Ontario council upholds planning approval for Sunrise Church site amid SB 330 debate; neighbors press parking and safety concerns

The Ontario City Council voted on Oct. 15 to deny an appeal of the planning commission’s approval for a housing project on the former Sunrise Church site, upholding the planning commission decision after a lengthy public hearing about notice, traffic and neighborhood character.

Rudy Zeledon, assistant director of community development, summarized the project background and the legal framework under Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019). He told the council the applicant’s SB 330 application vested the development standards in effect when the application was submitted and that the project included incentives and a density bonus tied to on‑site affordable housing. "The project will provide 7 moderate income affordable units and which will require an affordable housing agreement for 55 years," Zeledon said in his presentation, summarizing staff analysis on traffic, air quality and privacy conditions added by planning staff.

Neighbors organized by Greg Gomez urged a 90‑day postponement and said they saw a pattern of zoning changes that they said undermined trust. "This because this inconsistency is not only unusual but also erodes public trust," Gomez said, asking the council to reconsider notice and study traffic and health impacts. Dozens of residents described traffic dangers on 5th Street and nearby corridors, parking stress, and memorials for people killed in neighborhood crashes. Members of a Safe Routes to School volunteer group and El Camino Elementary parents said years of infrastructure investments to make 5th Street safer could be set back by increased traffic.

The developer's representative said the project met law and professional standards and would add for‑sale townhomes with required parking and affordable units. The applicant's presenter said the project had been vetted by engineers and staff and was compliant with applicable standards.

Council members repeatedly returned to the constraints of SB 330 and the state housing enforcement context. Council members and the city attorney noted that rejecting a qualifying SB 330 project can expose the city to a $10,000‑per‑unit fine under state enforcement and additional enforcement by HCD and the Attorney General’s office. "There's a $10,000 per unit fine that comes under SB 330," an attorney advising council summarized, and city counsel warned there are additional enforcement risks.

After deliberation the council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's decision (electronic vote recorded as 4–0 in favor, with Council Member Bowman absent). Several council members expressed frustration with state law but said the municipal record did not contain objective, substantial evidence of health or safety impacts that would legally permit denial under the SB 330 standards. Some council members urged further negotiation with the developer to improve architecture, add parking where possible and provide privacy protections for neighboring properties.

Votes at a glance - Consent calendar: approved (electronic vote 4–0, Bowman absent). - Item 18 (ordinance amending council stipend): adopted (vote recorded as 3–1 among present members; Bowman absent). - Item 19 & 20 (sales of IDA properties): approved (both passed 4–0, Bowman absent). - Appeal of Sunrise Church (PMTT23‑008 / PDEV23‑037): appeal denied; planning commission approval upheld (4–0, Bowman absent). - Item 22 (broadband fees for Ontario Net): approved (4–0, Bowman absent). - TOT / motel appeal (zoning administrator interpretation): appeal denied (4–0, Bowman absent).

What the decision means Council’s denial of the appeal leaves the planning commission approval in place and allows the applicant to proceed under the standards that vested with its SB 330 application. Neighbors and council members asked staff and the developer to continue negotiations on design, privacy treatments (frosted rear windows and additional landscaping were mentioned in the staff report) and parking mitigation. Staff noted the project includes a density‑bonus affordable‑housing requirement and said conditions were added to mitigate privacy and circulation impacts.

Council next steps and follow-up Several council members asked staff to continue discussions with the applicant about architecture, additional guest parking and screening measures for rear yards. Staff and the city attorney also urged council to document any health and safety findings with substantial evidence if they wished to pursue reductions or denial in the future; council said they will pursue continued community engagement but did not reopen the application at the meeting.

Direct quotes "The project will provide 7 moderate income affordable units and which will require an affordable housing agreement for 55 years," — Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Director of Community Development.

"This inconsistency is not only unusual but also erodes public trust in the city's commitment to transparent governance," — Greg Gomez, neighborhood appellant.

"There's a $10,000 per unit fine that comes under SB 330," — attorney advising council on state enforcement risks.

The council meeting ended after additional administrative items and announcements; no litigation or enforcement action was announced at the meeting.