Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, October 15, 2024 (part 8 of 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1400
1401
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 1402
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 1403
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1404
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (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, 1405
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (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 Economy Inn . ODC Division 5.03, Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 1406
1407
1408
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-009 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-032

FILE NO.: PDET23-009

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

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

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

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

ANALYSIS: Under the ODC Section 1.02.015(A), the Zoning Administrator shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of this Development Code. Subsequently, the ODC Table 2.01- 1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations

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

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

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

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
1418
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

PART 2: RECITALS

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

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

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

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

(c) In 1985, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Motel; and
1419
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-009
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1420
1421
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 1422
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 1423
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

1424
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 1425
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 1426
1427
1428
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-010 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-033

FILE NO.: PDET23-010

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

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

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

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

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

ANALYSIS: Under the ODC Section 1.02.015(A), the Zoning Administrator shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of this Development Code. Subsequently, the ODC Table 2.01- 1 (Review Matrix) establishe s that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations

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

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

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

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

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
1438
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

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

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

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

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

(b) The Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294 -S) for the construction of 37-unit motel; and
1439
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1440
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-010
December 21, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21
st day of December 2023.

Rudy Zeledon
Zoning Administrator

1441
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1442
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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 1443
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1444
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 1445
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 1446
1447
1448
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-015 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457

Reviewed: RZ 12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-038

FILE NO.: PDET23-015

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

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

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

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

ANALYSIS: Under the ODC Section 1.02.015(A), the Zoning Administrator shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of this Development Code. Subsequently, the ODC Table 2.01- 1 (Review Matrix) establishe s that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations

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

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

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

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
1458
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

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

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

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

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

The existing Sands Motel is a legal nonconforming use;

(b) The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of a Motel in the 1956; and
1459
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-015
December 21, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1460
1461
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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 1463
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

1464
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 1465
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify 1466
1467
1468
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDET23-016 (APPEAL)
May 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

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

(Notice of Assessment to follow this page)

1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477

Reviewed: RZ/12/21/2023

DECISION NO.: ZA23-039

FILE NO.: PDET23-016

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

PART 1: BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

LAND USE DETERMINATION

December 21, 2023
1478
Zoning Administrator Decision
File No. PDET23-016
December 21, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

PART 2: RECITALS

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

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

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

PART 3: THE DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

1480
1481
-1-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

May 28, 2024

CONTENTS PAGE

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

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

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1482

-2-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

May 28, 2024

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

COMMISSIONERS

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

Absent: Dean

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Del Turco.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

A-01. MINUTES APPROVAL

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

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

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

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

PLANNING/HISTORIC COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

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

PDA21-010) between the City of Ontario and SL Ontario Development Company, LLC to 1483

-10-

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

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

Mr. McDonald stated yes.

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

Mr. Wong stated for participants within surrounding cities.

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

Mr. Wong stated that is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

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

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

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

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

PDET23-016), located at 1211 North Grove Avenue. The appeal is not subject to the California 1484

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

Submitted by Frank A. Weiser – Attorney at Law

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

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

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Weiser stated he respectively disagreed.

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

Marion Counties decision in regard to property not developed.

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

Ms. DeDiemar wanted clarification on the definition of transient. 1485

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Weiser rebutted, disagreed with Attorney Lopez.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

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

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

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

Mr. Zeledon stated yes.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

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

The motion was carried 5-0.

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

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

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

The motion was carried 5-0.

MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Old Business Reports From Subcommittees

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

New Business
1486
1487
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

WHEREAS, Noman Patel ("Applicant") operator of the Hotel Hacienda has filed an Appeal of Application of the Zoning Administrators interpretation and determination decision that the Ontario Development Code Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Hotel Hacienda, File No. PDET23-005, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to the Hotel Hacienda (Formally America’s Best Value Inn) (“Hotel”), located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Hotel Hacienda. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Hotel Hacienda; and
WHEREAS, the Hotel Hacienda was approved (File No. 3472-S) by the City of Ontario in 1986 as a 55-unit Motel (known in 1986 as the Knice Inn); and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and WHEREAS, in 1988, the Motel was constructed; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, 1488
to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Hotel Hacienda; and WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

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

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
1489
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

PDET23-005; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the 1491
Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Hotel Hacienda. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall 1492
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 3: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby Approves to uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator Decision herein described Application.

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

SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The 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
1493
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1494

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)
1495
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

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

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Bright Star Motel, File No. PDET23-007, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to the Bright Star Motel, located at 1530 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Bright Star Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Bright Star Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Bright Star Motel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits, between 1956 and 1962, for the construction of Motel; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1987, the Building Department approved the construction plans for a the 55-unit motel, located at 2425 South Archibald Avenue; and WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Bright Star Motel; and
1496
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
1497
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

PDET23-007; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
1499
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the 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 1500
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: 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
1501
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1502

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1503
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Days Inn Ontario Motel, File No. PDET23-008, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Days Inn Ontario is located at 1405 East 4th Street, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Days Inn Ontario. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Days Inn Ontario Motel; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3225-CUP) to establish 53-unit Days Inn Ontario Motel (known as Youngs Motel); and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of Days Inn Ontario Motel (Known as “Youngs Motel”); and WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior 1504
walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Days Inn Ontario; and
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
1505
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Ontario Development Code (“ODC”). The Zoning Administrator, under Section l.02.015(A)(l) of the ODC, has jurisdiction of, and is responsible for, the administration and application of the regulations and provisions of the Development Code. The Zoning Administrator’s power is limited to interpretation of the Code as applied to a particular case. ODC § 1.02.010(B)(1). Thus, the Zoning Administrator’s power is limited to interpretation of the code and its application to a particular set of facts.
1506
Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

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

PDET23-008; and
1507
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
1508
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Days Inn Ontario. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 2, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
1509
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1510

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1511
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

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

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

PDET23-009, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Economy Inn is located at 2301 South Euclid Avenue, within the Community Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Community Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Economy Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Economy Inn; and
WHEREAS, in 1984, The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (File No. 3051-CUP) to establish 47-unit Economy Inn Motel; and WHEREAS, in 1985, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of the Economy Inn Motel; and WHEREAS Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Economy Inn; and 1512
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
1513
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning 1514
Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.

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

PDET23-009; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the 1515
Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the Economy Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall 1516
be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the February 5, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

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

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

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

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

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
1517
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1518

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1519
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

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

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

PDET23-010, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Mayfair Inn (formally known as the Knights Inn) is located at 1120 East Holt Boulevard, within the Industrial Park zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Industrial Park zoning district. The existing Mayfair Inn is a legal nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Mayfiar Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Mayfair Inn; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. 3294-S) for the construction of 37-unit Mayfair Inn motel; and WHEREAS, in 1987, City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Mayfair Motel; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Mayfair Inn; and 1520
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State 1521
CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

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

PDET23-010; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
1523
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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 1524
Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).
(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the April 16, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and in violation of all applicable zoning and use permits.

SECTION 5: 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
1525
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1526

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1527
1528
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

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

5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation Sands Motel, File No. PDET23-015, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Sands Motel is located at 1240 West Mission Boulevard, within the Light Industrial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are not permitted within the Light Industrial zoning district. The existing Sands Motel is a legal nonconforming use; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the Sands Motel. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to Sands Motel; and
WHEREAS The City of Ontario Building Department issued permits for the construction of Sands Motel in the 1956; and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the Sands Mote; and WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
1529
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in 1530
the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

Appellants’ arguments introduce irrelevant legal arguments that do not challenge the underlying factual findings and analysis of each of the decisions by the Zoning Administrator. The Appellants take issue with the implementation of legislation of the Ontario Development Code. For reference, Ordinance No. 1569, which imposed the TOT was passed in 1965 – fifty-nine years ago. These issues are beyond the scope of the Zoning Administrator’s role. For the Zoning Administrator to consider these legal issues would exceed the power granted by the Development Code.
1531
The Zoning Administrator has acted within his limited authority to interpret the Development Code as to Appellants’ claims and found that their hotels are subject to ODC chapter 5.03.250(E)(1). Appellants do not challenge the factual findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Thus, the appeal should be denied, and the Zoning Administrator’s decisions upheld; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.01-1 (Review Matrix) establishes that the Zoning Administrator has the responsibility and authority to review and act upon Interpretations and Land Use Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject appeal Application; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-023 upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, Frank A. Weiser (“Appellant Representative”), submitted an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the Appeal of the Land Use Determination, File No.

PDET23-015; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
1532
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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 1533
full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g).
(2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 1, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

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

SECTION 5: 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
1534
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1535

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1536
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

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

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

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

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

PDET23-016, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the West Coast Inn is located at 1211 North Grove Avenue, within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Hotels or Motels are permitted within the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, Executive Director of Finance Armen Harkalyan ("License Official") sitting as the Transient Occupancy Tax License Official under Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, held a hearing for the operator of the West Coast Inn. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the operators the opportunity to rebut the amount of tax assessed by the License Official and offer evidence why the specified tax, interest, and penalties are incorrect; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, the License Official issued a Stay of Decision and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to provide an interpretation or determination regarding the applicability and enforceability of Section 5.03.250(E)(1) as to West Coast Inn; and
WHEREAS in 1987, the City of Ontario Building Department issued building permits for the construction of West Coast Inn Motel (known as “Grove Avenue Motel”); and
WHEREAS, Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) defines a Motel as a lodging facility that offers transient accommodations at a daily rate, to the general public, which are predominantly accessed from parking lots or exterior walkways consistent with the City approval and design layout for the West Coast Inn; and 1537
WHEREAS, ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, guestrooms that are being rented longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) and not consistent with the intent of Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate; and WHEREAS, Section 3-6.029(g) of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days; and
WHEREAS, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Appellants basis for the appeal staff has prepared a response to each of the items. Below is the Appellants statement and staff’s response:

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

As part of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission found that:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) This Resolutions were reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), and the State 1538
CEQA Guidelines, and the Planning Commission determined that the Resolutions did not constitute a " project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060( c)( 2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

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

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

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

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

PDET23-016; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting; and
1540
WHEREAS, on October 1 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date and continued the item to the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 2: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, and for all the reasons stated in the staff report, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) That the ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) is applicable and enforceable to the operation of the West Coast Inn. ODC Division 5.03, Section 5.03.250(E)(1) states that no guestroom, for Motel or Hotel, shall be rented for a period exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The intent of a Motel or Hotel to provide transient accommodations at a daily rate. Section 3-6.029(g) of the 1541
Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) clearly states that “Transient” shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Therefore, the Transient Occupancy Tax shall be imposed on “transients” as defined the OMC Section 3-6.029(g). (2) That Hotel has not applied for an exemption pursuant to Section 3-6.04 of the OMC and therefore no such exemption would be applicable to the Hotel. (3) That Hotel’s operations, as stipulated in the January 8, 2021 hearing, allowing guests to stay longer than 30 days is in violation of ODC Division

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

SECTION 5: 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
1542
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1543

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1544
Department: Utilities
Prepared By: Courtney Jones
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Burton, Utilities
General Manager
Reviewed By: Dennice Raygoza, Albert G
Gastelum, Michael Sigsbee
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 24
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CHINO BASIN WATER

BANK PLANNING AUTHORITY AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TERMINATING

THE AUTHORITY'S JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER

DISTRICT, AND MONTE VISTA WATER DISTRICT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 15, 2024
SECTION:

ADMINISTRATIVE

REPORTS/DISCUSSION/ACTION

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to dissolve the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority and approve an Amendment terminating the Joint Powers Agreement by and among the City of Ontario, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Monte Vista Water District.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT:

The Adopted Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget includes appropriations from the Water and Sewer Fund for the remaining program and dissolution services under this Agreement. There is no impact to the General Fund.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The eﬀorts of the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority (Planning JPA) established by the City of Ontario, Cucamonga Valley Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and Monte Vista Water District (collectively, Partners) were completed as envisioned. On July 31, 2024, the Planning JPA Board of Directors provided direction to proceed with the termination of the Planning JPA, requesting that the Partners’ staﬀ seek approval of the Resolutions and Amendment from their respective governing bodies. Subsequently, the Partners' staff will complete the post-termination steps in accordance with the California Government Code.

The Chino Groundwater Basin (Basin) is one of Southern California's largest groundwater basins, storing approximately ﬁve million acre-feet of water. Groundwater is an important local water source, accounting for approximately 40% of the area’s water supply, and supports the nearly $1.5 1545
billion economy of the region's agriculture, industries, and businesses. Recognizing the growing importance of groundwater and surface water use to meet water demands, the opportunity to leverage storage in the Basin for local, regional, and state benefits emerged.

The Planning JPA was established in December 2017 through the execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by the Partners. The purpose of the Planning JPA was to develop the concept and related planning documents for a storage and recovery program that builds the necessary infrastructure to sustainably maximize available water supplies for broad mutual beneﬁt in the Basin. This includes drought resilience, land subsidence management, reduced pumping costs, improved water quality, and meeting replenishment obligations while protecting existing water rights. The overall goals of a water bank include coordinating funding, designing and operating the program, pursuing grants, facilitating water trading, and procuring water.

Since its formation, the Planning JPA has successfully completed a plan to develop a storage and recovery program to store up to 100,000 acre-feet of water within the Basin. The Partners brought on consultants to develop several planning documents and tools needed to explore the feasibility of a groundwater bank, including a Framework White Paper (2018), a Preliminary Banking Scenario & Facilities Evaluation (2019), a Financial Analysis and Financial/Pricing Model (2019), an Operations Plan (2022), and a Water Marketing Strategy (2022). This work was partially funded through a U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART grant, which reimbursed the Partners 46% of the total cost for the planning efforts.

The objectives of the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority were completed as intended, and the Planning JPA is not required for any future implementation of the envisioned storage and recovery program.
1546
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA,

AGREEING TO DISSOLVE THE CHINO BASIN WATER BANK

PLANNING AUTHORITY AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT
TERMINATING THE AUTHORITY’S JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority (the “Authority”) was created in 2017 by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (“JPA Agreement”) by and among the Cucamonga Valley Water District, Monte Vista Water District, City of Ontario, and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (“Parties”) for the purposes of, among other things, engaging in planning activities for potential coordinated water storage and recovery programs within the Chino Groundwater Basin for local, regional and statewide benefits; and
WHEREAS, under the JPA Agreement, the Parties agreed that subsequent implementation of any coordinated storage and recovery programs that might result from the planning activities under the JPA Agreement would be the subject of a new joint exercise of powers agreement or an amendment to the JPA Agreement; and WHEREAS, Section 10.1(b) of the JPA Agreement provides:
(b) The Parties may all jointly agree by written consent to terminate the Agreement, as expressed by resolution of the governing boards of all Parties (passed by vote of the membership of the governing body of each Party). Such termination shall provide for adequate time to wind-up the affairs of the Authority and distribute any assets pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties shall be obligated to pay their contributions agreed upon in Section 7.2 of this Agreement until the effective date of termination.; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Authority has now completed the planning activities envisioned in the JPA Agreement and desire to jointly consent in writing to the termination of the JPA Agreement and dissolution of the Authority; and WHEREAS, a proposed amendment terminating the JPA Agreement and winding down the affairs of the Authority is attached as Attachment A.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and declare that the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The purpose of the Authority has been completed and the Authority has no assets which have not already been distributed to the Parties to the Agreement.
1547
SECTION 3. Approval of Dissolution of Authority and Termination of JPA Agreement. The City Council consents to the joint termination of the JPA Agreement and dissolution of the Authority pursuant to the amendment terminating the JPA Agreement attached hereto as Attachment A. The City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor, the City Clerk, or the City Manager, or the designee, to execute the amendment, and further directs the City Manager, or the designee to take such other actions as are necessary to fulfill the intent of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this 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
1548

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1549

EXHIBIT A

AMENDMENT TERMINATING THE CHINO BASIN WATER BANK PLANNING

AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND DISSOLVING THE

AUTHORITY
1550
04342.00107\42388744.1
-1-

AMENDMENT TERMINATING THE CHINO BASIN WATER BANK

PLANNING AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS

AGREEMENT AND DISSOLVING THE AUTHORITY
This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the JPA Agreement (as defined below) is dated this ____ day of _______ 2024, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the Cucamonga Valley Water District, Monte Vista Water District, City of Ontario, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (each individually a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).

RECITALS
A. The Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority (the “Authority”) was created by the Parties pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated as of December 13, 2017 (“JPA Agreement”) for the purposes of, among other things, engaging in planning activities for potential coordinated water storage and recovery programs within the Chino Groundwater Basin for local, regional and statewide benefits.

B. Under the JPA Agreement, the Parties agreed that subsequent implementation of any coordinated storage and recovery programs that might result from the planning activities under the JPA Agreement would be the subject of a new joint exercise of powers agreement or an amendment to the JPA Agreement.

C. Section 10.1, subsection (b) of the JPA Agreement provides:
(b) The Parties may all jointly agree by written consent to terminate the Agreement, as expressed by resolution of the governing boards of all Parties (passed by vote of the membership of the governing body of each Party). Such termination shall provide for adequate time to wind-up the affairs of the Authority and distribute any assets pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties shall be obligated to pay their contributions agreed upon in Section 7.2 of this Agreement until the effective date of termination.

D. The Parties agree that the Authority has now completed the planning activities envisioned in the JPA Agreement, and each of the Parties has therefore adopted a resolution approving this Amendment to jointly terminate the JPA Agreement and dissolve the Authority.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter stated the Parties agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into the terms of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

2. Termination. The Parties hereby agree to terminate the JPA Agreement and thereby dissolve the Authority pursuant to Section 10.1, subsection (b) of the JPA Agreement. The termination shall be effective immediately upon full execution of this Amendment by all of the Parties. Notwithstanding the termination of the JPA Agreement, the Parties agree to comply with 1551
04342.00107\42388744.1
-2-
the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment with regard to post-termination activities as set forth below.

3. Survival of Pre-Termination Defense and Indemnification Obligations. The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding the termination of the JPA Agreement, certain defense, indemnification and hold harmless obligations shall survive pursuant to Section

9.2 of the JPA Agreement.

4. Assets. The Parties acknowledge and agree that there are no assets requiring distribution upon termination of the JPA Agreement. The Parties agree that they have each received copies of planning documents and other materials prepared by the Authority and its consultants, and that any records or personal property currently in the possession of the Parties related to the administration or work of the Authority shall remain in their respective possession and become their property upon termination.

5. Audits.

The Parties hereby agree to waive the preparation of annual audit reports for Fiscal Years 2023– 2024 and 2024–2025, including a certified audit of all receipts and disbursements, and each Party hereby releases each and every other Party from any and all claims or whatsoever nature by which such Party may have against another Party arising out of or by virtue of the Authority or the JPA Agreement.

6. Dissolving Party. Cucamonga Valley Water District hereby agrees to be the “Dissolving Party” of the Authority and to undertake all actions necessary to memorialize and effectuate dissolution of the Authority, including but not limited to: (1) preparation and filing of the appropriate filings with State and local agencies, including, but not limited to forms, notices, or copies of this Amendment pursuant to Government Code section 6503.5 and 6503.6 and 53051; (2) making final payment for any amounts payable by the Authority under the JPA Agreement and its approved budget through the date of termination; and (3) whatever other final actions are required to memorialize or perfect the dissolution of the Authority. Upon completion of all actions necessary to memorialize and effectuate dissolution of the Authority, as described above, Cucamonga Valley Water District will prepare a tabulation of the final costs, with each Party responsible for 25%. Cucamonga Valley Water District will then invoice each Party 25% of the final costs which the other Parties shall pay within 30 days of receipt.

Each Party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Cucamonga Valley Water District and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage, or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or in connection with Cucamonga Valley Water District’s performance under this section (“Claims”), unless caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Dissolving Party or its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents and volunteers. For the clarity of the Parties, obligations arising under this paragraph shall be limited exclusively to Claims arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Dissolving Party’s obligations under this section.

This paragraph is not intended to amend or otherwise affect Section 8.1 of the Agreement, which 1552
04342.00107\42388744.1
-3-
provides that the debts, liabilities, or obligations of the Authority will not constitute the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Parties.

7. Default and Delinquency. Any Party failing to pay an amount due under this Amendment shall bear interest on the unpaid amount at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, or the maximum rate allowed by law if it is less than ten percent (10%) per annum, until the overdue amount is paid in full.

8. Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably acknowledge and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment.

9. Severability. If any portion of this Amendment is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

10. Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.

11. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed by the Parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.
[signature page follows]
1553
04342.00107\42388744.1
-4-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment Terminating the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement as of the date last set forth below.

CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By
Title___________________________________
Dated

MONTE VISTA WATER DISTRICT
By
Title___________________________________
Dated

CITY OF ONTARIO
By
Title___________________________________
Dated

INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
By
Title___________________________________
Dated
1554

Ontario City CouncilOctober 15, 2024

Ontario City Council
October 15, 2024