE
ONTARIO, CA 2021-0772
MDR 25
Density: 18.1-25 du/ac
Max Project Coverage: 60%
Setbacks:

Arterial: 30'
Collector: 20'
PL: 10'
Private Streets: 27'
Building Separations (3-story):

Front to Front: 30'
Front to Side: 30'
Side to Side: 15'
Private OS: 150sf
Common OS: 250sf
Required Parking per Code:
1bd: 1.75 sp/unit
2bd: 2 sp/unit
3bd: 2.5 sp/unit
Guest: 0.25 sp/unit
State Density Bonus Parking Standards
1 bd: 1 sp/unit
2 bd: 1.5 sp/unit
3 bd: 1.5 sp/unit
4 bd: 2.5 sp/unit

SITE SUMMARY
Area: ±3.1 acres
Units:
8 units - P1 (3bd)
8 units - P2 (3bd)
28 units - P3 (3bd)
26 units - P4 (4bd)
70 units - Total
Density: ±22.6 du/ac
Parking Required per State Density Bonus:
3bd: 44 units x 1.5 sp/unit = 66 spaces
4bd: 26 units x 2.5 sp/unit = 65 spaces
Total Parking Required = 131 spaces
Parking Provided:
140 spaces - Garages
24 spaces - Guest
164 spaces - Total
Open Space Provided: ±18,000sf (±257sf/unit)
03060 15

CONCEPTUAL DENSITY STUDY
APRIL 12, 2023
OPTION 12a
1153
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise), Not Close to
Rail Transit 220(1) 70 DU 6.74 472 0.4 24:76 7 21 28 0.51 63:37 23 13 36 1: Trip generation and pass‐by rates from ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021). 2: Parentheses reflect subcategory of land use code. For example, 220(1) is only multifamily housing developments that are not half a mile walking distance or less away from a transit station. 3: DU = Dwelling Units.

Rate Volume Rate In:Out
Split
Volume Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
Proposed Land Use1 ITE
Code2 Qty Unit3
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1154
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
8/29/20231
Ontario Sunrise
Scenario: Trip DistributionTJW Engineering, Inc.Version 2022 (SP 0-2) Generated with
1155
File Name : ONT_Eld_5th AM
Site Code : 23623756
Start Date : 8/23/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Elderberry Avenue
E/W: W 5th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Elderberry Avenue
Southbound
W 5th Street
Westbound
W 5th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 4 3 7 51 3 54 0 18 18 79
07:15 AM 0 10 10 49 4 53 4 44 48 111
07:30 AM 5 8 13 73 4 77 10 67 77 167
07:45 AM 9 8 17 28 3 31 3 77 80 128
Total 18 29 47 201 14 215 17 206 223 485
08:00 AM 7 2 9 50 3 53 6 58 64 126
08:15 AM 5 3 8 43 2 45 0 37 37 90
08:30 AM 5 2 7 55 7 62 3 33 36 105
08:45 AM 1 3 4 35 6 41 2 32 34 79
Total 18 10 28 183 18 201 11 160 171 400
Grand Total 36 39 75 384 32 416 28 366 394 885
Apprch % 48 52 92.3 7.7 7.1 92.9
Total % 4.1 4.4 8.5 43.4 3.6 47 3.2 41.4 44.5
Elderberry Avenue
Southbound
W 5th Street
Westbound
W 5th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 10 10 49 4 53 4 44 48 111
07:30 AM 5 8 13 73 4 77 10 67 77 167
07:45 AM 9 8 17 28 3 31 3 77 80 128
08:00 AM 7 2 9 50 3 53 6 58 64 126
Total Volume 21 28 49 200 14 214 23 246 269 532
% App. Total 42.9 57.1 93.5 6.5 8.6 91.4
PHF .583 .700 .721 .685 .875 .695 .575 .799 .841 .796
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
1156
File Name : ONT_Eld_5th AM
Site Code : 23623756
Start Date : 8/23/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Elderberry Avenue
E/W: W 5th Street
Weather: Clear
Elderberry Avenue
W 5th Street
W 5th Street
Right
28 Left
21 InOut Total
37 49 86
Right
14 Thru
200
OutTotal In
267 214 481
Left
23 Thru
246
TotalOut In
228 269 497
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:00 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 0 10 10 51 3 54 4 44 48
+15 mins. 5 8 13 49 4 53 10 67 77
+30 mins. 9 8 17 73 4 77 3 77 80
+45 mins. 7 2 9 28 3 31 6 58 64
Total Volume 21 28 49 201 14 215 23 246 269
% App. Total 42.9 57.1 93.5 6.5 8.6 91.4
PHF .583 .700 .721 .688 .875 .698 .575 .799 .841
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
1157
File Name : ONT_Eld_5th PM
Site Code : 23623756
Start Date : 8/23/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Elderberry Avenue
E/W: W 5th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Elderberry Avenue
Southbound
W 5th Street
Westbound
W 5th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 7 4 11 67 9 76 6 67 73 160
04:15 PM 7 2 9 44 6 50 7 62 69 128
04:30 PM 3 6 9 60 6 66 6 61 67 142
04:45 PM 3 4 7 51 5 56 6 64 70 133
Total 20 16 36 222 26 248 25 254 279 563
05:00 PM 7 2 9 48 8 56 4 68 72 137
05:15 PM 6 5 11 48 6 54 5 69 74 139
05:30 PM 5 5 10 60 5 65 3 61 64 139
05:45 PM 4 3 7 54 5 59 3 68 71 137
Total 22 15 37 210 24 234 15 266 281 552
Grand Total 42 31 73 432 50 482 40 520 560 1115
Apprch % 57.5 42.5 89.6 10.4 7.1 92.9
Total % 3.8 2.8 6.5 38.7 4.5 43.2 3.6 46.6 50.2
Elderberry Avenue
Southbound
W 5th Street
Westbound
W 5th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 7 4 11 67 9 76 6 67 73 160
04:15 PM 7 2 9 44 6 50 7 62 69 128
04:30 PM 3 6 9 60 6 66 6 61 67 142
04:45 PM 3 4 7 51 5 56 6 64 70 133
Total Volume 20 16 36 222 26 248 25 254 279 563
% App. Total 55.6 44.4 89.5 10.5 9 91
PHF .714 .667 .818 .828 .722 .816 .893 .948 .955 .880
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
1158
File Name : ONT_Eld_5th PM
Site Code : 23623756
Start Date : 8/23/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Elderberry Avenue
E/W: W 5th Street
Weather: Clear
Elderberry Avenue
W 5th Street
W 5th Street
Right
16 Left
20 InOut Total
51 36 87
Right
26 Thru
222
OutTotal In
274 248 522
Left
25 Thru
254
TotalOut In
238 279 517
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 3 4 7 67 9 76 6 61 67
+15 mins. 7 2 9 44 6 50 6 64 70
+30 mins. 6 5 11 60 6 66 4 68 72
+45 mins. 5 5 10 51 5 56 5 69 74
Total Volume 21 16 37 222 26 248 21 262 283
% App. Total 56.8 43.2 89.5 10.5 7.4 92.6
PHF .750 .800 .841 .828 .722 .816 .875 .949 .956
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
1159
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
8/29/20231
Ontario Sunrise
Scenario 1: Project AMTJW Engineering, Inc.Version 2022 (SP 0-2) Generated with
1160
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
8/29/20231
Ontario Sunrise
Scenario 2: Project PMTJW Engineering, Inc.Version 2022 (SP 0-2) Generated with
1161
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
8/29/20231
Scenario 1: 1 Opening Year With Project AM
Ontario Sunrise
TJW Engineering, Inc.Version 2022 (SP 0-2)
Generated with
1162
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
8/29/20231
Scenario 2: 2 Opening Year With Project PM
Ontario Sunrise
TJW Engineering, Inc.Version 2022 (SP 0-2)
Generated with
1163
8/29/2023
Peak Hour: AM Scenario: OYP
Major Street: Minor Street:
516 52
11 * Note:

Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane.

Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement Including Revision 3 (March 9, 2018) Prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc.

Elderberry Avenue

PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Total of Both Approaches (VPH):

Number of Approach Lanes:

URBAN CONDITIONS
5th Street
AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant
5th Street / Elderberry Avenue
150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
Higher Volume Approach (VPH):

Number of Approach Lanes:

OYP Conditions
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street-Higher Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street-Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban)
1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor
2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor
2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor
*
*
1164
8/29/2023
Peak Hour: PM Scenario: OYP
Major Street: Minor Street:
563 40
11 * Note:

Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane.

Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement Including Revision 3 (March 9, 2018) Prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc.

PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant
5th Street / Elderberry Avenue
150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
Higher Volume Approach (VPH):

Number of Approach Lanes:

OYP Conditions
Elderberry Avenue

PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Total of Both Approaches (VPH):

Number of Approach Lanes:

URBAN CONDITIONS
5th Street
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street-Higher Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street-Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban)
1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor
2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor
2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor
*
*
1165
1166
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-042

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PMTT23-008, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20659, SUBDIVIDING 3.1 ACRES OF

LAND INTO ONE PARCEL FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LOCATED
AT 1355 WEST 5TH STREET, WITHIN THE LDR -5 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 2.1 TO 5.0 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1008-551-12.

WHEREAS, WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC (hereinafter referred to "Applicant") filed an Application to requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008), as described in the Subject of this Resolution is (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Application applies to 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, that is presently occupied by existing Sunrise Ontario Church and is located within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; and

WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the LDR -5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and MDR -25 (Medium Density Residential — 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning districts and contain existing multiple-family and single- family land uses. The properties to the east and west are within the LDR -5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing churches land uses.

The properties to the south are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing single-family land uses; and

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application (File No. PPRE23-002) that included plans, a project description, and the State of California's Senate Bill (SB 330) Preliminary Application form for a proposed 70 unit multiple-family condominium development on the Project site. The City reviewed that submittal for consistency with Government Code Section 65941.1 and on June 30, 2023, communicated to the Applicant information that was missing from their submittal. On October 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), completing their submittal requirements, thereby vesting their Preliminary Application and the ordinances, policies, and standards that apply to the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Project proposes the development of 70 multiple- family condominium units, including 7 moderate income affordable units, and associated site improvements including parking, landscape, infrastructure, among others, on approximately 3.1 acres of land within the Project site; and

1167
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) will subdivide the 3.1-acre Project site into one parcel for condominium purposes; 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 exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; 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 Application; and

WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; 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 July 15, 2024, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24-026 recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and

1168
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, on August 27, 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) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In- fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines , which consists of the following conditions:

(a) The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Proj ect is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district; and

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 3.1- acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of multiple-family, single-family, and church land uses; and

(c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area, is developed with an existing church, related parking, and ornamental landscaping. The entire Project site has been disturbed by previous development and does not contain any sensitive habitat, 1169
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 4 ends

endangered, rare, or threatened species or habitat that could support sensitive species; and

(d) Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The residential development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the MDR- 25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the Air Quality, GHG, Noise, Trip Generation and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP") prepared for the Project; and

(e) The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities are within the public street and are readily available for connection; and

(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and

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

SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses 1170
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 5 ends

and development within the Airport Influence Area , as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. A s the decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2- 2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2 -4), and [ 4] Overflight Notification Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission therefore finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and

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 the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050 , and applicable area and specific plans, and planned unit developments. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan; and

(2) The design or improvement of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and applicable specific plans and planned unit developments. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district . The proposed 1171
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 6 ends

design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project will contribute to providing " [a] high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct" (Goal CD-2).

Furthermore, the Project will promote the City 's policy to "create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:

 A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;
 Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;
 Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access;  Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the "outdoor living room"), as appropriate; and
 Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users. " (Policy CD- 2.2 Neighborhood Design).

(3) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.

The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR -25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district and is physically suitable for the type of residential development proposed in terms of zoning, land use and development activity proposed, and existing and proposed site conditions.

(4) The site is physically suitable for the density/intensity of development proposed. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR -25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project site is proposed for residential development at a density of 22.6 DUs/acre. The Project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district and is physically suitable for this proposed density / intensity of development.

1172
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 7 ends

(5) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. The Project site is not located in an area that has been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor does the site contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no wetland habitat is present on site; therefore, the design of the subdivision, or improvements proposed thereon, are not likely to cause substanti al environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat.

(6) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed subdivision, and the multiple-family residential buildings, landscaping, and parking improvements existing or proposed on the Project site, are not likely to cause serious public health problems, as the Project is not anticipated to involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or Project implementation, include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels , nor are there any known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the subject site that use/store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors or occupants to the Project site.

(7) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision has provided for all necessary public easements and dedications f or access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. Furthermore, all such public easements and dedications have been designed pursuant to: (a) the requirements of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050 and applicable area plans; (b) applicable specific plans or planned unit developments; (c) applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code; (d) applicable master plans and design guidelines of the City; and (e) applicable Standard Drawings of the City.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A ," and incorporated herein by this reference.

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 1173
1174
1175
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PMTT23-008 (TTM 20659)
August 27, 2024

Page 10 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PMTT23-008
Departmental Conditions of Approval

(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page)

1176

Page 1 of 7 ends

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

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared:7/15/2024
File No:PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037
Project Description:A public hearing to consider Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008), subdividing 3.1 acres of land into one parcel for condominium purposes, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037) to construct 70 multiple-family residential condominium units on the project site, including 7 moderate affordable dwellings, located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district; (APN(s): 1008-551-12); submitted by Warmington Residential, LLC.

Prepared By:Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2413 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1Time Limits.
(a)Tentative Tract Map approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless the final tract map has been recorded, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Development Code Section 2.02.025 (Time Limits and Extensions). This Permit does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein for performance of specific conditions or improvements. (b)Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director. This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2Subdivision Map.
1177
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 2 of 7 ends

(a)The Final Tract Map shall be in conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map on file with the City. Variations rom the approved Tentative Tract Map may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. A substantial variation from the approved Tentative Tract Map may require review and approval by the Planning Commission, as determined by the Planning Director.
(b)Tentative Tract Map approval shall be subject to all conditions, requirements and recommendations from all other departments/agencies provided on the attached reports/memorandums.
(c)The subject Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes shall require the recordation of a condominium plan concurrent with the recordation of the Final Tract Map and CC&Rs.
(d)Pursuant to California Government Section 66474.9, the subdivider agrees that it will 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.3General Requirements. The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
(a)All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department. (b)The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. (c)The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for project, which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.4Landscaping.
(a)The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).
(b)Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Division.
1178
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 3 of 7 ends

(c)Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division. (d)Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.

2.5Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions).

2.6Parking, Circulation and Access.
(a)The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).
(b)All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. (c)Areas provided to meet the City's parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.
(d)The required number of off-street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use. (e)Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8). (f)Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction with development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). Final design and placement of bicycle parking facilities shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.

2.7Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas.
(a)Areas designated for off-street parking, loading, and vehicular circulation and maneuvering, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials or equipment. (b)The minimum gate height for screen wall openings shall be established based upon the corresponding wall height, as follows:
1179
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 4 of 7 ends

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
14 feet: 10 feet
12 feet: 9 feet
10 feet: 8 feet
8 feet: 8 feet
6 feet: 6 feet

2.8Site Lighting.
(a)All off-street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.
(b)Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.9Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.
(a)All exterior roof-mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.
(b)All ground-mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.10Security Standards. The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.11Signs.
(a)All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).
(b)On-site posting of public noticing shall be provided pursuant to Code Section 2.03.010.C.4, which consists of one, 6-foot-tall, freestanding public notification signs. The sign face shall measure 4 feet tall by 8 feet wide, in a format approved by the Planning Director.

The sign shall be posted no later than ten calendar days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date and removed no later than fourteen calendar days following the Planning Commission hearing date, unless otherwise required by the Planning Director. The format is available on the City's website.
1180
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 5 of 7 ends

2.12Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noise levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.13Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)/Mutual Access and Maintenance Agreements.
(a)CC&Rs shall be prepared for the Project and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(b)The CC&Rs shall be in a form and contain provisions satisfactory to the City.

The articles of incorporation for the property owners association and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
(c)CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between parcels, and common maintenance of:
(i)Landscaping and irrigation systems within common areas; (ii)Landscaping and irrigation systems within parkways adjacent to the project site, including that portion of any public highway right-of-way between the property line or right-of-way boundary line and the curb line and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a median divider (Ontario Municipal Code Section 7-3.03), pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-22-02;
(iii)Shared parking facilities and access drives; and
(iv)Utility and drainage easements.
(d)CC&Rs shall include authorization for the City's local law enforcement officers to enforce City and State traffic and penal codes within the project area. (e)The CC&Rs shall grant the City of Ontario the right of enforcement of the CC&R provisions.
(f)A specific methodology/procedure shall be established within the CC&Rs for enforcement of its provisions by the City of Ontario, if adequate maintenance of the development does not occur, such as, but not limited to, provisions that would grant the City the right of access to correct maintenance issues and assess the property owners association for all costs incurred.

2.14Disclosure Statements.
(a)A copy of the Public Report from the Department of Real Estate, prepared for the subdivision pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 11000, et seq., shall be provided to each prospective buyer of the residential units and shall include a statement to the effect that:
(i)This tract is subject to noise from the Ontario International Airport and may be more severely impacted in the future.
(ii)This tract is part of a Landscape Maintenance District. The homeowners will be assessed through their property taxes for the continuing maintenance of the district.
1181
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 6 of 7 ends

2.15Environmental Requirements.
(a)If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).
(b)If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.16Indemnification. 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.17Additional Fees.
(a)Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Exemption ("NOE") filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

The filing of a NOE is voluntary; however, failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.
(b)After the Project's entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department's Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.

2.18Final Occupancy. The Project Architect of record will certify that construction of each building site and the exterior elevations of each structure shall be completed in compliance with the approved plans. Any deviation to approved plans shall require a resubmittal to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to construction. The Occupancy Release Request Form/Architect Certificate of Compliance shall be provided prior to final occupancy.

After the receipt of this Certification, the Planning Department will conduct a final site and exterior elevations inspection. The Owner's Representative and Contractor shall be present.

2.19Additional Requirements.
(a)The Applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City for 7 Moderate Affordable Units prior to the issuance of building permits. (b)All guest parking shall be clearly labeled as "guest parking" spaces. 1182
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 7 of 7 ends

(c)All downspouts shall be strategically located to minimize their look along the side of the structures. They shall also be painted to match the adjacent wall color(s) in which they are located. Construction plans shall include such a note. (d)All new walls shall be constructed of split face block, slump stone, or plastered, textured, and painted to match the main structures. (e)Prior to occupancy, a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. The Plan shall illustrate what parking space (excluding enclosed garages) are assigned to each unit, if applicable. (f)Once the construction plans have been approved by the City and permits have been issued, the Applicant/Developer shall submit two reduced copies (11" x 17") of the approved plans to the Planning Department.
(g)All windows on the south side of the end units in Buildings 5 and 8, adjacent to the southwest and southeast corners of the project site, shall be frosted and view obscuring from those units, to provide privacy and screening to the existing single-family residences to the south. The screen windows shall be provided on the building plans and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. (h)Along the south property line, and where site conditions allow, additional trees shall be planted to screen the Project from the existing single-family residences to the south.

The Applicant/Developer shall plant tall, narrow screening trees spaced 28 to 30 feet on-center from 36" box trees; consider the following options: Trsitania conferta (3" a year, mature height 30'- 50'), Podocarpus gracilior (3" a year, mature height of 50'-70'), and Quercus ilex (2" a year, mature height 40'-60'). The additional trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plan and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to permit issuance. (i)The Applicant/Developer shall work with staff during the building plan check process to enhance the Project architecture as feasible. 1183

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Form Updated: March 3, 2016Page 1
Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PMTT23-008 and PDEV23-037
Northeast corner of Guasti Road and Haven Avenue
0210-212-60
Religious Assembly
Subdivide 3.1 acres of land into one parcel for condominium purposes and construct 70 multiple-family units

3.1 n/a
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.

Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Required for Airport in Vicinity ✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Thomas Grahn
7/9/2024
2023-019
n/a
41 FT
200 FT +
1184

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Planning Department

FROM: Paul Ehrman, Sr. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department

DATE: October 17, 2023

SUBJECT: PDEV23-037 - A Development Plan to construct 70 multiple -family dwellings, including 7 moderate income affordable dwellings, on approximately 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential) zoning district (APN: 1008 -551-12).

Related File(s): PMTT23-008.

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2022 CBC Type of Construction: V-B

B. Type of Roof Materials: Ordinary

C. Ground Floor Area(s): Varies, 12 Buildings

D. Number of Stories: 3

E. Total Square Footage: Largest is 12,236 Sq. Ft.

F. 2022 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): R2

1185

2 of 4

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario web site at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (1 50’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all -weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide. See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radi us for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty -five feet (25’) inside and forty- five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be instal- led in inter ior access road ways, in locations where vehi cle park ing would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 S ecurity gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H- 001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty- four feet (24’) wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.

1186

3 of 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 1500 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 2 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a maximum spacing of three hundred f eet (300’) apart, on alternating sides of the street. Streets with a center median shall require public hydrants spaced five hundred feet (500’) apart, on the same side of the street.

3.4 The water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 On-site private fire hydrants are required per Standard #D -005, and identified in accordance with Standard #D-002. Installation and locations(s) are subject to the approval of the Fire Department. An application with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.2 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R, easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of fire department plan ch eck.

The shared use of
private fire mains or fire pumps is allowable only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.4 Wood frame buildings that are to be sprinkled shall have these systems in service (but not necessarily finaled) before the building is enclosed.

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or ad dresses shall be placed on all new and exist ing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Multi- tenant or building projects shall have addresses and/or suite numbers provided on the rear of 1187

4 of 4

the building. Address num bers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.3 Single station smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are required to be installed per the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.

5.4 Multiple unit building complexes shall have building directories provided at the main entrances. The directories shall be designed to the requirement s of the Fire Department, s ee Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standard #H-003.

5.5 All residential chimneys shall be equipped with an approved spark arrest er meet ing the requirements of the California Building Code.

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.

1188

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
3/27/2024
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV23-037 & PMTT23-008
Case Planner:

Thomas Grahn
Project Name and Location:

Ontario Sunrise – 70 Multiple-Family Dwellings
1355 W 5th Street
Applicant/Representative:

Warmington Residential – [email protected]
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92326

Preliminary Plans (dated 3/11/2024) meet the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved considering that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required before Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE.

Civil/Site Plans

1. Replacement and mitigation for removed trees shall equal the trunk diameter of heritage trees removed per the Development Code Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, section 6.05.020. A total of 200 inches of trunk replacement is required; see #2 for mitigation options.

2. Show on demo plans and landscape construction plans trees to be preserved, removed or mitigation measures for trees removed, such as:
a. New 15 gallon trees min 1” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. 200 trees in addition to required trees.
b. New 24” box trees min 1.5” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. 133 trees in addition to required trees.
c. Upsizing trees on the plan one size larger such as 15 gallon to 24” box, or 24” to 36” box size. Provide a matrix with upsizing information.
d. Monetary value of the trees removed as identified in the “Guide for Plant Appraisal,” approved certified arborist plant appraiser, may be equal to the value of the installation cost of planting, fertilizing, staking, and irrigating 15-gallon trees (100$ each) to the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Fund for city tree planting or city approved combination of the above items. Monetary value is $20,000.

3. Locate modular wetlands/biofiltration unit out of the landscape areas; these systems are not maintained properly when located within the open/common landscape spaces.

4. Reduce drive aisles to 24’. All planters must have a minimum 5’ wide inside dimension to be counted towards the overall landscape open/common space percentage. Landscape planters shall have a minimum width of 3’ otherwise.

5. Show transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

6. Show all backflow devices set back 4’ from paving on all sides. Locate on level grade.

7. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” wide 1189
monolithic concrete curb, DG paving or pavers with edging.

Landscape Plans

8. Show backflow devices with 36” high strappy leaf shrub screening and trash enclosures and transformers, a 4’-5’ high evergreen hedge screening. Do not encircle utility; show as masses and duplicate masses in other locations at regular intervals.

9. Locate light standards, fire hydrants, water, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations. Coordinate civil plans with landscape plans..

10. Show all utilities on the landscape plans. Coordinate so utilities are clear of tree locations.

11. Show parkway landscape max 18” high: such as Baccharis, Lonicera, Kurapia, etc., and street trees spaced 30’ apart.

12. Show 6’ diameter of mulch only at new trees. Detail irrigation dripline outside of mulched root zone.

13. Designer or developer to provide agronomical soil testing and include a report on landscape construction plans.

14. Show minimum on-site tree sizes per the Landscape Development standards; see the Landscape Planning website. 5% 48” box, 10% 36 box, 30% 24” box, 55% 15 gallon.

15. Show 25% of trees as California native (Platanus racemosa, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus wislizenii, Quercus douglasii, Cercis occidentalis, etc.) in appropriate locations.

16. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See http://www.ontarioca.gov/landscape-planning/standards

17. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council. 1190

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner

FROM: Heather Lugo, MA, Police Department

DATE: October 16, 2023 – REVISED 7/23/24

SUBJECT: PDEV23-037 - A Development Plan approval to construct 70 multiple-family dwellings, including 7 moderate affordable dwellings, on approximately 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential) zoning district (APN: 1008-551-12). Related File(s): PMTT23-008.

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017 -027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below.

• Required lighting for all walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor. Photometrics shall be provided to the Police Department and include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal -resistant requirement. Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
• Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the buildings as stated in the Standard Conditions. The numbers shall be at a minimum 6 feet tall and 2 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. Associated letters shall also be included.
• The Applicant shall comply with construction site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions.
• All exterior electrical outlets shall be secured and locked. • All exterior water spigots / water supply sources shall be secured and locked.

The Applicant is invited to contact Heather Lugo at (909) 408 -1074 with any questions or concerns regarding these conditions.

1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-043

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PDEV23-037, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 70 MULTIPLE -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, INCLUDING 7 MODERATE
INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS ON 3.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1355 WEST 5TH STREET, WITHIN THE LDR -5 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL – 2.1 TO 5.0 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1008-551-12.

WHEREAS, WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC (hereinafter referred to "Applicant") filed an Application to requesting approval of a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), as described in the Subject of this Resolution (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Application applies to 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, that is presently occupied by existing Sunrise Ontario Church and is located within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; and

WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the LDR -5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and MDR -25 (Medium Density Residential — 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning districts and contain existing multiple-family and single- family land uses. The properties to the east and west are within the LDR -5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing churches land uses.

The properties to the south are within the LDR -5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing single-family land uses; and

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application (File No. PPRE23-002) that included plans, a project description, and the State of California's Senate Bill (SB 330) Preliminary Application form for a proposed 70 unit multiple-family condominium development on the Project site. The City reviewed that submittal for consistency with Government Code Section 65941.1 and on June 30, 2023, communicated to the Applicant information that was missing from their submittal. On October 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), completing the submittal requirements, thereby vesting their Preliminary Application and the ordinances, policies, and standards that apply to the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Project proposes the development of 70 multiple- family condominium units, including 7 moderate income affordable units, and associated site improvements including parking, landscape, infrastructure, among others, on approximately 3.1 acres of land within the Project site; and

1211
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; 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 Application; and

WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; 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 July 15, 2024, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24-027 recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and

WHEREAS, on August 27, 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. 1212
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 3 ends

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) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In- fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines , which consists of the following conditions:

(a) The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district; and

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 3.1- acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of multiple-family, single-family, and church land uses; and

(c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area, is developed with an existing church, related parking, and ornamental landscaping. The entire Project site has been disturbed by previous development and does not contain any sensitive habitat, endangered, rare, or threatened species or habitat that could support sensitive species; and

(d) Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The residential development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects 1213
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 4 ends

within the MDR- 25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the Air Quality, GHG, Noise, Trip Generation and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP") prepared for the Project; and

(e) The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities are within the public street and are readily available for connection; and

(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and

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

SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 , et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area , as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. A s the decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2- 2), [2] Noise Criteria 1214
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 5 ends

(ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2 -4), and [ 4] Overflight Notification Zones ( ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission therefore finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and

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 the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050 . The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR - 25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR -25 (Medium Density Residential —18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and m aintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050.

(2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off-street parking spaces, on- site and off-site landscaping, and fences and walls, among others.

(3) The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the Project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Development Code are maintained; [ii] the Project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the Project will be in harmony with the area in 1215
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 6 ends

which it is located; and [v] the Project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and the Development Code.

(4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the Development Code that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as -well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (Medium Density Residential). As a result of this review, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the Development Code.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A ," and incorporated herein by this reference.

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 the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 7: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East " B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 8: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

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

1216
1217
1218
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-037
August 27, 2024

Page 9 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV23-037
Departmental Conditions of Approval

(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page)

1219

Page 1 of 7 ends

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

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared:7/15/2024
File No:PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037
Project Description:A public hearing to consider Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008), subdividing 3.1 acres of land into one parcel for condominium purposes, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037) to construct 70 multiple-family residential condominium units on the project site, including 7 moderate affordable dwellings, located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district; (APN(s): 1008-551-12); submitted by Warmington Residential, LLC.

Prepared By:Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2413 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1Time Limits.
(a)Tentative Tract Map approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless the final tract map has been recorded, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Development Code Section 2.02.025 (Time Limits and Extensions). This Permit does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein for performance of specific conditions or improvements. (b)Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director. This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2Subdivision Map.
1220
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 2 of 7 ends

(a)The Final Tract Map shall be in conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map on file with the City. Variations rom the approved Tentative Tract Map may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. A substantial variation from the approved Tentative Tract Map may require review and approval by the Planning Commission, as determined by the Planning Director.
(b)Tentative Tract Map approval shall be subject to all conditions, requirements and recommendations from all other departments/agencies provided on the attached reports/memorandums.
(c)The subject Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes shall require the recordation of a condominium plan concurrent with the recordation of the Final Tract Map and CC&Rs.
(d)Pursuant to California Government Section 66474.9, the subdivider agrees that it will 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.3General Requirements. The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
(a)All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department. (b)The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. (c)The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for project, which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.4Landscaping.
(a)The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).
(b)Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Division.
1221
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 3 of 7 ends

(c)Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division. (d)Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.

2.5Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions).

2.6Parking, Circulation and Access.
(a)The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).
(b)All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. (c)Areas provided to meet the City's parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.
(d)The required number of off-street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use. (e)Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8). (f)Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction with development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). Final design and placement of bicycle parking facilities shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.

2.7Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas.
(a)Areas designated for off-street parking, loading, and vehicular circulation and maneuvering, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials or equipment. (b)The minimum gate height for screen wall openings shall be established based upon the corresponding wall height, as follows:
1222
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 4 of 7 ends

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
14 feet: 10 feet
12 feet: 9 feet
10 feet: 8 feet
8 feet: 8 feet
6 feet: 6 feet

2.8Site Lighting.
(a)All off-street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.
(b)Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.9Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.
(a)All exterior roof-mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.
(b)All ground-mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.10Security Standards. The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.11Signs.
(a)All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).
(b)On-site posting of public noticing shall be provided pursuant to Code Section 2.03.010.C.4, which consists of one, 6-foot-tall, freestanding public notification signs. The sign face shall measure 4 feet tall by 8 feet wide, in a format approved by the Planning Director.

The sign shall be posted no later than ten calendar days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date and removed no later than fourteen calendar days following the Planning Commission hearing date, unless otherwise required by the Planning Director. The format is available on the City's website.
1223
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 5 of 7 ends

2.12Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noise levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.13Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)/Mutual Access and Maintenance Agreements.
(a)CC&Rs shall be prepared for the Project and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(b)The CC&Rs shall be in a form and contain provisions satisfactory to the City.

The articles of incorporation for the property owners association and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
(c)CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between parcels, and common maintenance of:
(i)Landscaping and irrigation systems within common areas; (ii)Landscaping and irrigation systems within parkways adjacent to the project site, including that portion of any public highway right-of-way between the property line or right-of-way boundary line and the curb line and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a median divider (Ontario Municipal Code Section 7-3.03), pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-22-02;
(iii)Shared parking facilities and access drives; and
(iv)Utility and drainage easements.
(d)CC&Rs shall include authorization for the City's local law enforcement officers to enforce City and State traffic and penal codes within the project area. (e)The CC&Rs shall grant the City of Ontario the right of enforcement of the CC&R provisions.
(f)A specific methodology/procedure shall be established within the CC&Rs for enforcement of its provisions by the City of Ontario, if adequate maintenance of the development does not occur, such as, but not limited to, provisions that would grant the City the right of access to correct maintenance issues and assess the property owners association for all costs incurred.

2.14Disclosure Statements.
(a)A copy of the Public Report from the Department of Real Estate, prepared for the subdivision pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 11000, et seq., shall be provided to each prospective buyer of the residential units and shall include a statement to the effect that:
(i)This tract is subject to noise from the Ontario International Airport and may be more severely impacted in the future.
(ii)This tract is part of a Landscape Maintenance District. The homeowners will be assessed through their property taxes for the continuing maintenance of the district.
1224
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 6 of 7 ends

2.15Environmental Requirements.
(a)If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).
(b)If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.16Indemnification. 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.17Additional Fees.
(a)Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Exemption ("NOE") filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

The filing of a NOE is voluntary; however, failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.
(b)After the Project's entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department's Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.

2.18Final Occupancy. The Project Architect of record will certify that construction of each building site and the exterior elevations of each structure shall be completed in compliance with the approved plans. Any deviation to approved plans shall require a resubmittal to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to construction. The Occupancy Release Request Form/Architect Certificate of Compliance shall be provided prior to final occupancy.

After the receipt of this Certification, the Planning Department will conduct a final site and exterior elevations inspection. The Owner's Representative and Contractor shall be present.

2.19Additional Requirements.
(a)The Applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City for 7 Moderate Affordable Units prior to the issuance of building permits. (b)All guest parking shall be clearly labeled as "guest parking" spaces. 1225
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PMTT23-008 & PDEV23-037

Page 7 of 7 ends

(c)All downspouts shall be strategically located to minimize their look along the side of the structures. They shall also be painted to match the adjacent wall color(s) in which they are located. Construction plans shall include such a note. (d)All new walls shall be constructed of split face block, slump stone, or plastered, textured, and painted to match the main structures. (e)Prior to occupancy, a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. The Plan shall illustrate what parking space (excluding enclosed garages) are assigned to each unit, if applicable. (f)Once the construction plans have been approved by the City and permits have been issued, the Applicant/Developer shall submit two reduced copies (11" x 17") of the approved plans to the Planning Department.
(g)All windows on the south side of the end units in Buildings 5 and 8, adjacent to the southwest and southeast corners of the project site, shall be frosted and view obscuring from those units, to provide privacy and screening to the existing single-family residences to the south. The screen windows shall be provided on the building plans and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. (h)Along the south property line, and where site conditions allow, additional trees shall be planted to screen the Project from the existing single-family residences to the south.

The Applicant/Developer shall plant tall, narrow screening trees spaced 28 to 30 feet on-center from 36" box trees; consider the following options: Trsitania conferta (3" a year, mature height 30'- 50'), Podocarpus gracilior (3" a year, mature height of 50'-70'), and Quercus ilex (2" a year, mature height 40'-60'). The additional trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plan and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to permit issuance. (i)The Applicant/Developer shall work with staff during the building plan check process to enhance the Project architecture as feasible. 1226

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Form Updated: March 3, 2016Page 1
Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PMTT23-008 and PDEV23-037
Northeast corner of Guasti Road and Haven Avenue
0210-212-60
Religious Assembly
Subdivide 3.1 acres of land into one parcel for condominium purposes and construct 70 multiple-family units

3.1 n/a
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.

Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Required for Airport in Vicinity ✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Thomas Grahn
7/9/2024
2023-019
n/a
41 FT
200 FT +
1227

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Planning Department

FROM: Paul Ehrman, Sr. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department

DATE: October 17, 2023

SUBJECT: PDEV23-037 - A Development Plan to construct 70 multiple -family dwellings, including 7 moderate income affordable dwellings, on approximately 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential) zoning district (APN: 1008 -551-12).

Related File(s): PMTT23-008.

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2022 CBC Type of Construction: V-B

B. Type of Roof Materials: Ordinary

C. Ground Floor Area(s): Varies, 12 Buildings

D. Number of Stories: 3

E. Total Square Footage: Largest is 12,236 Sq. Ft.

F. 2022 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): R2

1228

2 of 4

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario web site at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (1 50’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all -weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide. See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radi us for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty -five feet (25’) inside and forty- five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be instal- led in inter ior access road ways, in locations where vehi cle park ing would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 S ecurity gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H- 001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty- four feet (24’) wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.

1229

3 of 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 1500 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 2 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a maximum spacing of three hundred f eet (300’) apart, on alternating sides of the street. Streets with a center median shall require public hydrants spaced five hundred feet (500’) apart, on the same side of the street.

3.4 The water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 On-site private fire hydrants are required per Standard #D -005, and identified in accordance with Standard #D-002. Installation and locations(s) are subject to the approval of the Fire Department. An application with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.2 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R, easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of fire department plan ch eck.

The shared use of
private fire mains or fire pumps is allowable only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.4 Wood frame buildings that are to be sprinkled shall have these systems in service (but not necessarily finaled) before the building is enclosed.

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or ad dresses shall be placed on all new and exist ing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Multi- tenant or building projects shall have addresses and/or suite numbers provided on the rear of 1230

4 of 4

the building. Address num bers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.3 Single station smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are required to be installed per the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.

5.4 Multiple unit building complexes shall have building directories provided at the main entrances. The directories shall be designed to the requirement s of the Fire Department, s ee Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standard #H-003.

5.5 All residential chimneys shall be equipped with an approved spark arrest er meet ing the requirements of the California Building Code.

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.

1231

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
3/27/2024
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV23-037 & PMTT23-008
Case Planner:

Thomas Grahn
Project Name and Location:

Ontario Sunrise – 70 Multiple-Family Dwellings
1355 W 5th Street
Applicant/Representative:

Warmington Residential – [email protected]
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92326

Preliminary Plans (dated 3/11/2024) meet the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved considering that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required before Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE.

Civil/Site Plans

1. Replacement and mitigation for removed trees shall equal the trunk diameter of heritage trees removed per the Development Code Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, section 6.05.020. A total of 200 inches of trunk replacement is required; see #2 for mitigation options.

2. Show on demo plans and landscape construction plans trees to be preserved, removed or mitigation measures for trees removed, such as:
a. New 15 gallon trees min 1” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. 200 trees in addition to required trees.
b. New 24” box trees min 1.5” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. 133 trees in addition to required trees.
c. Upsizing trees on the plan one size larger such as 15 gallon to 24” box, or 24” to 36” box size. Provide a matrix with upsizing information.
d. Monetary value of the trees removed as identified in the “Guide for Plant Appraisal,” approved certified arborist plant appraiser, may be equal to the value of the installation cost of planting, fertilizing, staking, and irrigating 15-gallon trees (100$ each) to the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Fund for city tree planting or city approved combination of the above items. Monetary value is $20,000.

3. Locate modular wetlands/biofiltration unit out of the landscape areas; these systems are not maintained properly when located within the open/common landscape spaces.

4. Reduce drive aisles to 24’. All planters must have a minimum 5’ wide inside dimension to be counted towards the overall landscape open/common space percentage. Landscape planters shall have a minimum width of 3’ otherwise.

5. Show transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

6. Show all backflow devices set back 4’ from paving on all sides. Locate on level grade.

7. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” wide 1232
monolithic concrete curb, DG paving or pavers with edging.

Landscape Plans

8. Show backflow devices with 36” high strappy leaf shrub screening and trash enclosures and transformers, a 4’-5’ high evergreen hedge screening. Do not encircle utility; show as masses and duplicate masses in other locations at regular intervals.

9. Locate light standards, fire hydrants, water, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations. Coordinate civil plans with landscape plans..

10. Show all utilities on the landscape plans. Coordinate so utilities are clear of tree locations.

11. Show parkway landscape max 18” high: such as Baccharis, Lonicera, Kurapia, etc., and street trees spaced 30’ apart.

12. Show 6’ diameter of mulch only at new trees. Detail irrigation dripline outside of mulched root zone.

13. Designer or developer to provide agronomical soil testing and include a report on landscape construction plans.

14. Show minimum on-site tree sizes per the Landscape Development standards; see the Landscape Planning website. 5% 48” box, 10% 36 box, 30% 24” box, 55% 15 gallon.

15. Show 25% of trees as California native (Platanus racemosa, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus wislizenii, Quercus douglasii, Cercis occidentalis, etc.) in appropriate locations.

16. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See http://www.ontarioca.gov/landscape-planning/standards

17. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council. 1233

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner

FROM: Heather Lugo, MA, Police Department

DATE: October 16, 2023 – REVISED 7/23/24

SUBJECT: PDEV23-037 - A Development Plan approval to construct 70 multiple-family dwellings, including 7 moderate affordable dwellings, on approximately 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential) zoning district (APN: 1008-551-12). Related File(s): PMTT23-008.

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017 -027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below.

• Required lighting for all walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor. Photometrics shall be provided to the Police Department and include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal -resistant requirement. Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
• Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the buildings as stated in the Standard Conditions. The numbers shall be at a minimum 6 feet tall and 2 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. Associated letters shall also be included.
• The Applicant shall comply with construction site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions.
• All exterior electrical outlets shall be secured and locked. • All exterior water spigots / water supply sources shall be secured and locked.

The Applicant is invited to contact Heather Lugo at (909) 408 -1074 with any questions or concerns regarding these conditions.

1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257

September 9, 2024
Moses Kim
Warmington Residential
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Thomas Grahn
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
RE: 1355 West Fifth Street - Ontario Sunrise Project (File: PDEV23-037 and PMTT23-008) Responses to Appeal Application Filed by Greg Gomez, Dated 9/6/2024 Dear Mr. Grahn:

As you know on August 27, 2024, Planning Commission approved PDEV23-037 and PMTT23-008, certified under resolution numbers PC24-042 and PC24-043. In Section 4 of the resolutions, the project has been determined the following concluding facts and reasons:
•The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and applicable area and specific plans, and planned unit developments. •The design or improvement of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and applicable specific plans and planned unit developments.
•The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. •The site is physically suitable for the density/intensity of development proposed. •The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat.
•The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
1258
•The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
•The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050.
•The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. •The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the Project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed Project. •The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development.

The Appeal Application filed by Greg Gomez dated September 6, 2024 states the following concerns. Warmington has provided responses in red below.

Grounds of appeal by category
Notices

1. The notice was sent in English and the city sign outside the property with the Notice of Filing was only on English leaving the Spanish community without properly understanding what the notice of filling was about it.

Response by Warmington: The notice sign located at the church property was approved and permitted by the City on June 25, 2024 per City requirements.

Resident are concern on several safety factors:

Traffic
Not only do the residents, school and churches from the immediate site project oppose this project, but also a Community Volunteer Group by the name of "Safety Routes Ontario-Montclair'' that has been advocating for this zone in Ontario since 2012. They had been a key on keeping the surrounded streets of the project that is surrounded by 4 schools as safe as possible working with the City of Ontario, Ontario Police, Schools and 1259
families of the importance of walking and biking to school. To prevent as much as possible more vehicles in the area. Please see attach document that was presented at the Planning Commission on August 27, 2024. 5th St in between Mountain Ave and Benson St, is a single line both ways that it is already impacted by Super Waltmart, condominiums, apartment complex, Anthony Munoz Park, 3 Churches, Sunrise Park, El Camino School and houses. Bringing this project will only bring more traffic, not enough street parking to all the people that live, work, attend local churches, play sports during the weekends with the AYSO 66 and Sunday Soccer League, These groups had practice everyday of the week at both of the parks. Also the families that attend the school on that street will be very affected as there will be no parking to drop, pick and attend their children's school evening events. The safety of the locals is already at risk of accidents and speeding at anytime of the day making it unsafe for the Ontario families that walk and bike to the 4 schools around.

Response by Warmington: An analysis of daily traffic volume and crash data along Fifth Street between Benson Ave and Mountain Ave was conducted in coordination with City staff and per City guidelines. Based on TJW Engineering’s Ontario Sunrise Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening memorandum dated August 21, 2024, a trip generation analysis determined that (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment February 2020) the proposed project:
•Generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips and is exempt from further traffic analysis. •Based on Opening Year with Project volumes and Figure 4C-3 contained in the CA MUTCD, a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of Elderberry Avenue and Fifth Street.
•Per SBCTA guidance and regulations, the proposed project would screen out from a Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis as it is located within a low generating area. •On its own, without taking any credit for existing church use trips, generates fewer than 100 new peak hour trips.

Based on TJW Engineering’s Ontario Sunrise Daily V olume and Crash Accident Data memorandum dated August 23, 2024, the historical data from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, between 2019 and 2023 along the segment of West Fifth Street identified:
•That only two correctable accidents during this period. 1260
•An existing roadway segment analysis was conducted for Fifth Street between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue taking into consideration existing and proposed project daily traffic volumes. It was concluded that (per the City of Ontario General Plan thresholds/standards) the roadway will operate at acceptable level of service (capacity) with the proposed project traffic volumes.

At the City’s direction, an All-Way-Stop Warrant Analysis by TJW Engineering dated January 26, 2023 was conducted for the intersection of Fifth Street and Elderberry Ave, and it was determined that an all-way stop was not warranted. The information was presented to City staff and these analyses are resulted in “less than significant” impacts.

The City has required the project to install a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at the intersection to enhance the existing crosswalk crossing at the intersection to be consistent with other existing enhanced crosswalks on Fifth Street between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue.

Health
Residents are concern of the air quality and pollution that more vehicles will bring to the area. There are many community residents who live within the 300/500 feet site radius who have adults and children who are asthmatic, with medical respiratory conditions.

Response by Warmington: The redevelopment of this property will follow all City and regional air quality standards.

Also the residents whose houses are around the project will lose their backyards privacy. This will affect them enormously on their emotionally heath as they will feel that are being seen all the time by the people living on the 3 floors condominiums right outside their back yard. Some have backyard pools that will limit them to use them freely as they will be observe all the time.

We the residents believe on our Healthy Ontario Initiative Mission which is to empower the community of Ontario to take ownership of its health and to make Ontario a model for healthy communities by improving physical, social, environmental, and economic health and well-being. We feel this housing project will be a hardship for the already residents with health issues.
1261
Response by Warmington: In efforts to maintain privacy for neighboring residents, the project will abide to the following conditions of approval:
(g) All windows on the south side of the end units in Buildings 5 and 8, adjacent to the southwest and southeast corners of the project site, shall be frosted and view obscuring from those units, to provide privacy and screening to the existing single-family residences to the south. The screen windows shall be provided on the building plans and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. (h) Along the south property line, and where site conditions allow, additional trees shall be planted to screen the Project from the existing single-family residences to the south. The Applicant/Developer shall plant tall, narrow screening trees spaced 28 to 30 feet on-center from 36" box trees; consider the following options: Trsitania conferta (3" a year, mature height 30’- 50'), Podocarpus gracilior (3" a year, mature height of 50'-70'), and Quercus ilex (2" a year, mature height 40'-60'). The additional trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plan and subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to permit issuance.

Land Zoning

1.- Residents knows that 5th St it is a Low Density Residential Zone that has been change according to the Ontario Plan 2050 several times from Low to medium back and forth. On November 21
st
2013 at the City of Ontario City
Council meeting the council approved unanimously to keep the zoning PGPA23-001 low density. We the community do not understand why a 2, 3 or 4 floors houses are being approved to be built on this low density area.

Response by Warmington: Fifth Street between Mountain and Benson has land uses of Low Density Residential, General Commercial, Open Space, Public Schools, Low Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential.

The City of Ontario approved the TOP 2050 Plan that included changing the subject parcel to Medium Density Land Use. At that time Warmington and the Sunrise Church moved forward with plans to develop the site for medium density. The City brought forward zone changes to be consistent with the approved General Plan and the Planning Commission approved them. When the zone changes came before the City Council they were met with community opposition. At that hearing the City Council decided to deny the zone changes and directed staff to then bring back a General Plan Amendment to remove the Medium Density land use designation. During this process, Warmington and the Sunrise Church made significant commitments to the redevelopment of the property. Soon thereafter an SB330 application was submitted to protect the development rights of the property in which significant resources were spent. This application locks in the development rights of a property to prevent jurisdictions from changing the rules of a housing development on an applicant during the review process.
1262
On the Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2024 it was brought to us that one of the Consideration for denial Under SB330 of a housing development project: has to complies with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and 1 of the 5 reasons for denial it is that if there is an impact to objective public health & safety standards that cannot be mitigated it might not be approved.

Response by Warmington: The project application was submitted under SB330 on June 2, 2023 and confirmed completion of the submittal requirements on October 2, 2023 which vested the project applications to the General Plan density allowance of 18.1 to 25.0 dwelling units at that time. By law, the vesting locks the project under the designation despite general plan and zoning changes that may occur thereafter. There are no objective public health & safety standards that have been identified as a result of this proposed development.

Please accept this letter as responses to addressing the Appealing Applicant’s comments related to PDEV23-037 & PMTT23-008.

Sincerely,
Moses Kim
Warmington Residential

1263
RESOLUTION NO. _______

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

CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE FILE NO. PMTT23-008, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20659, SUBDIVIDING 3.1 ACRES OF

LAND INTO ONE PARCEL FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LOCATED
AT 1355 WEST 5TH STREET, WITHIN THE LDR-5 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL – 2.1 TO 5.0 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1008-551-12.

WHEREAS, WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC (hereinafter referred to "Applicant") filed an Application to requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008), as described in the Subject of this Resolution is (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, that is presently occupied by existing Sunrise Ontario Church and is located within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential — 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning districts and contain existing multiple-family and single- family land uses. The properties to the east and west are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing churches land uses.

The properties to the south are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing single-family land uses; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application (File No. PPRE23-002) that included plans, a project description, and the State of California's Senate Bill (SB 330) Preliminary Application form for a proposed 70 unit multiple-family condominium development on the Project site. The City reviewed that submittal for consistency with Government Code Section 65941.1 and on June 30, 2023, communicated to the Applicant information that was missing from their submittal. On October 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), completing their submittal requirements, thereby vesting their Preliminary Application and the ordinances, policies, and standards that apply to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes the development of 70 multiple-family condominium units, including 7 moderate income affordable units, and associated site improvements including parking, landscape, infrastructure, among others, on approximately 3.1 acres of land within the Project site; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) will subdivide the 3.1-acre Project site into one parcel for condominium purposes; and 1264
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Planning Commission 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:

Appellants' Issue No. 1: "The notice was sent in English and the city sign outside the property with the Notice of Filing was only in English leaving the Spanish community without properly understanding what the notice of filing was about." Staff Response: Public notice for the Project was provided pursuant to Development Code Section 2.03.010 (A) and (C)(1)(3) & (4). These requirements pertain to the information to be provided, newspaper publication, and the minimum boundary for notification requirements, respectively. The Development Code does not require that public notices be provided in multiple languages. Additionally, the public notice for both the Community Meeting and the Planning Commission meeting extended beyond the minimum 300-foot boundary and provided notice to 193 property owners for both meetings. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.

Projects that are proposed to be developed at a higher density or intensity than the existing surrounding neighborhood require supplemental public notice through the placement of a large public notification sign consisting of a 6-foot-tall freestanding sign, having a sign face measuring 4 feet tall by 8 feet wide posted on the project site. This sign allows for the applicant to attach information regarding scheduled public hearings regarding the Project. This public notification sign was posted on the site prior to the Community Meeting and notice for the Planning Commission meeting was posted 10-days prior to the public hearing.

Appellants' Issue No. 2: Resident are concerned on several safety factors:
a. Traffic
"Not only do the residents, school and churches from the immediate site project oppose this project, but also a Community Volunteer Group by the name of "Safety Routes Ontario-Montclair'' that has been advocating for this zone in Ontario since 2012. They had been a key on keeping the surrounded streets of the project that is surrounded by 4 schools as safe as possible working with the City of Ontario, Ontario Police, Schools and families of the importance of walking and biking to school. To prevent as much as possible more vehicles in the area. The project has the potential for significant air pollution impacts.
5th St. in between Mountain Ave and Benson St. is a single lane both ways that is already impacted by Super Walmart, condominiums, apartment complex, Anthony Munoz Park, 3 Churches, Sunrise Park, El Camino School and houses. Bringing this project will only bring more traffic, not enough street parking to all the people that live, work, attend local churches, play sports during the weekends with the 1265
AYSO 66 and Sunday Soccer League, these groups had practiced every day of the week at both of the parks. Also, the families that attend the school on that street will be very affected as there will be no parking to drop, pic and attend their children's school evening events. The safety of the locals is already at risk of accidents and speeding at any time of the day making it unsafe for the Ontario families that walk and bike to the 4 schools around.

Staff Response: Traffic along West 5th Street is experiencing increases of traffic locally by vehicles from the community accessing local commercial, residential, educational, and public areas and regionally due to cut-through traffic and its proximity to the 10 freeway. A traffic volume analysis was prepared to evaluate the Project's impact on the local street system. The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening analysis determined that the proposed 70 residential unit project is projected to generate 472 daily trips, with 28 AM and 36 PM peak hour trips. Per the City's Engineering Department Traffic Division, the projected number of trips generated by the Project would not warrant conditioning the Project for any traffic related improvements. To address public safety concerns the City will be requiring the project to install a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at the intersection of 5th Street and Elderberry Avenue to enhance the existing crosswalk crossing at the intersection, to be consistent with other existing enhanced crosswalks on 5th Street between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue.
b. Health
Residents are concerned with the air quality and pollution that more vehicles will bring to the area. There are many community residents who live within the 300/500 feet site radius who have adults and children who are asthmatic, with medical respiratory conditions.

Also, the residents whose houses are around the project will lose their backyards privacy. This will affect them enormously on their emotionally health as they will feel that they are being seen all the time by the people living on the 3rd floor condominiums right outside their back yard. Some have backyard pools that will limit them to use them freely as they will be observed all the time.

We the residents believe on our Healthy Ontario Initiative Mission which is to empower the community of Ontario to take ownership of its health and to make Ontario a model for healthy communities by improving physical, social, environmental, and economic health and well-being. We feel this housing project will be a hardship for the already residents with health issues. The project has the potential for significant air pollution impacts.

Staff Response: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis was prepared for the project to evaluate both construction and operational Air Quality and GHG impacts. The analysis evaluated the project impacts using the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for significance and found that operational and construction impacts for both Air Quality and GHG were below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Conditions of approval require the 1266
project to comply with SCAQMD emission requirements for construction equipment and fugitive dust to minimize impacts to the surrounding community.

Conditions of approval were added to provide additional privacy to the existing residences south of the project site. These conditions include the installation of frosted view obscuring glass to the south facing windows of those units in the southwest and southeast corners of the project site. Additionally, additional tree plantings are required adjacent to the south property line, at a reduced spacing and increased tree size, so that as those trees mature additional privacy would be provided.

Appellants' Issue No. 3: "Land Zoning -Residents know that 5th St. it is a Low- Density Residential Zone that has been changed according to the Ontario Plan 2050 several times from Low to medium back and forth. On November 21, 2023, at the City of Ontario City Council meeting the council approved unanimously to keep the zoning PGPA23-001 low density. We the community do not understand why a 2, 3 or 4 floor houses are being approved to be built on this low-density area.

On the Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2024 it was brought to us that one of the Consideration for denial Under SB330 of a housing development project: has to comply with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and 1 of the 5 reasons for denial it is that if there is an impact to objective public health & safety standards that cannot be mitigated it might not be approved." Staff Response: The applicant vested development rights under SB330 to develop the site utilizing development standards of the Medium Density Residential general plan designation. The project was designed to meet the development standards of the Medium Density Residential zoning district. The project proposes the construction of 3-story townhome units at a maximum height of 39 feet. Although higher than the surrounding neighborhood, the height of the proposed units is 4 feet higher than the 35-foot height limit allowed for the surrounding Low Density Residential (LDR-5) zoning.

Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and specifically The Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record that either: 1) the local government has already met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement, 2) there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated, 3) the property is agricultural land, 4) the approval of the project would violate State or federal law and this violation cannot be mitigated, or 5) the project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation and not identified in the general plan housing element RHNA inventory.

The applicant is correct that the project is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (0 - 2du/ac); however, HAA states that in the event of an inconsistency between a general plan and zoning district land 1267
uses with submittal of the Preliminary SB 330 Application, and if a local agency has complied with certain timing requirements, it can still require a project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of another zoning district that would be consistent with the general plan.

The Project, which consists of residential units only, is a "housing development project" and entitled to protection under the HAA. The Applicant submitted a SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project following the City Council action on April 18, 2023, resulting in inconsistency between TOP 2050 Land Use Plan designation of MDR (Medium Density Residential), and the Zoning Map designation of LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district until such time the City completes the subsequent General Plan Amendment. As a result of this inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District, the City cannot find the Project inconsistent with the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district standards and criteria and cannot require a rezoning, where the Project is consistent with applicable, objective General Plan standards and criteria. The TOP 2050 MDR land use designation that was vested on October 2, 2023 as part of the Applicant’s SB 330 Preliminary Review Application allows the applicant to develop the project site utilizing the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning district at a proposed Project density of 22.6 dwelling units per acre.

None of the preceding five requirements could be established for denial, therefore the Planning Commission approved the project.

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 exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies 1268
and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; 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 July 15, 2024, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24-026 recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-042, to approve the Application by a vote of 5-0; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2024, Greg Gomez submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve File Nos. PMTT23-008 and PDEV23-037.

The basis for the appeal lies in his belief that the project was not properly noticed, that traffic and health impacts of the project will negatively impact surrounding properties, and that the project is inconsistent with development on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of the following conditions:
1269
(a) The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density
Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district; and (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 3.1- acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of multiple-family, single-family, and church land uses; and (c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area, is developed with an existing church, related parking, and ornamental landscaping. The entire Project site has been disturbed by previous development and does not contain any sensitive habitat, endangered, rare, or threatened species or habitat that could support sensitive species; and
(d) Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The residential development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the MDR- 25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the Air Quality, GHG, Noise, Trip Generation and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP") prepared for the Project; and
(e) The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities are within the public street and are readily available for connection; and
(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and (4) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
1270
SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making authority for the Project, the City Council finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council therefore finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in the Sections above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and applicable area and specific plans, and planned unit developments.

The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the 1271
Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan; and
(2) The design or improvement of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and applicable specific plans and planned unit developments. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project will contribute to providing "[a] high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human- scale, and distinct" (Goal CD-2). Furthermore, the Project will promote the City's policy to "create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:
 A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;
 Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;
 Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access;
 Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the "outdoor living room"), as appropriate; and 1272
 Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users." (Policy CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design).
(3) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.

The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to

25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district and is physically suitable for the type of residential development proposed in terms of zoning, land use and development activity proposed, and existing and proposed site conditions. (4) The site is physically suitable for the density/intensity of development proposed. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project site is proposed for residential development at a density of 22.6 DUs/acre. The Project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district and is physically suitable for this proposed density / intensity of development. (5) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. The Project site is not located in an area that has been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor does the site contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no wetland habitat is present on site; therefore, the design of the subdivision, or improvements proposed thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat.
(6) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed subdivision, and the multiple-family residential buildings, landscaping, and parking improvements existing or proposed on the Project site, are not likely to cause serious public health problems, as the Project is not anticipated to involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or Project implementation, include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels, nor are there any known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the 1273
subject site that use/store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors or occupants to the Project site. (7) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.

The proposed subdivision has provided for all necessary public easements and dedications for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. Furthermore, all such public easements and dedications have been designed pursuant to: (a) the requirements of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050 and applicable area plans; (b) applicable specific plans or planned unit developments; (c) applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code; (d) applicable master plans and design guidelines of the City; and (e) applicable Standard Drawings of the City.

SECTION 5: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision to approve the herein described Applications (File Nos. PMTT23- 008 and PDEV23-037).

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 the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 7: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 8: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
1274
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1275

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 15, 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 15, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1276
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE FILE NO. PDEV23-037, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 70 MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, INCLUDING 7 MODERATE
INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS ON 3.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1355 WEST 5TH STREET, WITHIN THE LDR-5 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL – 2.1 TO 5.0 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1008-551-12.

WHEREAS, WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC (hereinafter referred to "Applicant") filed an Application to requesting approval of a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), as described in the Subject of this Resolution (herein after referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 3.1 acres of land located at 1355 West 5th Street, that is presently occupied by existing Sunrise Ontario Church and is located within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential — 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning districts and contain existing multiple-family and single- family land uses. The properties to the east and west are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing churches land uses.

The properties to the south are within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential — 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) and contain existing single-family land uses; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application (File No. PPRE23-002) that included plans, a project description, and the State of California's Senate Bill (SB 330) Preliminary Application form for a proposed 70 unit multiple-family condominium development on the Project site. The City reviewed that submittal for consistency with Government Code Section 65941.1 and on June 30, 2023, communicated to the Applicant information that was missing from their submittal. On October 2, 2023, the Applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 20659 (File No. PMTT23-008) and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-037), completing the submittal requirements, thereby vesting their Preliminary Application and the ordinances, policies, and standards that apply to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes the development of 70 multiple-family condominium units, including 7 moderate income affordable units, and associated site improvements including parking, landscape, infrastructure, among others, on approximately 3.1 acres of land within the Project site; and 1277
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Planning Commission 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:

Appellants' Issue No. 1: "The notice was sent in English and the city sign outside the property with the Notice of Filing was only in English leaving the Spanish community without properly understanding what the notice of filing was about." Staff Response: Public notice for the Project was provided pursuant to Development Code Section 2.03.010 (A) and (C)(1)(3) & (4). These requirements pertain to the information to be provided, newspaper publication, and the minimum boundary for notification requirements, respectively. The Development Code does not require that public notices be provided in multiple languages. Additionally, the public notice for both the Community Meeting and the Planning Commission meeting extended beyond the minimum 300-foot boundary and provided notice to 193 property owners for both meetings. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.

Projects that are proposed to be developed at a higher density or intensity than the existing surrounding neighborhood require supplemental public notice through the placement of a large public notification sign consisting of a 6-foot-tall freestanding sign, having a sign face measuring 4 feet tall by 8 feet wide posted on the project site. This sign allows for the applicant to attach information regarding scheduled public hearings regarding the Project. This public notification sign was posted on the site prior to the Community Meeting and notice for the Planning Commission meeting was posted 10-days prior to the public hearing.

Appellants' Issue No. 2: Resident are concerned on several safety factors:
a. Traffic
"Not only do the residents, school and churches from the immediate site project oppose this project, but also a Community Volunteer Group by the name of "Safety Routes Ontario-Montclair'' that has been advocating for this zone in Ontario since 2012. They had been a key on keeping the surrounded streets of the project that is surrounded by 4 schools as safe as possible working with the City of Ontario, Ontario Police, Schools and families of the importance of walking and biking to school. To prevent as much as possible more vehicles in the area. The project has the potential for significant air pollution impacts.
5th St. in between Mountain Ave and Benson St. is a single lane both ways that is already impacted by Super Walmart, condominiums, apartment complex, Anthony Munoz Park, 3 Churches, Sunrise Park, El Camino School and houses. Bringing this project will only bring more traffic, not enough street parking to all the people that live, work, attend local churches, play sports during the weekends with the AYSO 66 and Sunday Soccer League, these groups had practiced every day of 1278
the week at both of the parks. Also, the families that attend the school on that street will be very affected as there will be no parking to drop, pic and attend their children's school evening events. The safety of the locals is already at risk of accidents and speeding at any time of the day making it unsafe for the Ontario families that walk and bike to the 4 schools around.

Staff Response: Traffic along West 5th Street is experiencing increases of traffic locally by vehicles from the community accessing local commercial, residential, educational, and public areas and regionally due to cut-through traffic and its proximity to the 10 freeway. A traffic volume analysis was prepared to evaluate the Project's impact on the local street system. The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening analysis determined that the proposed 70 residential unit project is projected to generate 472 daily trips, with 28 AM and 36 PM peak hour trips. Per the City's Engineering Department Traffic Division, the projected number of trips generated by the Project site would not warrant conditioning the Project for any traffic related improvements. To address public safety concerns the City will be requiring the project to install a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at the intersection of 5th Street and Elderberry Avenue to enhance the existing crosswalk crossing at the intersection, to be consistent with other existing enhanced crosswalks on 5th Street between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue.
b. Health
Residents are concerned with the air quality and pollution that more vehicles will bring to the area. There are many community residents who live within the 300/500 feet site radius who have adults and children who are asthmatic, with medical respiratory conditions.

Also, the residents whose houses are around the project will lose their backyards privacy. This will affect them enormously on their emotionally health as they will feel that they are being seen all the time by the people living on the 3rd floor condominiums right outside their back yard. Some have backyard pools that will limit them to use them freely as they will be observed all the time.

We the residents believe on our Healthy Ontario Initiative Mission which is to empower the community of Ontario to take ownership of its health and to make Ontario a model for healthy communities by improving physical, social, environmental, and economic health and well-being. We feel this housing project will be a hardship for the already residents with health issues. The project has the potential for significant air pollution impacts.

Staff Response: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis was prepared for the project to evaluate both construction and operational Air Quality and GHG impacts. The analysis evaluated the project impacts using the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for significance and found that operational and construction impacts for both Air Quality and GHG were below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Conditions of approval require the 1279
project to comply with SCAQMD emission requirements for construction equipment and fugitive dust to minimize impacts to the surrounding community.

Conditions of approval were added to provide additional privacy to the existing residences south of the project site. These conditions include the installation of frosted view obscuring glass to the south facing windows of those units in the southwest and southeast corners of the project site. Additionally, additional tree plantings are required adjacent to the south property line, at a reduced spacing and increased tree size, so that as those trees mature additional privacy would be provided.

Appellants' Issue No. 3: "Land Zoning -Residents know that 5th St. it is a Low- Density Residential Zone that has been changed according to the Ontario Plan 2050 several times from Low to medium back and forth. On November 21, 2023, at the City of Ontario City Council meeting the council approved unanimously to keep the zoning PGPA23-001 low density. We the community do not understand why a 2, 3 or 4 floor houses are being approved to be built on this low-density area.

On the Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2024 it was brought to us that one of the Consideration for denial Under SB330 of a housing development project: has to comply with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and 1 of the 5 reasons for denial it is that if there is an impact to objective public health & safety standards that cannot be mitigated it might not be approved." Staff Response: The applicant vested development rights under SB330 to develop the site utilizing development standards of the Medium Density Residential general plan designation. The project was designed to meet the development standards of the Medium Density Residential zoning district. The project proposes the construction of 3-story townhome units at a maximum height of 39 feet. Although higher than the surrounding neighborhood, the height of the proposed units is 4 feet higher than the 35-foot height limit allowed for the surrounding Low Density Residential (LDR-5) zoning.

Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and specifically The Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record that either: 1) the local government has already met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement, 2) there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated, 3) the property is agricultural land, 4) the approval of the project would violate State or federal law and this violation cannot be mitigated, or 5) the project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation and not identified in the general plan housing element RHNA inventory.

The applicant is correct that the project is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (0 - 2du/ac); however, HAA states that in the event of an inconsistency between a general plan and zoning district land 1280
uses with submittal of the Preliminary SB 330 Application, and if a local agency has complied with certain timing requirements, it can still require a project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of another zoning district that would be consistent with the general plan.

The Project, which consists of residential units only, is a "housing development project" and entitled to protection under the HAA. The Applicant submitted a SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Project following the City Council action on April 18, 2023, resulting in inconsistency between TOP 2050 Land Use Plan designation of MDR (Medium Density Residential), and the Zoning Map designation of LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district until such time the City completes the subsequent General Plan Amendment. As a result of this inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District, the City cannot find the Project inconsistent with the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 DU/Acre) zoning district standards and criteria and cannot require a rezoning, where the Project is consistent with applicable, objective General Plan standards and criteria. The TOP 2050 MDR land use designation that was vested on October 2, 2023 as part of the Applicant’s SB 330 Preliminary Review Application allows the applicant to develop the project site utilizing the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential 18.1 to 25.0 DU/Acre) zoning district at a proposed Project density of 22.6 dwelling units per acre.

None of the preceding five requirements could be established for denial, therefore the Planning Commission approved the project.

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 categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies 1281
and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; 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 July 15, 2024, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24-027 recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-043, to approve the Application by a vote of 5-0; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2024, Greg Gomez submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve File Nos. PMTT23-008 and PDEV23-037.

The basis for the appeal lies in his belief that the project was not properly noticed, that traffic and health impacts of the project will negatively impact surrounding properties, and that the project is inconsistent with development on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of the following conditions:
1282
(a) The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density
Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district; and (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 3.1- acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of multiple-family, single-family, and church land uses; and (c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area, is developed with an existing church, related parking, and ornamental landscaping. The entire Project site has been disturbed by previous development and does not contain any sensitive habitat, endangered, rare, or threatened species or habitat that could support sensitive species; and
(d) Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The residential development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the MDR- 25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the Air Quality, GHG, Noise, Trip Generation and vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP") prepared for the Project; and
(e) The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities are within the public street and are readily available for connection; and
(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and (4) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
1283
SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making authority for the Project, the City Council finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council therefore finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in the Sections above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050. The proposed Project is located within the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map; however, pursuant to SB 330 and Government Code Section 65941.1, the Project vested under the MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use 1284
designation and proposes to utilize development standards applicable to the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the MDR-25 (Medium Density Residential—18.1 to 25.0 DUs/Acre) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off- street parking spaces, on- site and off-site landscaping, and fences and walls, among others.
(3) The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the Project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed Project. The City Council has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Development Code are maintained; [ii] the Project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the Project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the Project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan 2050, and the Development Code.
(4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the Development Code that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (Medium Density Residential). As a result of this review, the City Council has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the Development Code. 1285
SECTION 5: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision to approve the herein described Applications (File Nos. PMTT23- 008 and PDEV23-037).

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 the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 7: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 8: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1286

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 15, 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 15, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1287
Department: Broadband Operations
Prepared By: Jimmy Chang
Department:

Prepared By: Jimmy Chang
Staff Member Presenting: Jimmy Chang,
Broadband General Manager
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH BROADBAND FEES FOR ONTARIONET

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 15, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARING

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution to adopt a schedule of fees, as well as charges for late or declined payments, including the maximum and minimum rates that OntarioNet may charge customers to access and use OntarioNet’s fiber optic network to connect to the Internet and to obtain communications services, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, and to delegate authority to the City Manager to establish rate plans for residential and small business customers, and negotiate contract rates with large commercial customers within those established ranges, and to set all the other terms, conditions and policies applicable to customer access and use of OntarioNet’s fiber optic network and related services.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT:

If approved, the City expects to receive revenues in excess of $1 million annually from these fees.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

Since 2015, the City has had a revenue stream from the operation of the OntarioNet’s fiber optic network through an agreement with Inyo Networks (Onward) that allowed Onward to operate and use a portion of OntarioNet’s fiber optic network to market and deliver Internet, voice and video services to residents and businesses in Ontario Ranch and other commercial areas of the City near the network backbone, establish the rates for those services, and share the service revenues with 1288
the City. In April 2024, the City notified Onward of its intent to exercise its contractual right to terminate that agreement. The City is preparing to become a local service provider directly contracting with residents and businesses to allow them to access and use OntarioNet’s fiber optic network and obtain a variety of communications services. Cal. Const. art. XI, §9(a) authorizes the City to establish and operate public works to provide “means of communication” to their residents.

While article XI, section 9 provides authority to provide means of communication, it does not otherwise regulate the applicable rates, terms, conditions and policies or the manner in which agencies may collect revenues. Numerous state and federal laws and regulations apply to the provision of communications services.

Customers may choose to connect and use OntarioNet’s fiber optic network or subscribe to one of a number of other options available in the competitive marketplace. The fees are for the use of the OntarioNet fiber optic network, including associated customer equipment and other local government property. The fees were established to be in line with market comparisons, including costs associated with other provider networks based on analysis by City staff. Should a customer choose to subscribe to OntarioNet and then later determine to connect to a different service provider’s network, the customer will have the authority to do so. Adopting the Resolution will also authorize certain charges relating to late or declined payments. Further, the resolution will authorize the City Manager, or his or her designee, to set all the other terms, conditions and policies applicable to customer access and use of OntarioNet’s fiber optic network. 1289
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA ADOPTING FEES FOR USE OF THE ONTARIONET FIBER

OPTIC NETWORK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (“City”) establish a schedule of fees and charges for use of its OntarioNet fiber optic network, and related fines for late or declined payments; and
WHEREAS, except as specifically provided herein, the Fees are for the use of local government property, including without limitation the fiber optic network and associated customer equipment; and
WHEREAS, in determining the rates for the Fees, City staff considered rates charged in the competitive marketplace by other providers, and further considered that access to the OntarioNet fiber optic network is optional insofar as customers can connect through other providers; and
WHEREAS, the data supporting the Fees is on file with the City Clerk and available for inspection by the public; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action has been properly noticed as required by Government Code Section 66018 following publication requirements set forth in Government Code Section 6062a;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and incorporates the Recitals herein.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Rates for the Fees. The City Council hereby adopts the rates for the Fees, to be effective on the dates, in the amounts, and at the rates set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The rates set forth in Exhibit “A” reflect the minimum and maximum rates applicable to the respective broadband activity, and the City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to establish rate plans for residential and small business customers within the ranges set forth in Exhibit “A”, to negotiate contract rates with large commercial customers within the ranges set forth in Exhibit “A”.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that Fees are not “imposed” for purposes of article XIII C, section 1(e) of the California Constitution. 1290
However, even if they are found to be “imposed,” they are exempt from the definition of a tax for the following reasons:
(a) Fee Nos. 1 through 6 listed in Exhibit “A” of this Resolution are for the use of local government property, including the fiber optic network and associated customer equipment, and do not exceed the reasonable value of the local government property; and
(b) Fee No. 7 is for a service provided by the City and does not exceed the cost of providing such service; and
(c) Fee Nos. 8 through 12 are fines for late or declined payments.

SECTION 4. Terms, Conditions and Policies. Further, the City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to set all the other terms, conditions and policies applicable to customer access and use of OntarioNet’s fiber optic network.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase in this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution or the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid.

SECTION 6. Conflicts. All prior actions of the City Council, including resolutions, ordinances, or parts thereof, that are inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby superseded by this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force and effect 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 15th day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
1291
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1292

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 15, 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 15, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1293
EXHIBIT “A”

SCHEDULE OF BROADBAND ONTARIONET FEES
Fee # Fee Description Unit/Notes Current Fee Effective
Date
1 Residential/Small Business Broadband Services Monthly $10.00 - $200.00 10/15/2024 2 Residential/Small Business Broadband Installation One-time up to $200.00 10/15/2024 3 Commercial/Enterprise Broadband Services Monthly $30.00 - $1500.00 10/15/2024 4 Small Business/Commercial/Enterprise Broadband Building Construction Charge One-time or Monthly At Cost 10/15/2024 5 Customer Premise Equipment Monthly $5.00-$100.00 10/15/2024 6 Smart Home Management Software Monthly $5.00-$20.00 10/15/2024 7 Paper Bill Fee Monthly $2.00-$4.00 10/15/2024
8 Payment Late Fee First Month $5.00 or 10%* 10/15/2024 9 Payment Late Fee (after 1st month) Monthly 1.50% 10/15/2024 10 Check returned unpaid (NSF) Each $25.00 10/15/2024
11 Declined credit card payment Each $25.00 10/15/2024
12 Declined ACH payment Each $25.00 10/15/2024
*whichever is greater
1294
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: 23
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 15, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARING

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. On October 1, 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 15, 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; 1295
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.

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 1296
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 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 1297
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:

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 1298
not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld.
1299
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
1300
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

Page 2 of 7 ends

• 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 1301
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

Page 3 of 7 ends

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 1302
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

Page 4 of 7 ends

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 1303
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

Page 5 of 7 ends

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.

1304
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

Page 6 of 7 ends

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).

1305
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

Page 7 of 7 ends

Appendix A

(Appeal Applications to follow this page)
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
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
1342
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the 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 1343
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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). 1344
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

1345
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees 1346
1347
1348
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-005 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
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 1362
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 1363
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

1364
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

WHEREAS, 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, 1365
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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 1366
1367
1368
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-007 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
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
1378
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

PART 2: RECITALS

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

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

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

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

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

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

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

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

1379
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-007
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1380
1381
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

1382
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

WHEREAS, 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. 1383
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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
1384
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

WHEREAS, 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, 1385
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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 1386
1387
1388
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-008 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397

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
1398
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that n o guestroom , for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Rooms that are being rented longer than 30 days are in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or 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 1399
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-008
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends
← All documents from this meeting