Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is now 6.30 p.m. Welcome to the July 28th, 2026 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for the meeting are in the back and contain procedures we will follow tonight. please turn off all electronic communication devices or put them on non-audible mode. Please do not engage in private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during public comment or on a particular agenda item, please fill out a green card now and submit it to the secretary at the end of the DS. Thank you all very much for your cooperation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Ms. Anderson?

Present. Mr. Gage?

Here.

Mr. Hagman is absent. Mr. Lampkin?

Present.

Mr. Marks?

Here.

Mr. Ritchie?

Present.

Chairman Dietmar? Present.

Now please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll be led tonight by Commissioner Anderson.

and indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all. Mr. Noe, any changes to tonight's agenda?

No announcements tonight, Madam Chair.

All righty. Do any commissioners have a general announcement that is not related to an item on the agenda? Since there are none, we'll now move on to public comments. This is the time for anyone in the audience who has completed a green card to speak on any topic that is not on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. Madam Secretary, are there any green cards on a non-agenda item?

There are no public comment.

All right, thank you. As there is no one who wishes to speak on a non-agenda item, we will consider the consent calendar. All matters listed under consent calendar will be enacted by one summary motion in the order listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the Commission votes on them, unless a member of the Commission or the public requests that a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for a separate vote. In that case, the balance of the items on the consent calendar will be voted on in one summary motion and then those items removed for separate vote will be heard. Do any commissioners wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself as I was not present last month.

Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented?

I'll make the motion. Madam Chair, I move that we accept the consent calendar as written. Thank you.

I will second. There's a motion by Commissioner Ritchie and a second by Commissioner Lampkin to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Mr. Ritchie?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson is recused. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Mr. Marks?

Yes.

Chairman Dietmar? Yes. It is approved five to zero.

Thank you. We will now consider the public hearing items. The procedure for public hearings is as follows. We will first hear a staff report on the matter, followed by questions of staff from the Planning Commission. I will then open the hearing for comments from the public. I will provide the applicant or their representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant, I will open the meeting to comments by anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on the matter. Each person will be given three minutes for this purpose. After all persons have spoken on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for purposes of rebuttal or clarification as necessary. Once all persons have spoken, I will close the public portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and final action. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, an appeal may be filed within 10 days with the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Mr. No, item B.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Item B is environmental assessment and tentative parcel map for file number PMTT 23-001. A public hearing to consider a tentative parcel map to subdivide 0.49 acres of land into three parcels located at the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Acacia Avenue at 1325 and 1329 South Euclid Avenue within the MDR 11 medium density residential and Euclid Avenue overlay zoning districts. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15315, minor land divisions of the CEQA guidelines. The project is submitted by Bedellio Huizar and Senior Planner Ms. Santuno will provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. No. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. The project site is located within an established residential neighborhood with single and multi-family residential development to the north, east, and south, and De Anza Park to the west. The half acre site consists of two parcels of land that are currently oriented east-west with frontage along Euclid Avenue. The site was originally developed with residential development, but those were demolished in 1987. Photographs of the project site show the existing drive approach off of Euclid Avenue and how it is currently being utilized by the residential development to the north. The proposed tentative parcel map proposes to reorient the two parcels to three parcels that are oriented north-south with access continuing from the existing drive approach off of Euclid Avenue. The proposed parcel map would facilitate future development of single family residential on each of the three parcels. A reciprocal access agreement would be required so that the parcels to the multi-family development to the north would be able to continue access their off street parking at the rear of their site. The reciprocal access agreement would also ensure continued access for all three lots since garage access would be from this shared drive aisle. The lots range in size from just over 6,500 square feet to just under 7,500 square feet. While the Planning Commission is not considering the future development of the site and their development because this project is located on Euclid Avenue, which is a National Register historic resource. There has been a conceptual site plan and elevations prepared by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed project would be compatible with the historic resource and the historic development in the surrounding neighborhood. So the proposed development would be three single family dwellings with access from Acacia Avenue. Entrances to the garage would be facing the drive aisle to the north. And there would be a minimum setback requirement of 17 feet from Euclid Avenue, which would be consistent with other development along the corridor. The proposed elevations would be a Mediterranean revival style, so that would also include enhanced elevations on both the Acacia and Euclid Avenue façades. Staff did send out mail notices to all property owners within 600 feet of the project site and did receive a response from one neighboring property owner inquiring about the project. Staff shared the project details and there were no concerns for the project. The Development Advisory Board reviewed this project and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation. I can answer any questions the Commission may have.

Thank you, Ms. Antuna. Commissioners, any questions?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes, can you go over the parking?

Yes, so for the proposed site plan for each of the sites, a single family residence is proposed with an attached two car garage. And the attached two car garage would be accessed from the drive aisle running along the north side of the site.

And they each have an ADU also?

That's what's proposed in the conceptual site plan.

And do they have additional parking for them or?

Those would be parked on the street. However, the planning commission is considering the parcel map. The planning commission would not be approving the development of the site.

Okay, second question. Are we, I see it's really bare, the parkway on Euclid. Are we requiring gravelia, silk oaks, like our standard parkway trees?

Yes, a condition of approval has been added for street trees that are consistent with the master street tree plan, which requires grevilleas on Euclid Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners? All right, as there are no further questions, I'll open the public hearing to the audience and ask the applicant to please step forward.

So Madam Chair, unfortunately the applicant was unable to attend tonight's planning commission meeting. But staff was able to connect with the applicant. He did read the staff report and attached conditions of approval and he does agree to all the conditions as written.

All right, thank you Mr. No. I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. I have no green cards, so I will close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action.

Madam Chair, I think this one is pretty straightforward. It's just for the parcel map to divide into three lots. So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the tentative parcel map, file number PMTT23-001, subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

Thank you. Is there a second? I will second it. All right, there's a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Anderson to approve file number PMTT23-001, the tentative parcel map. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Ms. Anderson?

Yes.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin? Yes. Mr. Marks? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. Chairman Dietmar?

Yes.

It is approved six to zero.

Thank you. File number PMTT23-001, the tentative parcel map has been approved and will become final within 10 days unless appealed. Mr. No, item C.

Thank you Madam Chair. Item C is environmental assessment and specific plan amendment for file number PSPA 25-006. A public hearing to consider an amendment to the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan to reintroduce 71.6 acres of land into the specific plan area. In order to bring the land into conformance with the Ontario plan 2050 land use plan, including exhibits and text updates throughout the specific plan document to support the change. For land located at the southeast corner of eucalyptus avenue and campus avenue currently within the specific plan agricultural overlay zoning district. The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with file number 19 dash 0 0 1, the Ontario center, the South Ontario logistics center, specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified by the city council on March 1st, 2022. uh per the technical memo to the original eir prepared for the project this application introduces no new significant environmental impacts the application is city initiated and city council action is required and senior planner ms vaughn will provide the presentation thank you mr no good evening madam chair and commissioners

The consideration before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Ontario Plan 2050 Land Use Plan, or as I'll mention, TOP 2050, and make a finding that the 2022 South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan, or SOLCSP, Certified Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, remains relevant and applicable to the proposed project scope. The project before you tonight, the project objectives are to expand the SOLC boundary back into what was originally approved, revert the SOLC specific plan land use map back to what was originally approved, and provide zoning conformance with TOP land use plan. The project does not involve discretionary applications such as development plans or tentative tract maps. physical alteration of the project site, removal of Prop 70 easements or interim agricultural uses, or modifications beyond the original SOLC specific plan and EIR scope that would necessitate additional environmental review. SOLC specific plan inclusive of the project site was originally approved in 2022 in conjunction with a general plan amendment to establish the underlying TOP land use districts of business park and industrial. The project site was removed from the specific plan area in response to a settlement agreement between the applicant, Real Estate Development Associates LLC, or RETA, and the Challenger Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, or CCAEJ. The purpose of the agreement was to resolve the CEQA challenge to the SOLC project, and the terms included, monetary awards paid by the applicant to the challenger, removal of the project site from the specific plan area, no acquisition or development of the land for a period of 30 months, which expired in June of 2025, and modifications to the design of future development, including aesthetic changes, building configuration and design changes, and employee transportation options. The project was continued from the June 23rd, 2026 planning commission meeting to allow staff to respond to the commission's request for additional information regarding the project scope, adequacy of the certified EAR and compliance with legislation. Here we have the project vicinity. It's located south of Eucalyptus, north of Merrill Avenue, east of Campus Avenue, and west of Bondview Avenue. It's located directly north of the Chino Airport. Here's a closer look at the project location. On the left in the gold box is the project site. On the right in the red box is the existing specific plan area. On the left is the existing specific plan land use plan. We've highlighted the project site in gold. On the right is the proposed specific plan land use plan. And this land use plan is identical to what was originally approved. The Ontario Plan 2050 Land Use Plan establishes the overall vision for the city, or development of the city, and provides for the allowable land uses and intensities. Zoning codes, such as development code and specific plans, provide development standards to implement TOP's vision. The project site is part of a larger business park and industrial corridor along Eucalyptus that serves as a buffer from Chino Airport directly to the south. The land use districts of business park and industrial on the project site were approved in 2022. The districts remain consistent with latest TOP 2050 update as well as with the provisions of AB 98 and SB 415 as Eucalyptus Avenue is a designated truck route. As such, sensitive land uses along the truck route should be limited, including housing, parks, and schools. The Grand Park is also shown here, outlined in light green as a reference and will be discussed later in this presentation. Here we see a side by side of the TOP land use plan and the SOLC specific plan. They are identical in terms of zoning, intensity, development intensity, and land use types. So up on the top in the lighter purple, we have business park. Down below in the darker purple, we have industrial. At the June 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested additional information and clarification based off public comments regarding adequacy of the 2022 EIR and how it remains valid, compliance with legislation, so AB 98, SB 415, and SB 330, environmental and policy issues, including air quality, traffic, noise, agricultural resources, farmland, biological resources, fire and hazards, and post 2022 legislation. The age of an EIR does not automatically trigger additional environmental review. Additional review is only required if the conditions and thresholds of CEQA guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 have been met, including substantial project changes requiring major revisions and new information of substantial importance that would cause significant or substantially more severe impacts. A technical memo was prepared to support the certified EIR and was subsequently updated in response to commission and public concerns and questions. It clarified case law and the project's compliance with the original EIR and the latest TOP 2050 certified EIR. It confirmed that there is no new information of substantial importance or changes to the specific plan that would require major revisions to the certified SOLC specific plan EIR. The proposed SPA remains within the same project area and development intensity previously analyzed. The memo clarified that the introduction of new pieces of legislation does not impact certified EIRs and that further updates to T.O.P. 2050 and its policy plan and policies and mitigation measures that strengthen environmental protections over time. While the public concerns raise important community concerns regarding many of the topics analyzed by the certified EAR, these comments do not provide substantial evidence that the SPA would create new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those previously analyzed. The memo concluded that the legal threshold set forth by CEQA guideline sections 15162 and 15163 for requiring additional environmental review after an EIR has been certified has not been met. To further support applicability of the certified EIR, key environmental topics are discussed as follows. air quality, traffic, and noise impacts. The certified SOLC specific plan EIR analyzed and disclosed impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, truck traffic, noise, and cumulative impacts inclusive of the project site. The SPA does not increase the approved development intensity, capacity, score footage, land use types, or overall development intensity. The SPA remains within the development envelope previously evaluated and will revert the SOLC SP back to what was originally approved. agricultural resources and farmland, the certified EIR analyzed agricultural resources and identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to farmland conversion. The SPA does not expand onto lands that were not previously analyzed. The SPA does not eliminate the city's right to farm ordinance or remove interim agriculture activities. The SBA cannot physically alter the project site. Future development is subject to discretionary review. For biological resources, the certified EIR evaluated and provided mitigation measures addressing sensitive biological resources within the SP area. TOP 2050 further strengthens these biological resource protections. The technical memo confirmed that the prior environmental review is appropriate and the SPA does not reduce or weaken those established biological resource protections. Future development is subject to applicable federal, state, and local biological resource requirements in effect at the time of development approvals and ground disturbing activities. Proposition 70, or Prop 70, was established to provide a public benefit by enhancing and conserving open spaces, parks, and wildlife habitats with the purpose of providing opportunities for Californians to enjoy and visit natural environments and recreational areas. Prop 70 is implemented via SB 1124, which allows for the county to sell or exchange Prop 70 dairies with the condition that those lands are preserved and dedicated to agricultural preservation or open space conservation purposes. The 2026 land plan, which was approved by the state and the county, provides the framework for proper implementation of Prop 70 and designated the Grand Park, which we'll discuss later in this presentation, as the replacement site to be able to provide the greatest public benefit. Prop 70 does not apply to the scope of this SPA as the project is establishing zoning consistent with TOP 2050. The project does not involve the sale or physical alteration of the project site. Prop 70 is separate from this project's CEQA review. Prop 70 is processed separately from rezoning and development projects and is subject to coordination and approvals between the state or California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the County of San Bernardino. Here we see the Grand Park conceptual plan. The Grand Park was chosen as the optimal replacement site to serve the greatest public benefit as it will be a large, contiguous, publicly accessible open space resource located centrally within Ontario Ranch, which will include forestation, educational resources, recreation areas, and a superior habitat value than what the dairy lands could provide. Phase one of the Grand Park is located east of Archibald Avenue and is currently under construction with a variety of active and passive uses. The city is re-envisioning the concept for the areas located west of Archibald Avenue to be more passive in nature and this is in response to the active recreational activity areas coming with the construction of phase one as well as the city's sports empire. These passive areas in the lands to the west of Archibald Avenue will include features in alignment with the requirements of Prop 70. SB 330, analyzed in the certified EIR for the South Ontario Logistics Center, addresses the state's housing shortage by streamlining construction, protecting existing affordable housing, and ensuring no net loss of housing, and that could be either by rezoning or demolishing. SB 330 does not apply to this specific plan amendment. AB 98 and SB 415 address statewide concerns regarding warehousing and logistics and are implemented during future discretionary review. They do not apply to the SPA. Legislation approved after the certified EIR do not require subsequent environmental review nor demonstrate that the SPA would create impacts beyond those previously analyzed. All future development is subject to the laws in place at the time of entitlement permitting and permitting review. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the land use designations and development intensities of TOP 2050 and the originally approved SOLC specific plan and the SOLC specific plan certified EIR remains adequate. The project does not propose any modifications that were not previously analyzed or which would necessitate further environmental review. The project will serve to revert the SOLC specific plan back to what was originally approved in response to the expiration of the settlement agreement that initiated its removal. Staff has found that the proposed specific plan amendment is consistent and that the EIR remains adequate. The project does not propose any modifications that were not previously analyzed. Therefore, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and resolution, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution for file number PSPA 25-006 recommending the city council approve the amendment to the South Ontario Logistics Center specific plan. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Vaughn. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes. I know you said this, but I wanted to clarify it. You're saying that the certified EIR from 2022 is sufficient. And my question is, is this not new warehousing or did that 2022 EIR cover this 71 acres before?

So the previously approved SOLC specific plan and EIR did adequately address this property. This property was part of that original certified EIR and specific plan, and the general plan, as we've mentioned, is already designated as industrial and business park, and therefore the specific plan amendment, which is the zoning, will be bringing the zoning into compliance and be consistent with the general plan.

Okay, and second question. You mentioned the Great Park. Does this help the Great Park become the Great Park? by this amendment that you're asking us to approve?

So the specific plan amendment is for the zoning. A separate process that's been going through the county and the state, which they approved their amended land plan that talked about the Prop 70 lands. The plan has always been for the county to sell this land so the city would purchase this land and with those proceeds, the county will then purchase Grand Park land and provide all the necessary easements to preserve those lands to make sure that the provisions of the Grand Park is consistent with Prop 70. and the legislation.

Okay, and the last question, by us approving this amendment, does that interfere with more housing that we're told by the state to be totally cognitive of and increase our housing, residential?

No, it does not, because the general plan, as we stated, it was the guiding document for the city, has already designated this property as industrial and business park, and no housing was part of that. So we would be in compliance with all housing laws.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions, commissioners?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you. Going back to my peers, second to last question. I'm trying to remember the questioner. It was in regards to the the Grand Park being contiguous. Right now we're looking at a map in the Grand Park conceptual plan where it shows that the park appears to be somewhat complete. The Prop 70 land that is at discussion today, you said the proceeds would then be used to purchase land within Grand Park to make it more complete and contiguous. Is what you're saying that if this is not done, then there's a potential to have holes in our park, it wouldn't be contiguous, and there's a potential for area to be zoned for industrial right in the middle of the park?

No, that wouldn't be the case. If the city didn't purchase this land and the county didn't purchase land for the Grand Park, what would happen is it would just extend how long the Grand Park came to fruition and was constructed. It's going to take longer time for the city to be able to gain enough funds and to be able to purchase these properties to be able to combine it and then developed our Grand Park. As such, the Grand Park, the first phase, it took many years, which is east of Archibald and west of Haven. So the very east portion of the Grand Park. It took a long time for the city to be able to generate enough funds to be able to purchase that land from the necessary property owners and to start construction, which we've just recently started the grading operation. So that first phase is exciting and it will come into fruition soon. So with the plan as is currently today with the county and the city, it will help accelerate the western portion of Grand Park and help implement and be that regional and community draw that we are envisioning for this area.

And if the proceeds are used to purchase more land for Grand Park, can you tell us potentially what that area would look like? What are the various uses? Would it be consistent with Prop 70 requirements? What would be the vision for those areas? Would it be treated more as a preserve?

Yeah, so there's a few variations of potential for this area. We would be in alignment with Prop 70, we'll work with the county. So whatever land is sold, such as this one, 71 acres, the county will then purchase 71 acres of the Grand Park area. And the vision for this is to provide for some type of agricultural educational opportunities. There's opportunities for us to team up with local institutions possibly to do farm hub demonstrations and kind of provide that educational opportunity. It's envisioned for passive recreational uses such as trails, arroyos for the public to be able to enjoy and potential for wildlife habitat conservation as well. All of these potentials all align with the amended land use plan that was just recently approved by both the state and the county.

And what is the language of Prop 70 as it relates to the various land uses? Is it, I'm gonna just throw out a few examples here, farmland, agriculture, recreation, and something else, or is it an or? And or or?

So they've actually had both. So I'm gonna quote exactly what the Prop 70 land plan says. Under purposes of preservation, under page eight, it discusses, SB 1124 and Prop 70 as agricultural preservation, including community gardens, agricultural heritage projects, facilitation of agriculture and wildlife education, conservation of wildlife habitat, and open space conservation. In other areas, it does talk about habitat preservation or open space conservation, so they do have options that the county can implement.

Meaning they can choose to implement any combination of those items that you just listed off, correct? Correct. And they're not required to do all of the items that you just listed off, correct? Correct.

Okay.

And the Prop 70 land where it sits now, how many acres is that?

71.6 acres.

And how many acres would the county be potentially purchasing with the proceeds to complete Grant Park?

They're required to purchase the 71 acres to be in kind with this property.

Required to, correct? Correct. Is there a potential they could purchase more? Yes. Okay, thank you. That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Okay. Any other questions, commissioners? All right, as there are no further questions, I'll open the public hearing to the audience and ask Mr. Chris Robles to come forward.

Good evening.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Chris Robles, I'm here on behalf of Fair Ontario, myself as a resident. Look, I had three pages, but I have to completely change what I'm going to say based on this outrageously twisted arguments from the city staff. It is so clear to me that they're pushing forward this whole thing, trying to convince you that this is right and okay and justified, and it is far from it. I have not only spoken with the county, spoken with the state, spoken with the legislator who wrote 1124 who regrets it. The whole intent is that this land was all purchased for the purpose of preserving the agricultural aspect of Ontario, hence the agricultural preserve. This idea that this great park is going to be a benefit from this land is something new. Just recently, the land was purchased decades ago and the county has failed to put the easements that they were required by state law to do. There's a lawsuit already on that. Already. There's more than just what the staff is telling you here. They're dressing this up, and they're putting, what do you call it, dressing up a pig? Because that's what this is. I mean, it's almost a flat-out lie. If you actually go and you do the whole research, which I have done, you talk to Farmer Randy here and you understand what this was and what it was meant to be from the get-go, all of this makes no sense. I'm going to look at these notes. I've got 12 things on here, and I only have a minute and 17 seconds left. Let's see. This whole thing about the EIR, I addressed in the comments that I put there, so I'm not going to even get into that, but it's absurd to say that nothing's changed and that that's qualified. And that's an assertion, like my assertion, which is that it doesn't qualify. It is not industrial. The council already spent $300,000 before you even have voted on this thing to hire CBRE to negotiate the sale it is so obvious what's going on here is that as soon as they could get their clutches on this land which is protected the council's already been moving on this and you threw a wrench in it by postponing it and so they're throwing it back in here and then dressing this whole thing up so that you will be duped into getting rid of our protected land. It's absurd. Let's see what else. Here's the other thing. There are funds. the proximity land that the county has held on to they also try to get legislation like 1124 to try and get their mitts on it to use it for other purposes other than the original intent there there is a thing going on here that is beyond just what's before you and you have the power to stop it and protect this land we don't we want the park this is not the park and it should not be the park thank you thanks for the afternoon

Good evening, commissioners. I too, like Chris Robles, am at a loss a little bit because of what I prepared is not what I wanna tell you. I urge you not to recommend the approval of this. We still have more questions. Chris just raised a bunch of questions. And I'd like to ask everybody, we heard agricultural opportunities at the Grand Park. Is that gonna feed me? Because farmers feed us. Again, farmers feed us. Again, the staff report relies on the 2022 EIR. I can't believe that we're relying on a 2022 EIR. Everything has changed in this city. Four years have passed. And we've experienced continued warehouse expansion, increased truck traffic, and I can go on and on, worsening air quality and all that good stuff. This proposal involves land with a long history of agricultural preservation and the community deserves to understand how reintroducing these 71.6 acres into the South Ontario logistics center specific plan, that's a mouthful, is consistent with the public investments made to preserve the agricultural land. Fun fact, Chino sold or the county sold some Prop 70 land in Chino. And guess where they repurchased it, according to Prop 70? In a flood control land. You can't do anything in a flood control basin. This is about the future of our city. Every time we convert farmland to warehouses, we lose another opportunity for housing, parks, or other community needs like feeding us. We should not make permanent decisions without complete information and full public transparency. I don't feel like we got all the answers that we wanted from last meeting. I urge you please to continue this item once again rather than recommend approval. Yeah, that's all I have, thank you.

Thank you. I'll call Marty McBride to the podium please.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. Once again, we see the same parcel of land, Prop 70 land, up for consideration as part of a development project that includes industrial and business parks. I wanna say that obeying the letter of the law is very different than honoring the spirit of the law. And just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. The property in question is protected by Prop 70. and it is a piece of land that belongs to the people of the state of California. The County of San Bernardino is charged with the duty to enforce the protections of Prop 70, not overseeing the sale and reassignment of those lands to suit development plans that could violate those very protections. Transferring the protections to another parcel of the same size is not the same as the county and the city doing their utmost to protect these designated lands as intended by California voters. The amendment to bring the land into conformance with the city's plan for development opens the door for these 71.6 acres of Prop 70 linked land back toward Ontario's logistics and industrial development pipeline, expressly violating the idea that these lands were meant to be held in trust for the public, for their benefit, not so that the city can develop it with significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the air, to the water, and to the environment. You commissioners can put a stop to that today and I respectfully ask that you do so and deny once and for all this proposal. Thank you.

I'll call to the podium Randy Beckenham. Beckenham, sorry. Mispronounced it. Sorry, Farmer Randy.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Randy Beckendown, Executive Director of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation. I want to rehearse once again the history of Prop 70, which was the largest citizen initiative ever in California to preserve open space, specifically in danger of development. San Bernardino County got $20 million specifically to preserve land in the former Ag Preserve, which has been broken up. And those $20 million bought 350 acres. There's 200 left in Ontario. 150 were squandered. They all became warehouses, and they got land in the floodplain. Prado Basin, and that's an ongoing thing under investigation. So unfortunately, our nonprofit, which was founded to manage the lands, did so faithfully for 15 years, but the money and the bank account, all the money was controlled by the county. So 15 years into our management of the properties, they fired the executive director and took management of the lands in-house, which generated this letter from the Planning and Conservation League. And I have copies here for all of you. I'm going to read the first paragraph. The Planning and Conservation League sponsored Prop 70. Dear Chairman Postmas, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in San Bernardino. This letter is to request that the County of San Bernardino take immediate action to fulfill the public trust responsibilities under Prop 70 without the need for citizen action to enforce these responsibilities. And as you've probably heard, that day has come. Citizen action is being undertaken. The county is being sued. over the contents of this letter. I'll continue. The important missing piece is action by the county to establish permanent agricultural land conservation easements on lands acquired with Prop 70 funds, subsequently generated trust funds. The county has been in violation of the public trust from day one. They never put the easements on. If they had, we would not be having this conversation. You have a chance to decide tonight that that land will stay zoned agriculture in perpetuity. You do not have to change it to industrial.

Thank you, Mr. Beckendam. Would Eric Vasquez please come to the podium?

good evening madam chair vice chair members of the commission members of the staff and members of the community my name is eric bosquez and i'm the director of true impact which is a non-profit that focuses on mentoring at promise youth and transitional aged youth to heal from their trauma and to find purpose in their life over the last 25 years i've devoted my life to serving the at promise community people call them at risk i hate that term At Promise speaks with restorative language that gives dignity to the young person that we serve and members of the community. Over the years, it's been very difficult to sometimes reach At Promise people. And I've gotten creative in my efforts to touch the heart and attempt to change lives in the work that I do. And you name it, we've done it, right? But one of the things that I have recently engaged in is urban agriculture or just agricultural connection for some of my clients. I was a novice to this two years ago. I'm of lived experience myself. As I've met people in the agricultural community and I've been immersed in this effort, Not only to preserve agricultural land, but to connect the community to it, particularly the highest promise people in the community. I have seen the power of that work. I'm serving multi-counties, you know, in the region. But when I heard of what was happening tonight, I was moved to come and to speak on behalf of the youth and TAY that I serve, transitional agencies. And those are the youth that I serve in this community. I get court referrals for community service. I get court referrals for mentorship services. And I try to work with local agencies to place them in locations where they can heal and grow. And I have seen the success of these amazing people with high promise and the transformative work that occurs when they get to engage agriculture and land. And they get their hands in the earth. They work the earth. They learn. You know, they're in it. They fall into a community that's meaningful. And those lives are changed. And I have proof of that through testimony of individuals who have engaged in what I'm talking about. So tonight, when I heard of a threat of a rezoning to land that is to be preserved for agricultural use. I wanted to come and just elevate my voice, and I'm hoping that that also represents the young people that I serve. This would rob them of the opportunity, another opportunity, right, to really grow and to change their lives through creative efforts, efforts that are beneficial to the community at large as well. I appreciate all the information from the staff. It increased my education and knowledge, and I appreciate you all listening to me. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Karen May, please come to the podium.

Good evening, commissioners. That was amazing and very moving. I just want to say thank you for coming tonight. I'm moved. And I guess I want to try to condense my comments into some digestible themes because we were handed sort of a fire hose of information. It's hard to digest it and to craft questions that really get at the heart of the issue. So I want to try to leave you with a few themes, a few cautions. So one of the themes is quality of life. What is the how do we maximize quality of life in Ontario? I learned a few things from the staff tonight, and I actually really appreciate your honesty, Mr. Ngo. It was very clarifying language that this rezoning does not mean that the Grand Park land could not be purchased in the future. Ontario can do that still, right? It just means that we have this additional preserved land which you can't really tell from the maps the context of where that land is and the importance of sort of that through line down to the open space of the Chino Airport. So I want to kind of impress that visual with you so that you can understand how important that is and how rich the soil is and the opportunity that we have there that would be lost. I think that another theme that I think is important is sort of prudent avoidance. Given the breaking news of the day, I'm sure you all have been following the news today, There are pending investigations, there are pending legal matters.

I think- Excuse me, the comments need to be focused on the public hearing item.

Yes, and I am focused on this public hearing item, yes. So the prudent- One minute remaining. The prudent road would be to either postpone this decision or to vote no. And I really want to make sure that words that are sort of were salted in this presentation like interim agricultural activity, right? There's no guarantee that the agricultural activity that's there now, the farming that's there now, is gonna be preserved with this rezoning. It is absolutely at risk, okay? So you can see the key words where they're sort of, you know, walking, threading that needle on the legal language, yes, There may be technicalities that make this proposal technically legal, but of course there's more information on the environmental assessment since 2022. The city has changed, the landscape has changed, and there are cumulative effects of the proliferation of warehouses. That is new information, that's different information.

Thank you. I have no more green cards. Would the city like to offer a clarification or a rebuttal?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The first thing I wanted to... remind the Planning Commission is that the Prop 70 discussion that's being had by the members of the public and then some by our commissioners, that is not part of the item before the Planning Commission tonight. The item before the Planning Commission tonight is to make a decision on whether the specific plan amendment, which is the project before the planning commission, is consistent with the general planned land use, which has already designated this property as industrial and business park. Additionally, I just wanted to offer some additional information as Mr. Vasquez had mentioned. There is gonna be opportunities with this larger contiguous Grand Park for farm hubs, for demonstration, educational outreach for those opportunities. As Farmer Randy, Mr. Beckendam had mentioned, the existing Prop 70 lands are fragmented throughout Ontario Ranch. There are small pieces here and there. That doesn't have a larger, greater benefit to the public as one larger Grand Park as is being conceptually shown on the slide. Sorry, if you can.

Madam Chair, point of order. I'm hearing several comments from the audience and I'd just like to ask that you please remind everyone to give equal time and respect to everyone as they speak and not try to speak or make any comments while others are speaking.

Proceed, Mr. No.

Thank you. Staff believes that the greater benefit for the Grand Park, as we mentioned, having a larger, larger contiguous Grand Park that spans about three and a half miles from Euclid Avenue all the way to Haven, will provide a greater public benefit. But again, the item before the Planning Commission tonight is a project that is a specific plan amendment that proposes to reintroduce the property, 71.6 acres of land, back into the specific plan and to make a finding that it is consistent with the general plan, which again is already designated this property as industrial and business park. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Lamkin.

I had additional questions.

Madam Chair, before we do that, can we close the public comment?

Yeah, thank you. As all who wish to speak have spoken, I will close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. And if I can remind the Planning Commission, our job tonight is to make a recommendation to City Council. Our recommendation will be either to approve or deny, and that's what we're doing tonight. Go ahead, Commissioner Lamkin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had other questions as a part of the attempt for staff to clarify statements that were made. And so, with your permission, I'd like to ask those questions for clarity. One of the questions I had is can you clarify the current land use and who it is feeding, if anyone?

The current land use is some agricultural uses is our understanding, some farming. Our understanding is that it isn't serving really a public purpose, but more so private and possibly growing feed for animals.

So by growing feed, you're referring to food for animals, right? And so not people.

That's our understanding.

Okay. And is business park the same as warehouse zoning? I keep hearing constant comments, kept hearing constant comments about warehouses being built. Is business park the same as warehouse zoning and what are the key differences and allowed uses?

So industrial tends to be a little bit larger in size. The uses could be distribution, but they could be manufacturing. There could be other types of uses within it. Business park, it's like, kind of like Grove Avenue. We have an existing, a lot of existing business parks. The more smaller office, smaller uses, probably, anywhere from 20,000 to maybe 100,000 square feet in size versus the larger scale industrial.

And when you say on Grove Avenue, you're referring to the area north of the 60 freeway, south of Mission, where you have staffing offices, a few eateries for people who are working locally in the area, and possibly some like tile stores where you can shop for different supplies for your home. And should a finding be made or the vote be no, who would manage this land if nothing happens to it?

It would still be allowed to have agricultural uses on it as the ag overlay is in existence. Up until the county decides to sell that land, then it would have to come into compliance and then they would have to follow Prop 70 and all the legislation required if they want to change that.

Okay, maybe you know the answer to this question, maybe not. Who's allowed to buy this land from the county?

It's open to the public, so anyone in the public is allowed to buy it.

Who would want to operate a farm on the land, correct?

If they so choose.

Okay, do you wanna provide any clarification? And I'm not saying you would know the answer. There were some comments made about a history of a nonprofit and management of the funds by the county. Maybe you know information about that. Maybe you don't. Would you like to clarify or comment in any way?

I don't have that information.

Okay, thank you. And Madam Chair, those are all the questions I have. It's for clarification.

Thank you. Commissioners, discussion. If there's no further discussion, is there a motion from a commissioner to recommend to City Council approve or denial of file number PSPA25-006?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Lemkin.

It's continuously repeated over and over again that us as a body, as a planning commission, we only have two jobs and that's to make sure that this particular project and other projects who are consistent with the current T.O.P. 2050 and also if it's appropriate for zoning or the zoning conformance. We've had a lot of testimony happen over the last couple of days, a lot of comments made by the community. And I believe we all heard it. And one of the things I wanna do first is I wanna thank the staff for taking some of my questions that I had from the last meeting and providing the clarification in a very succinct way. And answering all the questions to make sure we're in compliance with the laws, the assembly bills, and the senate bills. I also wanna thank the staff for providing a clear and repeated, just recited explanation for what Prop 70 land is and what is allowed by SB 1124. I found that the explanations were adequate. I actually agree with and trust the interpretation of SB 1124. One of the major concerns that I have is there is this constant theme of leaving the land alone so it can be used for purposes that no one here has the ability to ensure happens. It's owned by someone else. And I'm gathering that they want to sell, or the county, the county wants to sell the land. And then also too, there's opportunities for people to buy the land if they want to use it for some other purpose. And it appears that there's no one buying the land who really wants to use it for that purpose. There was a comment that was made about citizen action being taken now. And it appears to me, based on the information we received, based on the not a consent decree, it was the result of the lawsuit, the settlement agreement, that citizen action was taken 30 months prior to June 2025. And God bless the individuals who did that. But it just seems like we're going to be in this perpetual state of just When the settlement agreement is fulfilled, then someone else comes along and we're gonna be doing the same thing over and over again. And so I don't see any real purpose in it other than it just prevents us from being able to create the grand park that we all wanted. There was a comment about this being decided decades ago. And I don't think decades ago anybody envisioned the grand park. This could have very well been a piece of land that was preserved and that would have been the only park in that area. So, ideally, when I talk to residents in the community, they want to see this grand park completed. But again, my decision is really based on whether or not this is consistent with the current T.O.P. 2050. and whether or not it's appropriately zoned and if it's in conformance with the zoning. So I'm gonna make a motion to recommend to council for approval of the specific plan amendment, file number PSPA25-006, subject to the resolution and attached conditions of approval. And I wanna thank every single community member who came out here to speak. We heard you. I appreciate everyone coming up and speaking, but I want to make sure we do this in a way that makes sense and is in compliance with our responsibilities here as a city planning commissioner. Thank you.

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second. Ritchie? Ritchie.

Yikes. There's a motion by Commissioner Lamkin and a second by Commissioner Ritchie to recommend a City Council approval of file number PSPA25-006, specific plan amendment.

Madam Chair, comment?

Allowable? Yes, go ahead.

Yes.

Yes, I just...

put my microphone on. You know, I hear the people that came and said all these things about the staff report and so forth about the Grand Park and about the ERR not being good from 2022. And I just have to say that you know, what the staff said, the 2022 certified EIR is okay because it handled this area in question back then. So it wasn't like this is an additional area come now on 2026. You know, I was swayed by, you know, Prop 70 information that things are required. Now I know, I think somebody said Chino, in their opinion, misused the funds with storm drains or the county wash or something. Well, we can't say that Ontario's gonna do the same thing. I think we have a great park to build, And the bottom line is, it is for the greatest public benefit to make this happen. And so, that's where I stand on it. It's a hard decision. Nobody's for pollution, but all the information that we got in regards to this, you know, there's trade-offs for things and I see the trade-offs are okay because hopefully we'll get the Grand Park and that's over 200 acres longer than Central Park in New York. The other thing is what we say tonight or how we vote tonight isn't a done deal. All we're doing is giving it to the city council. So city council could reverse our decision or agree with the decision. They've done that at times. And they're the elected officials. We're just an advisory group of citizens. And I, too, thank all the people that came out and expressed their views. It's really important that people do that. So that's where I stand.

Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lamkin? Yes. Mr. Mars? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. Ms. Anderson? Yes. Chairman Dietmar? Yes. It is recommended to City Council six to zero.

Thank you. File number PSPA 25-006 has been recommended to City Council. We'll now move on to matters from the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Standing Committee met on July 8th. Is there a report from the committee?

Historic?

Yes.

Yes, there is a report, Historic Preservation Subcommittee. We were briefed on certain things. One of them was the Granada Theater that's being refurbished and it's in stage one. And they showed us pictures of bringing it back to its 1890 glory. So a lot's being done with the Granada Theater and I was glad to see that and we had a discussion and we were briefed on that. The other thing is the Euclid Avenue at Sixth Street North to the 10 Freeway has been, as hopefully all of you know, been re-landscaped and with our monument signs, City of Ontario monument signs. And in the future, what we're briefed on is finally we're gonna get a historic Euclid Avenue monument sign, which almost all the other historic neighborhoods have one. And that was proposed to go at the southwest corner of Euclid Avenue. of the green at Sixth Street. and also we're gonna have an acknowledged plaque that it's on the National Registry and that's gonna be where the flags are and the roses and that will be a smaller plaque identifying the National Registry of historic Euclid Avenue which we are very proud of in our city and if you take it for granted, don't. It has lots of trees, it cleans the air and so many people came to Ontario because of Euclid Avenue and the uniqueness of it and the beauty of it. So glad to hear that things are happening with that. And with that.

Thank you Commissioner Gage. You must have had a very interesting meeting.

Ah yes.

Is there any new business to come before the commission? Any nominations for special recognition? Mr. No, director's report?

It's attached to the agenda, that's it.

All right, then as there's no more businesses coming before the commission, I declare the meeting adjourned.

Affordability was preserved for 1,959 rental units with National Core advancing plans for 141 new affordable housing units along Holt Boulevard. In 2025, the city permitted 1,929 residential units and legacy partners began construction on 346 apartments at Euclid and Walnut Street with accompanying neighborhood commercial space. Ontario Ranch continues to meet regional housing demand, ranking as California's number one master plan selling community for the fourth consecutive year. In 2025, developers sold approximately 800 new homes while continuing to invest in community amenities like the upcoming New Haven Elementary School, brought forth in partnership with Brookfield Residential and serving up to 850 students this fall. The city is also addressing homelessness and housing instability through Measure Q investments. Last year, the Housing Department responded to 806 outreach requests, prevented displacement for 149 households, and opened the Ontario Wellness Centre with emergency beds and transitional housing. Construction continues on the Continuum of Care campus, which will expand services for residents in need. Together, these efforts support homeowners, expand housing supply, and strengthen neighborhoods across the city.

I see all the good things that are coming to our city, and I want people, our next generation, to say, this is my hometown, this is where I live.

The city is investing in what makes neighborhoods feel like home. Across Ontario, residents connect through year-round programming led by the Community Life and Culture Agency. The Ovett Family Library recorded more than 354,000 checkouts, while newer amenities like the Lightspeed Community Makerspace, now available at both library locations, welcome more than 3,500 users, expanding access to hands-on tools that support creativity and learning. At the Ontario Museum of History and Art, 174 local artists were featured through exhibitions and programs. In partnership with the Arts Connection, the museum also launched the Ontario Artists Microgram Program, supporting new, public-facing creative projects throughout neighborhoods. Parks and public spaces are also evolving. Improvements are underway at De Anza Park, including the city's first skate park, a splash pad, a reimagined playground, and a new sports field. A futsal court opened at James R. Bryant Park, while Anthony Munoz Park is planned for upgrades including a new community gymnasium. Citywide park improvements are ongoing, with more improvements ahead. Looking ahead, Ontario's largest new green space is taking shape at the center of Ontario Ranch. Grand Park is advancing as a 340-acre community asset. Phase 1 construction is underway and includes an amphitheater, walking trails, orchards, and gathering spaces with full build-out planned through 2030. The city has also expanded animal care services by leading the formation of the Animal Resource Center of the Inland Empire, serving a nearly 100 mile region. In 2025, a temporary shelter opened in South Ontario and is now providing veterinary care, animal control and sheltering services. A permanent facility is planned for completion in late 2027. Ontario is home to nearly 14,500 businesses and continues to attract investment across sectors. Last year, the city issued 7,330 building permits valued at $1.2 billion, supporting thousands of new homes, major industrial development and new commercial development across the city.

We are business friendly, family friendly, and we're ready to do business with the people who want to do business with us because it's going to get done.

At the center of the region's logistics network, Ontario International Airport continues to drive growth as a global commerce hub. ONT supports major carriers including UPS, FedEx and Amazon, handling 835,000 tons of cargo in 2025. The largest Amazon fulfillment center in the country is located right here in Ontario. The 4.5 million square foot complex employs 3,000 people sorting and shipping more than 40 million products using more than 20 miles of conveyor belts. Developed on ONT property, a fully tenanted hub at ONT is preparing to break ground on a second phase. The expansion will add five additional buildings, bringing the development to 4.2 million square feet within the Ontario's foreign trade zone magnet site. Today, Ontario's logistics ecosystem includes more than 129 million square feet of industrial space, with another 3.3 million square feet in the pipeline, supporting construction jobs today while helping power job creation, innovation, and long-term economic growth. That same connectivity that moves goods also brings people to Ontario. Tourism continues to grow in Ontario. supported by the infrastructure that connects the city to the region and the world.

You can go anywhere in the world from Ontario Airport. It's a whole new airport.

The airport is a prideful point in the saga of the city of Ontario. We try to make this the airport that people desire. And what I hear out there is that we're being successful at that.

Ontario International Airport is a central driver of that growth. A decade after gaining local control under the Ontario International Airport Authority, passenger volume has increased by more than 70%. Today, ONT serves more than 7 million travelers annually with nonstop flights across the United States, Mexico, Central America, and Asia. New nonstop service added this year continues to expand Ontario's national reach. To mark a decade of control and the airport's evolving role in the region, ONT recently unveiled a new monument at its entrance, a visual statement of its identity and momentum as a regional gateway.

We understand the airport's always been an extremely important part of the city and the region, the largest economic stimulator in the region, been there a long time, and we wanted to make sure that the airport stayed here. We wanted to make sure that it provided a convenient place for folks in the region to use. We've achieved much more than we expected, much faster than we expected.

As visitation increases, the city is expanding its hospitality capacity.

We're working very closely with hotels that are coming to town. They're going to drive in economic empowerment. It's important here in our region.

The Delta Hotel by Marriott Ontario Airport recently completed a major renovation, while a new dual-branded Hyatt Place and Hyatt House Hotel by the Gacco Group are scheduled to open this year. Together, these projects will add 256 hotel rooms with more than 1,000 additional rooms planned citywide. getting around is just as important as getting here which is why this year the greater ontario convention and visitors bureau launched the greater ontario area transportation system or go providing free connections between ontario international airport toyota arena ontario mills the ontario convention center and hotels across the city none of this progress happens without the people who carry it forward every day

The people make the places, the energy, the feeling of what you feel when you go there. That's what it's about. We're in the business of providing opportunities that really create the highest quality of life that our residents deserve.

It's exciting, and I think as long as we have all the great city staff members that keep everything checked and balanced, we'll do a great job.

For the second consecutive year, the City of Ontario has been recognized as a top workplace by USA Today. This recognition reflects the dedication and professionalism of city staff, whose work continues to drive the city's success.

If you're looking to provide leadership opportunity, you want a place to grow and a place to make a difference, there's no better place in Southern California than Ontario.

I don't just have 10 people that are great at their job. We have 1,500 people that are doing that. And with 10 different agencies, with all of the expertise in the world, you can do anything.

What brings this moment together is not just vision, but follow through. The city is aligning planning, investment, and partnership to deliver results that last.

We are the ones that really show what public-private partnerships are all about. I got to tell you, everybody has to work together to make it really work, and that's the whole message. It's a team effort. This is the big show. This is the big show.

ONT Field is a visible example of that effort. It reflects a broader approach, shaping growth across the city.

Last August, there were cows on the property where there is today a baseball stadium. Everybody had a hand across every single agency to make something spectacular happen.

Where the magic really occurred was when you look at what we did in three years' time. We bought 200 acres, we cleared CEQA, and we had to do it by April 2nd, 2026.

Our new stadium was built in a year. Let that sink in, one year.

I've never seen or heard of anything that has happened this quickly in city government. This is the kind of project that makes you know why you worked in public service.

This was a huge project in my career. Hopefully I'll bring my grandkids here someday to show this beautiful stadium and say I played a minor role in it. And it's something I'm very proud to be part of.

It's all because of the folks that built this, that planned it. I can't wait to see the kids coming here from the community and looking at the expressions on their face when they are right here watching a baseball game.

And I think when someone coming into the stadium the first time, there's a sense of place, a sense of belonging, right? This is our community.

We're delivering that quality of life to our residents, and I think that will last for generations beyond this.

That's why we're here. We have the resources and the talent to make it happen.

It is amazing, and I do not think that any other city in California can pull it off.

Just like everything else we do, collective efforts pay off.

We as the city, we can build these amazing places and spaces, but it's all just grass and seats, concrete and metal. It's not until people start to fill them, start to inhabit them, begin to create memories together in them, that they unfold into their full potential. And so, it takes all of us. It takes you and me to fill these spaces with love and energy for our families and our neighbors. Because that's what it's all about, right? Creating community. It is us, right here, right now, coming together in unison, engaging with that necessary energy to realize our full potential and truly create the premier city of the Inland Empire.

And so it has come to this. We go to the ninth inning here at Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers, six runs, 12 hits, one error. The Cardinals, no runs, no hits, and three errors. It is the 29th of June. In case someday, long from now, Fernando is playing this back to his grandchildren. And Vince Coleman will start it off. Coleman has grounded a short and struck out twice. Pass ball away, ball one. Fernando Reddy in the strike two pitch is hit back to the box, dribbling to second. Samuel on the back, close to first, double play. Fernando Valenzuela has pitched a no-hitter at 10-17.

Hello, my name is Wendy Slatkin and I'm the exhibit chair and curator for the upcoming exhibit at the Chaffey Community Museum of Art. The event coming up is a really exciting opportunity for our two museums to work cooperatively.

Hi, my name is Samantha Herr. I am the curator of exhibits here at the Ontario Museum of History and Art. The exhibition is titled Community as Canvas.

Collaborative exhibit is one in which the ideas and the concepts are shared by our sister museums. We're sharing an idea, a concept, opening reception times. Our portion of it is called Walls that Speak.

The museum's portion of the show is titled, Lived-In Creative Practices Shaped by People and Places. This exhibit highlights eight artists from Coachella Valley, the Inland Empire, and Los Angeles and Long Beach region.

I selected our living artists because of their commitment to their communities.

They're organizers, arts advocates, teachers, mentors, counselors, therapists, and gallery owners.

When they arrive into CCMA, they're going to be able to view the two galleries with the background and get a sense of the historical perspective for our younger generation of artists.

What's exciting about the show is that these artists all create work that's related to the communities that they live in. And you get a chance to see a bit of someone's history, a bit of someone's story through each and every piece that's in the show. Stay tuned for artist interviews to learn about their practice and we'll see you at the reception on April 11th. Yeah, I eat here every day and the banana pancake and its specialty really, really tastes really good.

Everything here is probably 95% made in-house. I think the Country Fried Steak is probably the most popular, and then also the Ontario Airport, which is kind of like a breakfast sampler, and you get a little bit of everything.

It's a breakfast here. The creator of the menu, it's the couple from Georgia, and then they create this menu back in 1997, and southern style, and then all from scratch.

It is a locals place. Anybody that lives in Ontario has probably been here more than a handful of times.

I landed in Ontario one day and I came into a restaurant because I was hungry. I met a friend that I used to know when I used to live in Alaska. That was a previous owner. We kind of talked. He wanted to sell the restaurant and I wanted to buy the restaurant. So that was perfect timing.

As big as Ontario is, it's a really small town. So everybody knows everybody basically. I love mainly all the customers. Irregulars just keep you wanting to come to work and you just after so long you develop a really good relationship with them.

We just consistently serving a good food and that good quality of service and that customer really, you know, tend to come back and enjoy it. You know, that makes me keep on going. Iron skillet is proud to be made in Ontario.

Thank you. Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you you Amen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . ¶¶ Amen. you Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.