Ontario council approves consent calendar despite public opposition over Prop 70 land agreement

The Ontario City Council approved the consent calendar, including updated items 3 and 21, by a 5–0 vote after a lengthy public-comment period in which residents and environmental advocates urged the council to delay or reject an agreement they said could enable sale or conversion of land acquired under Proposition 70.

Advocates from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and other speakers said the proposed agreement allows flexibility that could be used to move Prop 70 land out of permanent agricultural or conservation status and into other uses, including recreational facilities or private development. "This proposal treats our protected lands as an interchangeable asset and commodity to be negotiated and sold for the Grand Park project or potentially other future projects," said Ana Gonzalez, who identified herself as representing CCAEJ.

Speakers pressed the council for transparency about which parcels and conditions are covered by the agreement. "There’s no information about which property," said public commenter Chris Robles, arguing staff and county officials had not provided clear parcel-level details and that the public was being asked to approve terms before a scoping meeting. Randy Backnam told the council the county had not placed permanent conservation easements on Prop 70 lands and called selling that land a "violation of the public trust."

Council discussion on the consent motion was brief. Councilmember Prada moved to approve the consent calendar "with the updated items on number 3 and number 21," a motion seconded by Bowman; the council recorded the consent calendar as passing 5–0. The meeting record shows that updated materials for items 3 and 21 were posted after the agenda and copies were made available for the public.

What happened next and why it matters: Prop 70 funds were used to buy land intended for long-term preservation, and speakers said any sale or exchange must preserve acreage and habitat value and follow county and state review processes. Ana Gonzalez referenced a statutory requirement as quoted in the meeting transcript, "Bill s b 11 24 specifies that there is no net loss in acreage or habitat value as a result of exchange," and urged that the county’s public hearing and planning steps be respected before any transfers occur.

Votes at a glance: Consent calendar (including items 3 and 21) — motion to approve with updates passed 5–0; Item 22 (lease financing for property at 9175 East Chino Avenue) — approved 5–0 after a public hearing with no speakers; Item 23 (qualification of two initiative petitions related to hotel development and hotel-worker protections) — moved to staff matters after a 5–0 vote to proceed.

The council took no recorded action at the meeting to change Prop 70 restrictions or to respond to the legal concerns raised by speakers; advocates said they will pursue further review and asked that the council and county provide parcel-level details and state oversight steps before any sale or exchange occurs.

The council adjourned after brief councilmember remarks and seasonal outreach requests.