HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-10 - Agenda Packet
AMENDED AGENDA
(ITEM D2 UPDATED TO REFLECT TEXT CORRECTIONS AND
INADVERTENTLY OMITTED PAGES 12/5/2025 2:40PM)
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
December 10, 2025
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2025. (No meeting on November
26, 2025.)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A request for site plan and design
review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to increase maximum wall height to allow
up to an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at the
terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone and the Equestrian Overlay;
APN 1074-201-01 and -02. Staff finds the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a
prior Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021,
through Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not
already considered in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227
and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244). Previously approved related files: Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218.
D2. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Amend the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent
with the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood; Add Nine New
Building Types and Amend Development Standards for Existing Building Types; Amend the
Regulating Zones to Permit New Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino
Overlay, Neighborhood Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood General 2 Regulating
Zones; Add New Open Space Types and Standards and Add “Shared Yard” As A Frontage Type; Add
New Block Configurations; And Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development Rights
(Density) Within the Neighborhood Area to Enable Less Density Near Existing Neighborhoods and
Facilitate Appropriate Clustering of Residential Uses Elsewhere Within the Neighborhood Area.
(DRC2025-00022).
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20853 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning
Area 1(27.73 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single
Family Homes. (SUBTT20853)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20854 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning
Area 2 (39.22 Acres) Into 233 Numbered Lots and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single
Family Homes. (SUBTT20854)
An addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102)
has been prepared for this project. This item will go to the City Council for final action.
E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may
present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience
should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing
impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 6
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
November 12, 2025
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on
November 12, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:03 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp,
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean
McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Jared Knight, Assistant Planner;
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried unanimously,
5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP
LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the
development of three (3) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on
approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue
to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -
94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary
Case File No. DRC2019-00742.
Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that the draft
resolution contained grammatical errors which included incomplete APN references. In addition, the title of the
Conditions of Approval was amended. No other changes were made aside from the title block. Commissioners
received a redlined version of the changes on the dais for review.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 6
Applicant Sizemore was present and available to answer questions.
The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Wyatt Stiles, Amy Smith, Eddie Campos, Louie
Lopez, Steven Salazar, and Robert, also known as ”Maddog”.
The following individuals expressed questions about the project: Felicia Zhu and Dick Takemoto. Their
concerns included:
• Noise and suggested to install a 10-12 feet block wall to mitigate it
• Privacy
• Pollution
• Type of manufacturing business proposed
• Traffic
• School children’s safety
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the
agenda packet and the following comments are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to
for details:
• Email from Advocates for the Environment, withdrawing their comment letters, indicating they no
longer oppose the project.
• Email from Judy Summers expressing truck traffic and safety concerns for the school children.
• Email and a hard copy from Steven Piepkorn with Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance,
expressing environmental concerns and requesting that a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be drafted and circulated. This correspondence also included a letter previously provided as part
of the FEIR process from Gary Ho with Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP, on behalf of Golden State
Environmental Justice Alliance dated August 2, 2024.
Applicant provided an explanation on the following:
• Block wall – The City’s development code allows a maximum wall height of 8 ft.; however, a minor
exception permits a height of up to 10 ft. Staff would have to review a request for a minor exception
separately since it is not part of the project application, which the developer intends to pursue at a
later date.
• Noise – stating that the proposed screen wall will diminish the sound.
• Type of business proposed – Does not have an end user.
• Traffic – Installation of traffic signals at 8th and Baker and other traffic improvements is expected to
minimize traffic concerns and reduce congestion.
Commissioner Dopp stated that his contention with projects like this is that trucks need to get to the freeway
the quickest route accessible and going north is prohibited by the city in numerous ways. It creates undue
burdens. He said the preferred method is south. He asked how developer intends to prevent trucks from
going into the northern parts of the city where it is more residential.
Applicant answered that it is 5-mile stretch to go through stop sign-controlled intersections through very
narrow roadways. He said they have a truck routing plan, and tenants are on a tight schedule as they want
their goods dropped off fast. He said along the northernly bounds they are improving Vineyard/Arrow and
Foothill Blvd. with a single authorization which will make things better. In terms of the restriction on
northbound traffic, he does not have the ability to control it.
Commissioner Dopp stated that from a general understanding, warehouses still have a big impact on
neighborhoods, particularly in the southwest part of the city. He mentioned to the applicant that the EIR
expressed alternate avenues for development outside of just pure warehouses. He is not convinced that
the warehouse furthest to the west is not going to have a negative impact on the quality of life to the
residents in those neighborhoods. He asked the applicant if there was any consideration to do something
other than a warehouse, as opposed to making all three buildings warehouse developments.
Applicant responded that it seemed to be the most efficient layout, and it made more sense to them than
other layouts. They did everything they could within reason to produce a good project that is as low of an
impact as possible given the location to the neighbors.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 6
Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant whether the public art funds allocated for renovating the 1-acre
property would be sufficient for their proposed plans.
Applicant confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling referred to the submitted comments and requested clarification for the benefit of the
public and future readers of the minutes, on one issue: the visibility of the truck docks and bays from the
street.
Applicant explained that at street level, there is an 8-foot wall which was the maximum allowed. As the site
slopes to the south, additional grade lowers the truck docks below both street level and the base of the wall,
resulting in no visibility of the trucks.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp expressed that he has a problem with warehouse projects being close to residential
areas due to their potential impact. He expressed his opinion regarding logistic jobs versus manufacturing,
or strong blue-collar jobs, expressing that in the long-term, these tend to be lower wage jobs. He expressed
concern that 9th Street may struggle to accommodate the traffic. He noted that given the zoning, his primary
concern is Building 3, which is closest to the residential area. He appreciates the community development
fee but if this project does go forward to Council, he has a question about why $5 million dollars would be
enough to mitigate some of the harm to the southwest community.
He also expressed that he likes what they did with the Baker House. The more that can be done for historic
preservation, the stronger the benefit in the long term. Commissioner Dopp then expressed that he was
unsure how he might vote.
Commissioner Daniels stated that these projects are always somewhat difficult because the zoning has
been there for approximately 45 years. There are a lot of residential homes in the area, and he believes
the developer tried to mitigate it as much as possible. He commended the developer for doing the
conditional use permit upfront. He questioned Development Agreement Section 11.E, specifically the in-
lieu fee. He expressed that they did a very good job with the architect, but questions continue to come up
relating to traffic. He asked Engineering staff for an explanation as to why 9th and Vineyard was not
indicated in the traffic study.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that based on the study of the traffic impact analysis, the two
intersections to be optimized is Vineyard/Foothill and Vineyard/Arrow, but Vineyard/9th is not indicated due
to some of the re-stripping that will take place at that intersection where trucks will be going south and not
necessarily north.
Commissioner Daniels stated that because of the zoning, the developer did a very good job mitigating any
impacts. Although, it is unfortunate, there is residential around the project. He commends the developer
for the job they have done and the time it has taken. He expressed his support.
Commissioner Diaz concurred with the other Commissioners that warehouse projects tend to be difficult
due to their negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, particularly residential areas, however, it is
zoned properly, and it complies with everything it needs to comply with. There have been comments made
about working close to home. She told the developer that it is important to the community that the jobs
these tenants are providing are sustainable wages for people to be able to live in this community. One of
the positive impacts of this development is that we can have people work close to home and create an even
more positive impact in that neighborhood.
Vice Chairman Boling highlighted that in the Conditions of Approval, Building and Safety’s number one
condition calls out for connection on the three developed parcels. He asked if Baker House is on sewer.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that he is not certain at this time.
Page 6
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 4 of 6
Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that if it is not, he suggests getting it put on sewer before the city takes
possession of the property. He said that this is an interesting site we have within the project boundaries
proposed, industrial, as well as business park, and residential. This is the typical interface we like to see
where the residential is right next to a business park, which has been successful, and businesses there
have been flourishing. The developer has done a good job in stepping down the magnitude of the buildings
as it approaches the residential area. He commended the applicant for doing the best he can in pushing
truck traffic in one direction away from the residential neighborhoods. The geography of where we are
located, with its proximity to the freeways, major rail lines, and international airport almost forces us to
consider projects like this because of the major infrastructure the region has invested in. There are
concerns where it is placed but the need for development like this exists and they have done a good job
with the concerns of the community.
He asked for clarification earlier with regard to the truck dock and bays for a specific purpose, in reference
to the letter received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and there were several assertions
in that letter with reference to CEQA concerns. In this public hearing tonight, we have identified that at
least one of those assertions was a falsehood at their assertion that the truck bay is visible from the street,
which does not exist. He wanted those in the audience to understand that people can assert anything but
what is important is to have the facts to back it up and often times, organizations like that do not have the
facts to back up their assertions or statements. He expressed that the architecture looks great. The project
fits in and elevates the surrounding community, as it pertains to the business park, as well as the larger
buildings to the north. He hopes they get the right tenants there at the right time.
Principal Planner McPherson mentioned that in regard to utility connections, Engineering Condition
Approval number 30 requires separate utility services to each parcel, including sanitary sewer systems.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that given that, Building and Safety’s requirement for all three developed
parcels to connect to the public sewer appears redundant, as the same requirement is already addressed
in Engineering conditions 29 and 30.
Principal Planner Confirmed.
Chairman Morales thanked the developer for working with staff to come up with the best development
possible for that piece of land. He thanked them for being a responsible developer committed to hiring
skilled labor. Also, he liked the Baker House restoration as a community benefit because he is sure they
will use it in the future. He is in support of the project.
Commissioner Dopp stated that there was a discussion regarding a minor exception for a 10-feet wall
adjacent to Building 3 on the north side. He asked staff when the appropriate time would be to bring it up.
Planning Director Nakamura replied that the minor exception is a separate entitlement and is assigned at
the administrative level. She does not think it would be appropriate for the Commission to require them to
apply for a minor exception because it has not been reviewed for the necessary conditions. She said it
would be best to allow the developer and staff to better understand what the final needs are in order to
make the wall work for everyone involved. She said we do not want to guarantee approval on something
that has not yet been fully evaluated.
Commissioner Daniels asked to confirm that an 8-foot wall is what is being proposed tonight.
Principal Planner confirmed.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-039
recommending that to City Council approve Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266,
as amended in the resolution and the conditions of approval. Motion carried, 4-1, with Commissioner Dopp
voting no.
Page 7
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 5 of 6
D2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General
Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies
Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension
Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map
Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground
Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding
Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this
Project. This item will be forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from the October 22, 2025,
Planning Commission Meeting (DRC2025-00255, DRC2025-00256).
Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Daniels mentioned that with eliminating the mandate for the Floor Area Ratio, he believes the
developer will not comply if it is not mandated.
Planning Director Nakamura mentioned we would have a dimensional standard for what that ground floor has
to be. The developer can always do more than what would be proposed and required under these standards.
She reiterated that this is a floor, not a ceiling, that is being proposed.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that by eliminating the requirement and categorizing it as a target, if the City later
finds that developers are not coming close to meeting that target, nothing will prevent the City from taking the
same steps it is taking now–amending the code-to revise the target or ultimately establish a hard minimum.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said this is just to get back to what it originally was intended to be.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned as a follow-up that for some of the more intensive uses on the matrix, the real
problem for him is that he understands the argument, he has seen time and time again that these housing
developers of these housing projects will waive it away if they do not want to do it
Planning Director Nakamura asked him to clarify what he is expecting to see in some of those environments that
would be different that would create these community buildings.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned the city center or city corridor is more intensive. These are parcels in the
General Plan where the city said we want higher quality development. Therefore, the floor area ratios need to
be very high to support a mix of retail, commercial, restaurant use, and maybe office space.
Planning Director Nakamura clarified that it is required in any of the center or corridor designations, regardless
of whether it is off of Foothill and Haven.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he still believes, even with the ground floor requirements, that we will not come
anywhere near those Floor Area Ratio targets for those specific zones.
Planning Director Nakamura provided an example of the city center parcel.
Commissioner Diaz asked if we reduce the floor area ratio to what it is now, can a developer still use density
bonus law to do all the things they want to do.
Planning Director Nakamura answered that they can always use state bonus density law to waive certain
standards.
Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Page 8
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 6 of 6
Commissioner Dopp stated the biggest discussion seen from the Commission is what the intended target
is. At the end of the day, he understands that we have seen a lot of projects that involve some parts of that
metric. For him, the biggest thing about this specific amendment is that he does not think we could lose
that tool as a strategy for some of these developments. If we are going to use ground floor non-residential
as a strategy, his recommendation would be to continue to encourage mixed-use in these areas, take a
second look at some of the corridor centers, and maybe extend the language beyond just Foothill and
Haven.
Planning Director Nakamura, due to a possible misunderstanding, clarified that this is not a strategy but an actual
requirement that is going to be required by code. She explained that the corridor fronting retail requirement is an
actual linear designation on the zoning map, applicable to Foothill and Haven. What it did is break up where
they wanted retail only on the corners and then any other non-commercial could be further away from the
corners, and that is being collapsed so it could be any sort of commercial use because it was becoming far too
complicated for everybody to program it that way. She said the 15-foot minimum ground floor requirement
applies not only to Foothill and Haven, but to all corridor designations and all center designations.
Chairman Morales stated that the changes are positive and reflecting public input received over the years.
He noted that it has often been challenging to fill the ground-floor spaces. He expressed support for
considering preparations for bus rapid transit options as they arise.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-040
and 2025-041 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendments and
Municipal Code Amendments. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura mentioned that there will not be a second meeting in November and that the
Commission will reconvene in December.
F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 9
DATE:December 10, 2025
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A
request for site plan and design review of 6 single-family residences and a
Minor Exception to increase maximum wall height to allow up to an 8-foot
combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue
at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential
Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and -02. Staff finds
the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated
Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January
13, 2021, through Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03, and does not raise or
create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227 and
Minor Exception DRC2025-00244). Previously approved related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and
Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Design
Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244 with the attached conditions of
approval.
BACKGROUND:
Site Characterization and Land Use Designations
The four-acre project site is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, at the terminus of Vista
Grove Street. The property is generally rectangular in shape, with a 50-foot-wide flag-shaped
access strip connecting the main portion of the site to Hermosa Avenue. The site measures
approximately 630 feet along the northern property line, 505 feet along the southern property line,
309 feet along the western property line, and 280 feet along the eastern property line, excluding
the access strip.
The topography of the site slopes from north to south, with an elevation change of approximately
29 feet, from 1,932 feet at the northern boundary to 1,903 feet at the southern boundary. An
existing single-family residence and associated accessory structure are located near the
southeast corner of the site. These structures will be demolished as part of the proposed
development. The remainder of the property is undeveloped and characterized by both native and
non-native grasses and multiple mature trees.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent
properties are as follows:
Page 10
Page 2 of 10
3
1
9
1
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
North Single-Family
Residences Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
South Commercial
Equestrian Facility Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
East Single-Family
Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
West Single-Family
Residences Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
Figure 1 – Site Aerial
Previous Entitlements
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305 on January 13, 2021 to
subdivide the four-acre parcel into six residential lots. This approval included Minor Exception
DRC2020-00217 for increased wall height and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218 for the
removal of onsite heritage trees.
On February 28, 2024, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for
SUBTT18305, extending the tentative map’s expiration date to January 13, 2025. Subsequently,
He
r
m
o
s
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Vista Grove Street
Page 11
Page 3 of 10
3
1
9
1
California Assembly Bill 2729, approved on September 27, 2024, automatically extended the life
of eligible housing entitlements by 18 months. This legislation applies to all housing projects
approved before January 1, 2024 which were set to expire before December 31, 2025. As a result,
the current expiration date for SUBTT18305 is July 13, 2026. The previously approved Minor
Exception and Tree Removal Permit approval remain valid for a five-year term and will expire on
January 13, 2026.
ANALYSIS:
Site Design and Layout
The proposed project comprises six residences on the six individual lots previously approved
under Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305. The project site will also feature two numbered lots for
east-west and north-south drive aisles. Access to the development will be provided through a
westward expansion of Vista Grove Street to the approximate center of the subject site. Vista
Grove Street will then extend southward into a cul-de-sac, providing access to each of the six
sites arranged on either side of the street. Equestrian trail easements were established along the
western, eastern, and southern property lines of the overall development with the approval of the
tentative tract map. The trails are proposed to be improved in compliance with the Trail Design
Guidelines as part of the subject application. A 5.5-foot-wide sidewalk is proposed along the south
side of the Vista Grove Street extension and will continue along the eastern side of the cul-de-
sac until just past the centerline of the street. Six-foot-wide parkway improvements will be made
along the street side yard of Lot 6 as well as throughout the entirety of the cul-de-sac. On the east
side of the cul-de-sac, parkways are proposed to be 6.5 feet and the western side will feature 12-
foot parkways. Street, curb and gutter improvements are proposed through the entire
development as well. A driveway apron is proposed at the terminus of the Vista Grove Street
extension in order to provide the San Bernardino County Flood Control access to an existing
drainage easement.
Page 12
Page 4 of 10
3
1
9
1
Figure 2 – Site/Landscape Plan
Unit Composition
Per Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code, projects containing five to ten units are
required to provide a minimum of two different floor plans and two elevations per floor plan, for a
total of four-unit types. The project satisfies this requirement by providing two floor plans and two
elevations for each floor plan. Section 17.122.010A.1 of the Development Code also requires that
projects consisting of four or more units must provide a minimum of 25 percent of the units as
single-story units. Of the six proposed units, two of the units are designated as single-story units.
These single-story units will be placed on the two corner lots at the north end of the development
to reduce mass at the street intersection and contribute to a more open-pedestrian friendly
streetscape.
The below table summarizes the number of units provided for each unit type and the square
footage breakdown for each unit type:
UNIT SUMMARY
Residential
Unit Type Stories Unit Size (SF)
Building
Footprint
(SF)
Number of Units
Plan 1 (Elevation A)1 5,709 SF 5,248 SF 1
Plan 1 (Elevation B)1 5,697 SF 5,236 SF 1
Plan 2 (Elevation A)2 6,099 SF 3,732 SF 2
Plan 2 (Elevation B)2 6,120 SF 3,762 SF 2
Total Number of
Units 6
Each of the unit types are summarized as follows:
Plan 1 (Elevation A) – Single-story Spanish style residence with a living area of 3,947 square feet,
a one-car garage of 251 square feet, a two-car garage of 541 square feet, a 681 square foot
California room, a 124 square foot master patio, a 70 square foot balcony, and a 95 square foot
nook patio.
Page 13
Page 5 of 10
3
1
9
1
Figure 3 – Plan 1 Elevation A
Plan 1 (Elevation B) – Single-story Italian style residence with a living area of 3,943 square feet,
a one-car garage of 257 square feet, a two-car garage of 532 square feet, a 681 square foot
California room, a 124 square foot master patio, a 70 square foot balcony, and a 90 square foot
nook patio.
Figure 4 – Plan 1 Elevation B
Plan 2 (Elevation A) – Two-story Spanish style residence with a living area of 4,325 square feet,
a three-car garage of 797 square feet, a 163 square foot covered entry, a 542 square foot
California room, and a 272 square foot balcony.
Page 14
Page 6 of 10
3
1
9
1
Figure 5 – Plan 2 Elevation A
Plan 2 (Elevation B) – Two-story Italian style residence with a living area of 4,386 square feet, a
three-car garage of 797 square feet, a 123 square foot covered entry, a 542 square foot California
room, and a 272 square foot balcony. This elevation is provided in two color variations.
Figure 6 – Plan 2 Elevation B
Page 15
Page 7 of 10
3
1
9
1
Figure 7 – Plan 2 Elevation B1
Architecture
The residences are proposed to be enhanced with high-quality exterior materials and finishes
including, but not limited to, stone veneer accents on the Italian style units, stucco in
complementary tones, and clay tile roofing consistent with both Spanish and Italian style
architecture. Additional design elements include architecturally compatible window and door
surrounds, decorative wrought iron features, and entry treatments such as arched openings,
covered porches, and recessed doorways.
As a whole development, the residences establish a cohesive, high-quality residential character
that reflects the City’s expectations for context-sensitive infill development in the Very Low (VL)
Residential zone.
Compliance with Development Standards
The proposed project complies with each of the development standards for the Very Low (VL)
Residential zone as shown in the following table:
Required Proposed Compliant?
Density 2 du/ac (max)2 du/ac Yes
Front Yard Setback 42 ft (min)42 ft – 47 ft Yes
Side Yard Setback
(Interior)10/15 ft (min)10 ft – 27 ft 9 in Yes
Side Yard Setback
(Corner)27 ft (min)27 ft – 30 ft Yes
Rear Yard Setback 60 ft (min)76 ft 6 in – 102 ft 6 in Yes
Lot Coverage 25% (max)13.1% - 21.2% Yes
Building Height 35 ft (max) 24 ft 6 in – 27 ft 11 in Yes
Parking
Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, single-family residences are required to provide
two onsite parking spaces, one of which must be covered in either a garage or a carport. Each
unit provides a total of three covered parking spaces with either a combination of a one car garage
and a two-car garage or with a three-car garage. Each lot also includes sufficient driveway
Page 16
Page 8 of 10
3
1
9
1
dimensions to accommodate at least one uncovered parking space. As such, the project is
compliant with the required parking standards.
Minor Exception
The applicant has requested a Minor Exception as part of the proposed project to allow for
maximum wall height to be increased by up to two feet, as outlined in Table 17.16.110-1 of the
Development Code. The request is for the combination wall located on the entirety of the western
boundary line of the equestrian trail on Lots 4, 5, and 6 that runs from north to south. The
maximum permitted height is six feet and the Minor Exception request would allow for up to eight
feet in height at various points in the wall. The request is being made as there is a grade difference
between the project site and the property to the east.
A similar Minor Exception (DRC2020-00217) request was previously approved at the time of the
tentative tract map approval, which permitted up to an eight-foot combination wall along the
southern property line of the 50-foot-wide flagpole area that connects the project to Hermosa
Avenue. This request also extended to a portion of the eastern property line of Lot 6. Both areas
contained a grade difference with the property to the east as well.
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting at the project site on September 30, 2025 at 5:30
p.m. The applicant sent all property owners within 660 feet of the project site a notice of the
meeting. A total of five community members attended the meeting along with the developer,
architect, and project planner. The meeting was hosted in an open-house style format and the
attendees were able to ask direct questions to the developer. Visuals of the project were also on
display. The attendees consisted of adjacent neighbors who had general questions about the
project, such as what the size of the lots and homes would be, potential sale price, and where the
equestrian trails would be located. The neighbors expressed excitement for the project to be built.
There were no concerns or modifications requested. The meeting ended at approximately 6:45
p.m.
Design Review Committee
Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee on November 4, 2025. The applicant,
Trinity Alliance, was present and no members of the public were in attendance. Both Committee
Members provided feedback on the proposed project and architectural designs and components
selected for the residences. Committee Members were appreciative of the strategic usage of
recessed areas on the building faces that provide character and add shade, overall strong design
elements applied to all building faces, and that variety was provided in elevation designs while
still being subtle enough to create a comprehensive development. The Committee Members also
noted that the Minor Exception request was justified as it aligned with the previous request and
would accommodate the grade difference on the site and the property to the east. The project
was recommended to move forward to the full Planning Commission as proposed by the
applicant.
Public Art
Per Section 17.124.020A.1 of the Development Code, all residential development projects that
propose four or more units shall be subject to the Public Art requirement. This requirement would
entail that artwork be provided which has a minimum value of $750 per unit developed. With six
units, the applicant would subject to a minimum public art value of $4,500. As an alternative to
providing the public art onsite, the applicant may also donate artwork to the City that meets or
exceeds the value of artwork the project is subject to or pay an in-lieu fee to the City’s public art
Page 17
Page 9 of 10
3
1
9
1
trust fund in an amount equal to the minimum value of artwork that project is required to provide
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Environmental Assessment
During the entitlement of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217,
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
the subject site. This process included public notice of the public comment period, notice of intent
to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring Program
to ensure implementation of and compliance with the mitigation measures of the project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental Negative
Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project
unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe
impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under
which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental
impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have a new or more severe
impacts than previous considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to
reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the
construction of housing product and associated features, such as walls, within the boundaries of
a previously approved subdivision, staff has determined that: (i) no substantial changes are
proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, (ii) no substantial changes have occurred in
the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, (iii) no new important
information has been presented as part of this application which shows that the project will have
new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and (iv) there are no additional or
different mitigation measures, which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially
reduce impacts. The subject applications do not raise or create new environmental impacts that
were not already considered at the time of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Accordingly,
Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244 are exempt from further
environmental review as the impacts of the six residential units and associated features were
previously considered and accounted for in the original Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, which were certified by the Planning Commission on January 13,
2021 through Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03.
Correspondence
This item was advertised as a public meeting with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin Newspaper on November 25, 2025. Public notices were mailed to the 81
property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on November 25, 2025. The site was
posted with one notice on November 26, 2025 as well. As of the writing of this report, staff has
not received any communication from the public regarding this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project site is currently subject to annual property taxes, a portion of which is allocated to the
City. With the development of six single-family residences, the assessed value of the property is
expected to increase, resulting in a corresponding increase in the City’s annual share of property
tax revenue. The City receives $0.05 per $1.00 in property tax assessed.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed project supports the City Council core value of building and preserving a family-
Page 18
Page 10 of 10
3
1
9
1
oriented atmosphere by proposing the development of six single-family residences that are
intended for families. The project also supports the core value of relentless pursuit of improvement
by developing an underutilized, infill parcel with well-designed and desired for-sale homes.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Link_ Project Plans
Exhibit B – DRC Comments and Draft Minutes Dated November 4, 2025
Exhibit C – Draft Resolution of Approval 2025-044 with Conditions of Approval
Page 19
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Project-Plans
Page 20
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
November 4, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner
DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION -TRINITY ALLIANCE - A request for site
plan and design review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to maximum
wall height to allow up to an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side
of Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low
Residential (VL) Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN 107 4-201-01 and 02. Staff finds
the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative
Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021, through
Resolution 21-07 (SUBTT18305), and does not raise or create new environmental
impacts not already considered in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design
Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244). Previously approved
related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and
Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218.
Background:
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305 on January 13,
2021, to subdivide a 4-acre parcel into six residential lots. This approval included Minor
Exception DRC2020-00217, for increased wall height, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2020-00218, for the removal of onsite trees.
On February 28, 2024, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension
for SUBTT18305, extending its expiration date to January 13, 2025. Subsequently,
California Assembly Bill 2729, approved on September 27, 2024, automatically extended
the life of eligible housing entitlements by 18 months. This legislation applies to housing
projects approved before January 1, 2024, and were set to expire before December 31,
2025. As a result, the current expiration date for SUBTT18305 is July 13, 2026. The
previously approved Minor Exception and Tree Removal Permit approvals remain valid
for a five-year term and will expire on January 13, 2026.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and
adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural Very Low Residential (VL) Neiqhborhood
North Single-Family Semi-Rural Very Low Residential (VL) Residences Neiqhborhood
South Commercial Equestrian Semi-Rural Very Low Residential (VL) Facility Neighborhood
East Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural Very Low Residential (VL) Neighborhood
West Single-Family Semi-Rural Very Low Residential (VL) Residences Neighborhood
Exhibit B
Page 21
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 2
Site Characteristics:
The 4-acre project site is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, at the terminus
of Vista Grove Street. The property is generally rectangular in shape, with a 50-foot-wide
flag-shaped access strip connecting the main portion of the site to Hermosa Avenue.
The site measures approximately 630 feet along the northern property line, 505 feet
along the southern property line, 309 feet along the western property line, and 280 feet
along the eastern property line, excluding the access strip.
The topography of the site consists of a gentle slope from north to south, with an
elevation change of approximately 29 feet, from 1,932 feet at the northern boundary to
1,903 feet at the southern boundary. An existing single-family residence and an
accessory structure are located near the southeast corner of the site and will be
demolished as part of the proposed development. The remainder of the property is
undeveloped and characterized by native and non-native grasses and multiple mature
trees.
Project Overview:
The project comprises of six residences on six individual lots, which were previously
approved under Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305. Access to the development will be
through a westward expansion of Vista Grove Street to the approximate center of the
subject area. Vista Grove Street will then extend southward into a cul-de-sac through
Trinity Court, providing access to all six sites. Sidewalk and parkway improvements are
proposed along the southern portion of the east-west Vista Grove Street expansion and
along the entirety of the cul-de-sac. Equestrian trail easements are proposed along the
west, east, and south property lines of the overall development and will be improved in
compliance with the Trail Design Guidelines including, but not limited to, split rail fencing
and decomposed granite surfacing. Landscaping improvement will be made to the front
and side yards of all properties along with the parkways.
The previously approved Minor Exception (DRC2020-00217) permitted a maximum
eight-foot-tall combination wall along the southern property line of the 50-foot-wide
flagpole area that connects the project to Hermosa Avenue. This increased wall height
was similarly approved to extend to a portion of the eastern property line of Lot 6 to
accommodate the grade difference between the lot and the property to the east. The
applicant now proposes an additional Minor Exception which proposes a maximum 8-
foot combination wall along the entirety of the western boundary lines of the equestrian
easements on Lots 4, 5, and 6 that runs from north to south. This height increase will
similarly support the grade difference between the subject lots and the property to the
east.
Page 22
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 3
Figure 1 – Site/Landscape Plan
Unit Composition and Floor Plans:
Per Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development code, projects with five to ten units are
required to provide a minimum of two different floor plans and two elevations per floor
plan. The project satisfies this requirement by providing two floor plans and two
elevations for each floor plan, for a total of four-unit types. Section 17.122.010A.1 of the
Development Code also requires that projects consisting of four or more units must
provide a minimum of 25 percent units as single-story. Of the six units, two of the units
will be single-story. These single-story units are placed on the corner lots to reduce
building mass at the street intersection and contribute to a more open, pedestrian
friendly streetscape.
The below table summarizes the number of each unit type and their square footage
breakdown:
UNIT SUMMARY
Residential
Unit Type Stories Unit Size (SF)
Building
Footprint
SF)
Number of
Units
Plan 1 (Elevation A) 1 5,709 SF 5,248 SF 1
Plan 1 (Elevation B) 1 5,697 SF 5,236 SF 1
Plan 2 (Elevation A) 2 6,099 SF 3,732 SF 2
Plan 2 (Elevation B) 2 6,120 SF 3,762 SF 2
Total Number of
Units 6
Page 23
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 4
Each of the plans are summarized as follows:
Plan 1 (Elevation A) – Single-story Spanish style with a living area of 3,947 square feet,
a one-car garage of 251 square feet, a two-car garage of 541 square feet, a 681 square
foot California room, a 124 square foot master patio, a 70 square foot balcony, and a 95
square foot nook patio.
Plan 1 (Elevation B) – Single-story Italian style with a living area of 3,943 square feet, a
one-car garage of 257 square feet, a two-car garage of 532 square feet, a 681 square
foot California room, a 124 square foot master patio, a 70 square foot balcony, and a 90
square foot nook patio.
Plan 2 (Elevation A) – Two-story Spanish style with a living area of 4,325 square feet, a
three-car garage of 797 square feet, a 163 square foot covered entry, a 542 square foot
California room, and a 272 square foot balcony.
Plan 2 (Elevation B) – Two-story Italian style with a living area of 4,386 square feet, a
three-car garage of 797 square feet, a 123 square foot covered entry, a 542 square foot
California room, and a 272 square foot balcony.
Architecture:
The homes are enhanced with high-quality exterior materials and finishes, including
stone veneer accents, stucco in complementary tones, and clay tile roofing consistent
with Mediterranean-inspired architecture. Additional design elements include
architecturally compatible window and door surrounds, decorative wrought iron features,
and entry treatments such as arched openings, covered porches, and recessed
doorways.
Together, the homes establish a cohesive, high-quality residential character that reflects
the City’s expectations for context-sensitive infill development in the Very Low (VL)
Residential zone.
Page 24
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 5
Plan 1 – Single-Story
Page 25
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 6
Plan 2 – Two-Story
Page 26
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 7
Compliance with Development Standards:
The project complies with each of the development standards for the Very Low (VL)
Residential zone as shown in the following table:
Required Proposed Compliant?
Density 2 du/ac (max) 2 du/ac Yes
Front Yard Setback 42 ft (min) 42 ft – 47 ft Yes
Side Yard Setback (
Interior) 10/15 ft (min) 10 ft – 27 ft 9 in Yes
Side Yard Setback
Corner) 27 ft (min) 27 ft – 30 ft Yes
Rear Yard Setback 60 ft (min) 76 ft 6 in – 102 ft 6 in Yes
Lot Coverage 25% (max) 13.1% - 21.2% Yes
Building Height 35 ft (max) 24 ft 6 in – 27 ft 11 in Yes
Parking:
The proposed single-family residences are required to provide two onsite parking
spaces, one of which is covered in a garage or carport. Each unit provides three covered
spaces with garages in addition to sufficient driveway dimensions to accommodate at
least one uncovered parking space. As such, the project is compliant with the required
parking standards.
Neighborhood Meeting:
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting at the project site on September 30, 2025,
at 5:30 p.m. The applicant sent all property owners within 660 feet of the project site a
notice of the meeting. A total of five community members attended the meeting along
with the developer and project planner. The meeting was hosted in an open-house style
format and the attendees were able to ask questions to the developer. Visuals of the
project were also on display. The attendees consisted of neighbors who had general
questions about the project, such as what the size of the lots and homes would be,
potential sale price, and where the equestrian trails would be located. All interactions
were positive and the neighbors expressed excitement for the project to be built. There
were no concerns or modifications requested. The meeting ended at approximately 6:45
p.m.
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the
design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend
the selected action below:
Recommend Moving the Item Forward to the Full Planning Commission as proposed
by the applicant. Recommend
Moving the Item Forward with Modifications to the design of the project
by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee
is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action
by the Planning Director / Planning Commission.
Page 27
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-00227 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244 –
TRINITY ALLIANCE
November 4, 2025
Page 8
Recommend Conditional Support of the design of the project by incorporating
revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not
required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan
check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission.
Recommend Further Consultation with Staff of the design of the project as
proposed by the applicant.
Staff Planner: Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner
Members Present:
Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Page 28
Design Review Committee
Meeting Agenda
November 4, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
6:30 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Special Design Review Committee held on November 4, 2025. The meeting was called to order
by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m.
Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Daniels
Staff Present: Jared Knight, Assistant Planner and Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner
B. Public Communications
Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public
communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2025.
Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote as amended and posted online.
D. Project Review Items
D1. DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A request for site plan and
design review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to maximum wall height to
allow up to an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue
at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the
Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and 02. Staff finds the project to be within the scope of
the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 2021, through Resolution 21-07 (SUBTT18305), and does not
raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-
00244). Previously approved related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception
DRC2020-00217, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218.
Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee on November 4, 2025. The applicant,
Trinity Alliance, was present and no members of the public were in attendance. Both
Committee Members provided positive feedback on the proposed project and architectural
components selected for the residences. Committee Members were appreciative of the
strategic usage of recessed areas on the building faces to provide character and add shade,
overall strong design elements applied, and that variety was provided in elevations while still
being subtle enough to create a comprehensive development. The Committee Members also
noted that the Minor Exception request was justified as it aligned with the previous request and
would accommodate the grade difference on the site and the property to the east. The project
was recommended to move forward to the full Planning Commission as proposed by the
applicant.
The Design Review Committee voted to move the project forward to the Planning Commission with a
recommendation of approval.
Page 29
Recommended approval to PC. 3-0 Unanimous Votes.
D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, VARIANCE –
ETIWANDA ESTATES, TOLL BROTHERS - A request for the design review of 188 Single-
Family Residences spanning multiple parcels on an approximately 80-acre site within the Low
Residential (L) Zone, located at the northwest corner of East and Wilson Avenues. (Tracts
16072-1, 16072-3). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162. (Design Review DRC2024-00373, Minor
Exception DRC2025-00261, Variance DRC2025-00263).
The Design Review Committee noted the use of tubular steel view fences in the rear and side
yards of many of the proposed units. While they did not object to the fencing material, they did
request that the rationale behind using this material rather than block wall be more clearly
stated in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Overall, the Design Review Committee was
supportive of the project, noting that they appreciated its aesthetic consistency with the
adjacent Lennar project while still being distinct, and recommended approval of the design of
the project as proposed by the applicant.
The Design Review Committee voted to move the project forward to the Planning Commission with a
recommendation of approval.
Recommended approval to PC. 3-0 Unanimous Votes.
E. Adjournment
Principal Planner McPherson adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
DRC Draft Minutes
Page 2
Page 30
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2021-00227 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00244, A
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 6 SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCES AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO MAXIMUM WALL
HEIGHT TO ALLOW UP TO AN 8-FOOT COMBINATION WALL ON 4
ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA AENUE AT THE
TERMINUS OF VISTA GROVE STREET WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL)
RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THE EQUESTRAIN OVERLAY; APNS: 1074-
201-01 AND -02, MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A.Recitals.
1.The applicant, Trinity Alliance, filed an application requesting approval of Design
Review (DRC2021-00227) and Minor Exception (DRC2025-00244), as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as
"the application."
2.On the 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said applications and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on December 10, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The project site consists of approximately four acres, generally located on the
west side of Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista Grove Street; and
b.Associated Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT18305), Minor Exception (DRC2020-
00217), and Tree Removal Permit (DRC2020-00218) were previously approved by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 2021, and SUBTT18305 expires on July 13, 2026, and DRC2020-
00217 and DRC2020-00218 expire on January 13, 2026; and
Exhibit C
Page 31
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 – TRINITY ALLIANCE
December 10, 2025
Page 2
c. The applicant proposes construction of six single-family residences on the
tentatively approved lots; and
d. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning
designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcel)
are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
North Single-Family
Residences Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
South Commercial
Equestrian Facility Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
East Single-Family
Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
West Single-Family
Residences Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
e. The Project includes Design Review DRC2021-00227, which permits the
construction of the six single-family residences, and Minor Exception DRC2025—00244 to permit
up to two additional feet of wall height, up to eight feet, on a proposed combination wall located on
the entirety of the western boundary line of the equestrian trail on Lots 4, 5, and 6 that runs from
north to south.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby makes the following findings for Design Review DRC2021-00227,
pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.040:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plans. The project site is designated as Semi-Rural Neighborhood. The proposed project
aligns with the land use goals and policies identified in the General Plan, including the construction
of low density, single-family housing in a neighborhood that strengthens the semi-rural character
of the existing neighborhood not to exceed six dwelling units to the acre; and
b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code
and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within Very
Low (VL) Residential zone which is intended to accommodate the development of semi-rural
single-family neighborhoods. The underlying tentative subdivision map is consistent with
subdivision standards which were in place at the time of approval. The subject Very Low (VL)
Residential zone anticipates the development of semi-rural single-family neighborhoods as
proposed by the application; and
c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code. The project meets the required standards including, but not limited to,
site design, building design, landscaping, and parking; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously certified by the
Planning Commission on January 13, 2021 relative to SUBTT18305, DRC2020-00217, and
DRC2020-00218. The proposed project proposing to construct six single-family residences on the
tentatively subdivided lots will not result in any additional significant environmental impacts which
Page 32
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 – TRINITY ALLIANCE
December 10, 2025
Page 3
had not already been considered by the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Further, the proposed project to construct the residences will be
required to comply with all mitigation measures associated with the previous approvals.
4. The Planning Commission also hereby makes the following findings in support of Minor
Exception DRC2025-00244, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.110:
a. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable
specific plan or development agreement. The project site has a General Plan land use designation
of Semi-Rural Neighborhood and the zoning designation is Very Low (VL) Residential. The
request for a Minor Exception is limited to specific lots and specifically relates to combination wall
height on said lots due to existing topography and a grade difference between said lots and the
property to the east. The specific lots includes Lots 4, 5, and 6 and the specific area includes the
western boundary line of the equestrian easement trail that runs from north to south. The Minor
Exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan land use designation, zoning
designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and
b. The proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land
uses in the surrounding area. The surrounding areas to the project site include areas which
similarly contain sloped areas and varied finished grades. Requests for such increases in
combination wall height are not uncommon in sloped areas and a Minor Exception (DRC2021-
00217) was previously approved for combination wall height for the subject project site along the
southern property line of the 50-foot-wide flagpole area that connects the project to Hermosa
Avenue as well as a portion of the combination wall along the eastern property line of Lot 6 due
to the grade difference with the property to the east. The Minor Exception for increased
combination wall height on the lots identified in (a) above is consistent with other similar requests
in similarly sloped areas as well as on the subject site itself. Thus, the proposed Minor Exception
is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area; and
c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard is necessary to
allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate
unique site conditions. The increased combination wall height is necessary to accommodate
sloped conditions and grades differences between the subject property and adjacent property.
Permitting the increased wall height allows the subject lots for which the Minor Exception is being
requested to be developed similar to other lots in the area which do not contain these same unique
constraints; and
d. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be
detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct the
equestrian easement trails in compliance with the Trail Design Guidelines to the rear of the parcels
identified in (a) above such that these lots will be similar to other lots in the area which are also
subject to providing improved equestrian easement trails and do not face the same grades
differences with adjacent properties. Thus, the height increase is consistent with the standards
and guidelines of the City. Further, the increased wall height is unlikely to impact public health,
safety, and/or welfare.
5. Planning Staff has determined that the project complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. An Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program were certified by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 2021 with Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03 as part of the original
Page 33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 – TRINITY ALLIANCE
December 10, 2025
Page 4
approvals of underlying Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217,
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218 for the project site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental Negative Declaration is required in connection
with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are
proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii)
substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously
reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important
information shows the project will have a new or more severe impacts than previous considered;
or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation
measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has reviewed the project for
compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and
associated features, such as walls, within the boundaries of a previously approved subdivision,
staff has determined that: (i) no substantial changes are proposed that indicate new or more
severe impacts, (ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the
project was previously reviewed, (iii) no new important information has been presented as part of
this application which shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously
considered, and (iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures, which are now
feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. The subject applications do
not raise or create new environmental impacts that were not already considered at the time of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Accordingly, Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor
Exception DRC2025-00244 are exempt from further environmental review as the impacts of the
six residential units and associated features were previously considered and accounted for in the
original Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5, above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition
set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 10th day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 – TRINITY ALLIANCE
December 10, 2025
Page 5
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 35
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1.
2.
3.
Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244 applications authorize the
construction of 6 single-family, detached residential units and up to an 8-foot tall wall on the west side of
Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential zone and
the Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and -02.
All Conditions of Approval previously applied to the related Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305,
Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218 under Resolutions
21-01, -02, and -03 must be complied with in addition to the current Conditions of Approval.
The project shall comply with all recommendations and Conditions of Approval outlined in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration as well as the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared by ECORP Consulting
(November 2020) and certified under Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03.
The associated Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders
Office prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
4.
Standard Conditions of Approval
All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.
5.
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
6.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 36
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures)
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
7.
Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for
information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be
wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
8.
Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within
2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 37
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the
Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined
in 17.124.020.D.
If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building
permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.
If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an
application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to
the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate
the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.
If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be
subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the
proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.
No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any
development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is
subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
10.
For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and
occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted
by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
11.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown
on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations
regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
12.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
13.
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the
case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for
Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction
Services.
14.
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 38
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the
required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Services Department.
16.
Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval
prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics
of the selected tree species.
17.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design
shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
18.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient
landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.
19.
Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates.
Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
20.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other
applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at
the time of Building Permit issuance.
21.
All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including
proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the
Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.
22.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals
where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in
subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards
of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs.
23.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners'
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the
City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building
Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The
Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of
their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes.
24.
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for
Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public
notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
25.
Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral area in the rear yard adjacent to the Local
Feeder Trail. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10
feet.
26.
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site
Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading
on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations.
27.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 39
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All above ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or
masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For
single-family residential developments, transformers shall also be above ground, pad mounted, meeting
current SCE design standards.
28.
On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot
wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street
trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs,
ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide
each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as
determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
29.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner,
homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance
shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved
prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
30.
Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay
deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that
equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs in accordance with Engineering Services
Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B.
31.
Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of
25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage
devices may be required by the Building and Safety Official.
32.
Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails,
construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split-face
double sided block, ‘slump stone’ or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review
Committee.
33.
Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State
Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show
compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to
occupancy.
34.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building,
etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has
commenced, whichever comes first.
35.
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of
Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
36.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 40
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property
owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least
30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter.
37.
For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.38.
Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted
for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
39.
Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit
shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The
easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be
recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes
first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any
other object, except for utility wires and similar objects.
40.
Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map
41.
A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control,
in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for Planning Director review and
approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street
improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and
drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
42.
The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water
requirements.
43.
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of
mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes
with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall
be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
44.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for SUBTT18305, approval letter on January
13, 2021 from Planning Commission.
1.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
The approved fire protection plan is required to be recorded on the parcel. Upload proof of recording to
this project file and notify the Fire District of recording by sending an email with verification to
RCFire@CityofRC.us
1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 41
Project #: DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244
Project Name: Trinity Homes Hermosa 6
Location: 5360 HERMOSA AVE - 107420101-0000
Project Type: Design Review and Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in
accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
2.
Combustible construction materials, including combustible roofing materials, are prohibited from being
onsite prior to a water supply system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10 being provided in
accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. Copies of the Standards have been uploaded to the
Documents section of this project in the Online Permit Center.
3.
Temporary fire apparatus access (fire lanes) and temporary fire hydrants, if needed, are required to be
in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-2. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
4.
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
This site is located in the fire area designated as the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ),
all structures must be constructed with ignition resistant or noncombustible materials in accordance with
the approved Fire protection Plan and/or the most current edition of the CA Building Code including all
local ordinances and standards.
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including energy and
structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the
CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards.
The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
A soils report is required for new structures.
Vegetation/landscape must be design and installed in accordance to the guidelines of RCFPD
Standard 49-1 for sites located in the VHFHSZ fire area.
Where no public sewer is available within 200 feet plus 100 feet for each additional dwelling unit an
onsite wastewater system shall be designed and installed per the Local Agency Management Program
Ordinance No. 936. A separate submittal and permit is required for this submittal.
1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 7Printed: 11/19/2025
Page 42
DATE:December 10, 2025
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
SUBJECT:SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to
Amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan
(EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent with the
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood;
Add Nine New Building Types and Amend Development Standards for
Existing Building Types; Amend the Regulating Zones to Permit New
Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino Overlay,
Neighborhood Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood
General 2 Regulating Zones; Add New Open Space Types and Standards
and Add “Shared Yard” As A Frontage Type; Add New Block
Configurations; And Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring
Development Rights (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area to Enable
Less Density Near Existing Neighborhoods and Facilitate Appropriate
Clustering of Residential Uses Elsewhere Within the Neighborhood Area.
(DRC2025-00022)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20853 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to
Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1(27.73 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots
and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes.
(SUBTT20853)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20854 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to
Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.22 Acres) Into 233 Numbered Lots
and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single Family Homes.
(SUBTT20854)
An addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102) has been prepared for
this project. This item will go to the City Council for final action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending approval to
the City Council of the proposed amendments to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan and Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 for the future development of 410 total
single-family homes.
BACKGROUND:
Since the early 2000’s the County of San Bernardino has begun, and not finished, several efforts
to sell the San Bernardino County Flood Control land around Los Osos High School. In 2019,
after two years of development and community input, the city proactively adopted the Etiwanda
Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The plan was developed in anticipation
Page 43
Page 2 of 8
3
2
0
8
of a pending sale of 1,200 acres of surplus San Bernardino County Flood Control land around
Los Osos High School, including the former rock crushing site and included a total of 4,088 acres
within the City’s sphere of influence. The plan divided the area into main development areas; the
Neighborhood Area, where most development would occur, and the Rural Conservation Area,
which limited development and would focus on conservation of areas in the northernmost area of
the foothills. The Neighborhood Area allows for the development of up to 3,000 units and 180,000
square feet of commercial uses. After the plan was adopted, the area was annexed into the City.
In 2021, the City adopted an update to the General Plan. The City Council initiated this update
process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our
success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This
comprehensive General Plan Update addressed issues and challenges facing the City, including
diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the
character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The
updated General Plan advances the City’s vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy
community.
In 2024, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a purchase and sale agreement for the surplus
flood control land with The Previti Group. This purchase represents most of the developable land
within the Neighborhood Area of the EHNCP. The Previti Group will be operating as the master
developer for the site, coordinating the development of each planning area and contracting with
homebuilders to design and construct homes as appropriate. They are requesting amendments
to the EHNCP to make changes to align the specific plan with the General Plan and state laws
that have been signed into law since adoption of the original plan. In addition, the Previti Group
has submitted single family home tract maps for two of the planning areas in the plan consistent
with the proposed changes in the Specific Plan to initiate the first developments within the
Neighborhood Area.
ANALYSIS:
As proposed the changes to the EHNCP focus on three main areas; 1) Align the development
capacity of the EHNCP with the General Plan as defined by State Law; 2) Modify existing
development standards and add new building types to the plan to support the realignment in
development capacity; and 3) Establish a formal mechanism for transferring density with the
Neighborhood Area to allow for less density near existing neighborhoods and cluster residential
uses elsewhere within the Neighborhood Area.
Align density in conformance with the General Plan
In October 2019, the Governor signed Senate Bill 330, the Skinner Housing Crisis Act of 2019
(SB330) that amended provisions of the California Government Code to state that “a proposed
housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria,
and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective
general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the
general plan.”. (GOVT 65589.5(j)(4))
The General Plan land use designation for the area of the EHNCP is designated as “Traditional
Neighborhood”, which permits a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre. The current
EHNCP Specific Plan does not specify a maximum density, instead it regulates the type of
housing product (building type) permitted in each Planning Area with minimum and maximum
quantities for a “mix and match” approach with a maximum overall numerical capacity, but that
approach is not consistent with the discreet density shown in the General Plan. The amendment
Page 44
Page 3 of 8
3
2
0
8
clarifies that the maximum density is eight dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the
General Plan land use designation of “Traditional Neighborhood”. This change only applied to
the Neighborhood Area (NA) of the plan. Aligning the density in conformance with the Traditional
Neighborhood General Plan land use designation provides more flexibility in the overall
development of the site. The proposed changes do not affect the commercial requirements within
the plan.
Modifications to development standards to conform to density and provide development flexibility
The current building types and locations were specifically programmed to achieve a specific
development pattern within the Neighborhood Area. To allow for a more flexible development
pattern consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood designation, new building types were
developed to provide additional options for future development. They include smaller single family
residential building types such as small lot front load, small lot detached, and motor courts.
Missing middle housing types have been added as well, including duplex, quadplex, 12-plex,
walk-up, cottage court, and courtyard building. Each new type is provided with objective
development standards.
Figure 1: New Building Type Examples (left: small lot front load and right: cottage court)
To accommodate new building types, a variety of other changes were made to the plan, including
creating new open space types, along with a frontage type called “shared yard” that was created
to allow for building types with shared front yard space.
Page 45
Page 4 of 8
3
2
0
8
Figure 2: New Frontage Type (shared yard)
Existing building types were updated with new open space types and frontage types as
appropriate to provide more options. In addition, new block configurations were created to support
existing and new building types and allow for different development patterns. The following new
block configurations were added: no rear lane, simple rear lane, complex rear lane, attached open
space and attached to existing blocks (called a close).
Figure 3: New Block Configurations (left: attached to open space and right: no rear lane)
Page 46
Page 5 of 8
3
2
0
8
Figure 4: New Block Configurations (left: simple rear lane and right: complex rear lane)
Transfer of Development (Density) within the Neighborhood Area
The plan currently permits the Transfer of Development Rights program (TDR) from the Rural
Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area to encourage continued conservation and
preservation of open space in the RCA in exchange for additional development capacity in the
Neighborhood Area. The proposed amendments also include a new TDR program within the
Neighborhood Area. The intent of this is to provide a mechanism to transfer density between the
planning areas of the Neighborhood Area to allow for fewer homes near existing neighborhoods
and better clustering of homes elsewhere within the unbuilt project area.
Section 7.4.2 of the plan lays out the regulations regarding the Neighborhood Area TDR program
in detail, but the process is summarized in this report. First, at the time of development of a site,
the applicant requests the number of unbuilt dwelling units to be banked (transferred). Next, as
part of the development approval, the banked units are added to the TDR bank. Then, when a
new development would like to receive any banked units, the request will be included in their
application for review and applicability. Finally, when the subsequent project is approved, the units
received will be removed from the TDR bank.
Regulations in the program ensure that any units transferred to a site can be accommodated with
adequate infrastructure. Any proposed transfer is required to be compatible with the surrounding
development to ensure that the receiving site does not create abrupt changes in scale, character
or height. Units within the transfer bank expire 10 years after they are transferred into the bank.
An annual report will be published on the City’s website showing all activity within the
Neighborhood Area TDR program.
Finally, the Neighborhood Area TDR program does not mandate or require that banked units be
used. It is designed to hold those units if there is a future desire to cluster homes elsewhere in
the neighborhood area, such as near the town center.
Page 47
Page 6 of 8
3
2
0
8
Other Miscellaneous Changes to the Plan
In addition to the main amendments to the plan, various text amendments are proposed to update
language in the plan to reflect actions since the adoption of the plan, including but not limited to
the LAFCO annexation action, change in state law, and the adoption of the General Plan in 2021.
Changes were also made to the application and review process outlined in the plan to mirror the
City’s existing development review process.
Subdivision of Planning Areas 1 and 2
In addition to the proposed Specific Plan amendments, The Previti Group has submitted tract
maps to legally subdivide Planning Area 1 (PA1) and Planning Area 2 (PA2). These maps were
developed based on the proposed plan amendments.
Tract 20853 encompasses Planning Area 1 with an overall land area of 33 acres. The project
proposes the subdivision of four unimproved parcels into 177 numbered lots and nine lettered lots
for the future development of 177 single-family units at a density of 5.4 units per acre. The lots
will have access from Banyan Street. Connections to the adjacent streets of Mirador Drive, Lemon
Avenue, and Marbella Drive are proposed. The numbered residential lots range in size from
11,992 square feet to 2,750 square feet. Since the EHNCP is form based plan, lot requirements
for each lot are based on the building type. The table below shows a summary of the lots, building
type and minimum lot dimensions to ensure compliance with the plan. Other conventional lot
criteria, such as minimum or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in
a form-based code. Each lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type.
Table 1: Planning Area 1(Tract 20853) Development Requirements
Lots Building Type Lot Dimension Minimum Compliance
1-46 Front Load House 47’ x 65’Yes
47-131 Front Load House 47’ x 65’Yes
132-177 Motor Court 90’ x 90’Yes
Tract 20854 encompasses Planning Area 2, with an overall land area of 50 acres. The project
proposes the subdivision of 1 existing, unimproved parcel into 231 numbered lots and 11 lettered
lots for the development of 231single-family units at a density of 4.6 units per acre. The lots will
have access from both Banyan and Milliken Avenue. A cul-de-sac is proposed at the northern
terminus bordering Wilson Avenue due to significant grade change that precludes the connection
to Wilson. The front load house lots are located on the west side of PA 2, adjacent to the Deer
Creek Channel, maintaining compatibility with adjacent established neighborhoods. The
numbered residential lots range in size from 8,942 square feet to 1,802 square feet. As previously
mentioned, since the EHNCP is form based plan, lot requirements for each lot are based on the
building type. The table below shows a summary of the lots, building type and minimum lot
dimensions to ensure compliance with the plan. Other conventional lot criteria, such as minimum
or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in a form-based code. Each
lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type.
Table 2: Planning Area 2 (Tract 20854) Development Requirements
Lots Building Type Lot Dimension Minimum Compliance
1-35 Front Load House 47’ x 65’Yes
36-121 Motor Court 90’ x 90’Yes
122-231 Motor Court 90’ x 90’Yes
Page 48
Page 7 of 8
3
2
0
8
The Previti Group requests that the remaining unused density in each planning area be
transferred to the bank using the Neighborhood Area TDR program.
Table 3: Transfer of Development (Density) Request
Tract Number Planning Area
Size (Acres)
Maximum Units
Permitted
Proposed Units Banked Units
20853 (PA1)33 264 177 87
20854 (PA2)50 400 231 169
Environmental Analysis
As part of the adoption of the EHNCP in 2019, the City Council certified the EHNCP Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#201711102) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Staff contracted with one of our on-call CEQA consultants (PlaceWorks) to review
the certified EIR assist in determining the appropriate level of environmental review for this project
based on the proposed amendments and relevant data. An addendum to the EHNCP EIR was
prepared for this project. CEQA Guidelines §15162 requires that a subsequent EIR shall be
prepared only when substantial changes are proposed in the project or the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. PlaceWorks determined that the proposed amendments
do not constitute any substantial change in the project, nor have there been any changes in
circumstances since the adoption of the EIR. Further, there is no new information of substantial
importance and new effects not considered in the original EIR. Based on the proposed
amendment, one new mitigation measure is required (MM BIO-10: Clearance Survey and
Avoidance for Crotch’s bumble bee). As such, a revised MMRP to incorporate the new mitigation
measure and restate mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 is provided in the addendum.
Noticing and Correspondence
SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American
tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local
land use planning. Letters were sent to local tribes on October 13, 2025 and tribes were provided
90 days to respond to request consultation. All tribes that have responded to date have declined
consultation. This item was advertised with an 1/8th page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on
November 19, 2025, 20 days prior to the public hearing as required by State Law. Because the
number of individual property owners within 660 feet of the boundaries of the parcels of the
Neighborhood Area exceeded 1,000 owners, pursuant to RCMC section 17.14.050.B.2, no
individual notices were sent. 4 x 8-foot notice signs were placed in five prominent locations
around the neighborhood area boundary and public hearing notices were posted there on
November 19, 2025. On December 3, 2025, staff was made aware of a clerical error on the posted
signs which erroneously stated a date that notices were mailed. Staff corrected this error and
posted updated notices clarifying that the notices were posted at the various locations. Staff has
confirmed that the content of the original and revised postings is compliance with State law
pursuant to Government Code Section 65094.
Prior to the compiling of the agenda packet, staff received two emails, on December 3 and
December 4, respectively, which are included with this staff report as Exhibit G. Generally, these
emails, which are identical but were sent by two separate individuals, express concern regarding
the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, citing that a full EIR is necessary. To be clear,
and as noted in this report, the City prepared an Addendum to the EHNCP EIR to analyze any
potential impacts arising out of the proposed amendments and approvals discussed herein. This
Page 49
Page 8 of 8
3
2
0
8
Addendum to the EHNCP EIR is included with this staff report as Exhibit A.
Next Steps
Once the Planning Commission provides its recommendation, the item will be scheduled for a
public hearing with the City Council, who is the final approving authority for this project. A
separate legal ad and notice will be issued for that hearing at least 10 days before the hearing
date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed amendments support the Council goals of building and preserving a family-oriented
atmosphere and intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. The amendments to the plan
will create new opportunities for home ownership and families to continue to grow and thrive in
Rancho Cucamonga.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Link_EIR Addendum
Exhibit B – Link_Specific Plan Amendment Resolution 2025-045 and Draft Ordinance
Exhibit C – Link_Proposed Tentative Tract Map 20583
Exhibit D – Tract Map 20583 Resolution 2025-042
Exhibit E – Link_Proposed Tentative Tract Map 20584
Exhibit F – Tract Map 20584 Resolution 2025-043
Exhibit G – Written Correspondence Received
Page 50
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
EIR-Addendum
Page 51
EXHIBIT B
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Specific-Plan-Amendment-Resolution-2025-045-and-Draft-Ordinance
Page 52
EXHIBIT C
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Proposed-Tentative-Tract-Map-20853
Page 53
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
A 27.73 ACRE LOT INTO ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (177)
NUMBERED LOTS AND NINE (9) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING
AREA 1 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN BANYAN
STREET AND THE 210 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF – APN 0201-27-215, 0201-27-216, 0201-27-217,
AND 0201-27-218.
A.Recitals.
1.The Previti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20853, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on December 10, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to an unimproved site located between Banyan Street and
the 210 Freeway, east of Lemon Avenue west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-27-215, 0201-27-
216, 0201-27-217, and 0201-27-218; and
b.The project site is made up of four (4) parcels of land with an area of approximately
27.73 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Medium
(M)Residential Zone respectively; and
c.The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning
designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcels,
are as follows:
Exhibit D
Page 54
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
Page 2
d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 is for the subdivision of a 27.73 acre parcel into
one hundred seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of
single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle
off Banyan Street; and
e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development
Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of one hundred seventy-
seven (177) single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered
simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are
consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation.
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. The proposed tentative
tract map will subdivide four (4) existing, unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven
(177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of one hundred and seventy-
seven (177) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are
consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda
Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the
subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) single-family
lots. The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed
amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the
severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require
new mitigation measures or alternatives; and
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residential Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood General
1 - Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
North Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential
South Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential
East Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential
West Single-Family
Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential
Page 55
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
Page 3
d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The
scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred seventy-
seven (177) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH
#201711102) was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which
determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological
resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing
that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes
occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments
will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired
by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing
easement.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State’s CEQA
Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation
Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has
become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certification
occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to
the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or
alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the
proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is
the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and
every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Page 56
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
Page 4
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the10th day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 57
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the
associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment
considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is
approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon
for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and
of no force or effect.
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
2.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 58
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
3.
Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for
information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be
wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
4.
The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption
fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors
and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date
of project approval.
5.
This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3
years from the date of the approval.
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 59
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The applicant shall dedicate street right -of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be
consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan.
Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline
Proposed internal streets A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, and Marbella Drive shall be 62 feet from right -of-way
to right-of-way.
Proposed internal neighborhood edge streets, C, F, I, and L shall be 40 feet from right -of-way to
right-of-way.
Proposed internal rear lanes, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, and GG shall be 30 feet from right -of-way to
right-of-way and HH shall be 26.5 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
1.
The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of
Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino
County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits .
2.
All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this
requirement shall be included in the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and
manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful
establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the
CFD prior to filing of the Final Map.
3.
Standard Conditions of Approval
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City
Engineer.
The project shall be designed and constructed such that post -development stormwater runoff flows do
not exceed pre -development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City
standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and
hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with
this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit.
4.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 60
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan
including, but not limited to:
Street Name: Banyan Avenue
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Street Lights
Street Trees
Multipurpose Trail with landscape buffers
Bike Lane
Fiber Optic Conduit
Traffic Signal Modification -Intersection of Fredericksburg Ave .
Street Name: Intract Streets
Curb & Gutter
Curb Ramps
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Fiber Optic Conduit
5.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 61
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future
signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public
and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits ,
whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit
shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project
along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring .
Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other
locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA
standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate
detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 62
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public
landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape
improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees :
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
7.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance
District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or
issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the
maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to
be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any
annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly
Guerra at 909-774-2582
8.
All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final
map.
9.
The applicant shall verify with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is any applicable permit
is required for work within its right-of-way.
10.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.11.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 63
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water,
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards .
Easements shall be provided as required.
12.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga
Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental
Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required
prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been
issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior
to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
13.
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department
Cucamonga Valley Water District
14.
Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards .15.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The
Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan.
1.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall
implement design recommendations per said report.
2.
A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at
the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.
3.
The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
4.
A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and
for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by
a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
5.
The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust
control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be
located outside of the public right of way.
6.
If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department
for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading
and Drainage Plan/Permit.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 64
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible ,
and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
8.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a
minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All
slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code .
9.
The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
10.
The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond
project boundary.
11.
This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building
Code.
12.
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading
meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and
the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a
pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit
may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department
at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing
grading operations:
i)The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii)Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii)At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering
Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly
wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
13.
Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California
Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
14.
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP)
storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
15.
Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan
document.
16.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 65
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water
treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental
Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water
Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground
infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
17.
The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved
project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a
biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
18.
A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City
Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality
Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.
19.
Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a
soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water
quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current
adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.
20.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water
Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
21.
www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 66
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to
primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer
strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect
groundwater:
a.Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b.Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater
quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior
to infiltration.
c.Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes’).
d.Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment
BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other
high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e.Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or
maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used
car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does
any vehicular repair work.
f.Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
h.The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial
uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained.
i.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
22.
www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 67
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading
and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water
flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1.Swales.
2.Water collection and disposal systems .
3.French drains.
4.Water retention gardens .
5.Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater
recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
23.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department.
24.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.
25.
www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 68
EXHIBIT E
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Proposed-Tentative-Tract-Map-20854
Page 69
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
A 39.22 ACRE LOT INTO TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE (233)
NUMBERED LOTS AND ELEVEN (11) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN WILSON
AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF –
APN 0201-19-127.
A.Recitals.
1.The Previti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20854, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on December 10, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to an unimproved site located between Wilson Avenue and
Banyan Street, east of the Deer Creek Channel and west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-19-127;
and
b.The project site is made up of one (1) parcel of land with an area of approximately
39.22 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Milliken
Avenue respectively; and
c.The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning
designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcel,
are as follows:
Exhibit F
Page 70
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
Page 2
d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 is for the subdivision of a 39.22 acre parcel into
two hundred thirty-three (233) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of
single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle
off Banyan Street; and
e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development
Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of two hundred thirty-three
(233) single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered
simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are
consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation.
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. The proposed tentative
tract map will subdivide one (1) existing, unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-three (233)
numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of two hundred and thirty-three
(233) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent
with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to human and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the
subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-three (233) single-family lots.
The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed
amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the
severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require
new mitigation measures or alternatives; and
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residential Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood General
1 - Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
North Single-Family
Residences Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood Estates -
Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
South Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential
East Los Osos High
School Parks and Open Space Parks (P)
West Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential
Page 71
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
Page 3
d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The
scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred thirty three
(233) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH
#201711102) was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which
determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological
resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing
that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes
occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments
will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired
by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing
easements.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State’s CEQA
Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation
Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has
become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certification
occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to
the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or
alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the
proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is
the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and
every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
Page 72
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
Page 4
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 10th day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 73
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the
associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment
considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is
approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon
for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and
of no force or effect.
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3
years from the date of the approval.
2.
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
3.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 74
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
4.
Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for
information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be
wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
5.
The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption
fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors
and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date
of project approval.
6.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 75
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The applicant shall dedicate street right -of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be
consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan.
Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline
Milliken Avenue shall be 60 feet from centerline.
Wilson Avenue shall be 43 feet from centerline.
Proposed internal streets A , B, C, D, and E shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
Proposed internal "rear lanes" shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
1.
The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of
Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino
County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits .
2.
The applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for the the proposed basin and storm drain
improvements located east of Milliken Avenue at APN :0225-091-06-0000.
3.
All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this
requirement shall be included in the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and
manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful
establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the
CFD prior to filing of the Final Map.
4.
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 76
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan
including, but not limited to:
Street Name: Banyan Ave
Curb & Gutter
Curb Ramps
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Fiber Optic Conduit
Street Name: Milliken Ave
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt - 2-inch grind & overlay existing from Banyan Ave to Wilson Ave .
Curb Ramps
Sidewalk - (6ft min)
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Raised Median Island - Provide an in -lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related
landscape and irrigation attributes.
Fiber Optic Conduit
Traffic Signal Modification - Intersection of Grizzly Drive
Street Name: Wilson Ave
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Raised Median Island - Provide an in -lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related
landscape and irrigation attributes.
Multipurpose Trail
Fiber Optic Conduit
Street Name: Intract Streets
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
5.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 77
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Curb Ramps
Sidewalk (6ft min).
Street Lights
Street Trees
Fiber Optic Conduit
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future
signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public
and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits ,
whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit
shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Notes:
1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA
standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate
detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 78
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public
landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape
improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees :
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
7.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance
District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or
issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the
maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to
be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any
annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly
Guerra at 909-774-2582
8.
Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards .9.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.10.
Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water,
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards .
Easements shall be provided as required.
11.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 79
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga
Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental
Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required
prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been
issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior
to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
12.
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City
Engineer.
The project shall be designed and constructed such that post -development stormwater runoff flows do
not exceed pre -development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City
standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and
hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with
this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit.
13.
All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final
map.
14.
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department
Cucamonga Valley Water District
15.
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted
policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including
driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines
of sight plotted as required.
16.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The
Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan.
1.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall
implement design recommendations per said report.
2.
A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at
the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.
3.
The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
4.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 80
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and
for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by
a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
5.
The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust
control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be
located outside of the public right of way.
6.
If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department
for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading
and Drainage Plan/Permit.
7.
The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible ,
and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
8.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a
minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All
slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code .
9.
The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
10.
The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond
project boundary.
11.
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading
meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and
the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a
pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit
may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department
at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing
grading operations:
i)The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii)Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii)At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering
Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly
wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12.
Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California
Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
13.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 81
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP)
storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
14.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department.
15.
Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan
document.
16.
The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water
treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental
Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water
Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground
infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
17.
The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved
project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a
biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
18.
A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City
Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality
Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.
19.
Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a
soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water
quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current
adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.
20.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water
Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
21.
www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 82
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to
primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer
strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect
groundwater:
a.Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b.Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater
quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior
to infiltration.
c.Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes’).
d.Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment
BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other
high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e.Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or
maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used
car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does
any vehicular repair work.
f.Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
h.The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial
uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained.
i.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
22.
www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 83
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading
and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water
flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1.Swales.
2.Water collection and disposal systems .
3.French drains.
4.Water retention gardens .
5.Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater
recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
23.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.
24.
www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11Printed: 12/1/2025
Page 84
You don't often get email from karenoamekdietrich@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From:Mcpherson, Sean
To:"Planning, City"; Nakamura, Jennifer; "karenoamekdietrich@gmail.com"
Subject:RE: CEQA Opposition to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract
Maps 20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:08:00 PM
Karen,
Thank you for the email, we are in receipt. Your message will be provided to the Planning
Commission.
Thanks,
Sean McPherson
Principal Planner
From: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>; Mcpherson, Sean
<Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>
Subject: FW: CEQA Opposition to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment
and Tentative Tract Maps 20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
From: Karen Dietrich <karenoamekdietrich@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:18 PM
To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us>
Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us>
Subject: CEQA Opposition to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment and
Tentative Tract Maps 20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern:
We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Cucamonga, submit this letter to
formally oppose the City’s Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854, which seek to
Exhibit G
Page 85
amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan
(EHNCP)and allow the development of new residential housing and
commercial uses at Milliken Avenue and Banyan Avenue.
Although the City has issued an MND and associated CEQA documents, the
analysis is legally and substantively inadequate. Under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an MND is permissible only when there is
no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in
significant environmental impacts. Here, substantial evidence clearly exists that
the project will have significant impacts, and therefore CEQA requires a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The project’s scale, location, and environmental context make the MND
insufficient as a matter of law.
I. The MND is Inadequate and Violates
CEQA Standards
The MND fails to fully disclose, analyze, and mitigate multiple significant
impacts. Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, if any substantial evidence
suggests a potential significant impact, an EIR is mandatory.
The list of impacts below more than satisfies that threshold.
II. Environmental Issues Requiring a Full
EIR
1. Traffic and Safety Impacts Near the High School
The project’s added vehicle trips will exacerbate already dangerous congestion
at Milliken & Banyan—an intersection used daily by high school drivers,
buses, cyclists, and thousands of students.
The MND fails to adequately evaluate:
Page 86
Peak-hour congestion and queue spillback
Safety hazards for inexperienced student drivers
Increased pedestrian and bicycle conflicts
Cut-through traffic on residential streets
These impacts cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels and
therefore require an EIR.
2. Air Quality and Asthma-Related Health Risks
Construction and increased vehicle activity will produce emissions of NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5 in an area already burdened by poor air quality. The MND
lacks:
A health risk assessment
Sensitive receptor analysis for children
Page 87
Cumulative impact analysis
Adequate mitigation measures
Given the presence of schools and residential neighborhoods, a full EIR is
required.
3. Noise and Nighttime Commercial Disturbance
The introduction of a commercial center creates significant operational noise:
Delivery trucks
HVAC systems
Extended evening business hours
Parking lot activity
The MND does not adequately analyze long-term noise impacts or
cumulative effects.
Page 88
4. Light Pollution Impacting Residences and Wildlife
Commercial lighting, signage, and parking lot illumination will degrade
nighttime conditions, harming both residents and wildlife.
The MND does not provide photometric study data or evaluate:
Light trespass
Skyglow
Impacts to species dependent on dark-night conditions
5. Wildfire Risk and Evacuation Constraints
The site is near high fire severity zones and directly borders areas with wildfire
history. Adding more housing and commercial activity increases evacuation
times and public safety risk.
The MND fails to analyze:
Emergency response time reductions
Page 89
Evacuation traffic modeling
Cumulative wildfire exposure from recent developments
Under CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(a), these omissions require an EIR.
6. Loss of Open Space and Wildlife Corridor Impacts
The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan was designed to
preserve open space and ecological connectivity. The project undermines these
goals by:
Fragmenting wildlife movement corridors
Introducing noise and lighting into sensitive habitat
Eliminating open space intended for conservation under the EHNCP
The MND includes no biological surveys based on appropriate seasonal timing.
7. Water Supply and Sewer Capacity Concerns
CEQA requires substantial evidence of sufficient long-term water supply
Page 90
availability. The MND provides none. Rancho Cucamonga faces ongoing water
constraints, and major new development intensifies that burden.
Similarly, sewer capacity and stormwater systems must be assessed with
quantifiable data. The MND does not provide such data, rendering its
conclusions unsupported.
8. Overdevelopment and Loss of Community Character
The Specific Plan Amendment undermines residential expectations established
in the EHNCP, altering community character by:
Increasing density beyond the intended plan
Introducing incompatible commercial uses near homes
Creating scenic and visual impacts not evaluated in the MND
These impacts are inherently significant.
9. Property Value and Construction-Related Impacts
Extended construction will cause noise, dust, truck routes, and view
obstruction. CEQA requires analysis of construction impacts when they may be
significant. The MND’s analysis is conclusory and unsupported.
III. The Specific Plan Amendment Triggers
Page 91
Mandatory EIR Requirements
Because the project amends the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan, resulting in:
Increased development intensity
New land-use designations
Major changes to permitted uses
Loss of conservation intent
…CEQA considers this a major policy-level change, which further
strengthens the requirement for a full EIR.
IV. Request for Corrective Action
We respectfully request the City of Rancho Cucamonga:
1.
2.
3. Withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Page 92
4. this project.
5.
6.
7.
8. Prepare and circulate a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with
9. comprehensive analyses in all categories listed above.
10.
11.
12.
13. Provide the public with full
14. CEQA review, including adequate time for comments and a thorough
alternatives
15. analysis.
16.
17.
18.
19. Evaluate reduced-intensity or conservation-oriented alternatives consistent
with the
20. EHNCP’s original intent.
21.
Failing to require an EIR would represent a violation of CEQA and expose the
City to unnecessary legal risk.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is
insufficient and unlawful under CEQA. Substantial evidence exists that the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps will result in
significant environmental impacts. A full Environmental Impact Report is
legally required before any further consideration or approval of this project.
Please include this letter in the project’s CEQA administrative record. We
request written confirmation of its receipt.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 93
Mike and Karen Vogel and neighbors
11112 Gettysburg Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Page 94
Some people who received this message don't often get email from mvogel@cuesinc.com. Learn why this isimportant
From:Mcpherson, Sean
To:"Planning, City"; Nakamura, Jennifer; "mvogel@cuesinc.com"
Subject:RE: Formal Opposition to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps
20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:56:00 PM
Mr. Vogel,
Thank you for the email, we are in receipt. Your message will be provided to the Planning
Commission.
Thanks,
Sean McPherson
Principal Planner
From: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:13 AM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>; Mcpherson, Sean
<Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>
Subject: FW: Formal Opposition to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment and
Tentative Tract Maps 20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
From: Vogel, Mike <MVogel@cuesinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 7:35 PM
To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us>; City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us>
Subject: Formal Opposition to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan Amendment and
Tentative Tract Maps 20853 & 20854 – Amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and
Conservation Plan (EHNCP)
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department / CEQA Lead Agency
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Page 95
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the undersigned resident of Rancho Cucamonga, submit this letter to formally
oppose the City’s Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854. This
proposal seeks to amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan
(EHNCP) and permit new residential and commercial development at Milliken Avenue
and Banyan Avenue.
The City’s reliance on an MND is both legally and substantively inadequate. Under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an MND is permissible only when there is
no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in
significant environmental impacts. In this case, substantial evidence clearly exists.
Therefore, CEQA requires preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The project’s scale, location, and environmental context make the MND insufficient as a
matter of law.
Transparency Concerns
The Planning Department’s process has lacked transparency and meaningful
community engagement. Residents were not adequately informed or consulted about
the scope and implications of these proposed changes. CEQA requires robust public
disclosure and participation, yet the City’s approach has limited opportunities for
residents to understand, question, and provide input. This undermines public trust and
violates the spirit of CEQA’s mandate for informed decision-making.
I. The MND is Inadequate and Violates CEQA Standards
The MND fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate multiple significant impacts. CEQA’s
“fair argument” standard requires an EIR whenever substantial evidence suggests a
potential significant impact. The following issues more than satisfy that threshold.
II. Environmental Issues Requiring a Full EIR
1. Traffic and Safety Impacts Near the High School The project will worsen already
dangerous congestion at Milliken & Banyan—an intersection heavily used by high school
drivers, buses, cyclists, and thousands of students. The MND fails to adequately
evaluate:
Peak-hour congestion and queue spillback
Safety hazards for inexperienced student drivers
Increased pedestrian and bicycle conflicts
Cut-through traffic on residential streets
Page 96
These impacts cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
2. Air Quality and Asthma-Related Health Risks Construction and increased vehicle
activity will generate NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions in an area already burdened by
poor air quality. The MND lacks:
A health risk assessment
Sensitive receptor analysis for children
Cumulative impact analysis
Adequate mitigation measures
Given the proximity of schools and neighborhoods, a full EIR is required.
3. Noise and Nighttime Commercial Disturbance The proposed commercial center
will introduce significant operational noise from delivery trucks, HVAC systems,
extended evening business hours, and parking lot activity. The MND does not adequately
analyze long-term or cumulative noise impacts.
4. Light Pollution Impacting Residences and Wildlife Commercial lighting, signage,
and parking lot illumination will degrade nighttime conditions, harming residents and
wildlife. The MND fails to provide photometric data or evaluate light trespass, skyglow,
and impacts to species dependent on dark-night conditions.
5. Wildfire Risk and Evacuation Constraints The site borders high fire severity zones.
Increased housing and commercial activity will lengthen evacuation times and elevate
public safety risks. The MND fails to analyze emergency response reductions,
evacuation traffic modeling, and cumulative wildfire exposure.
6. Loss of Open Space and Wildlife Corridor Impacts The EHNCP was designed to
preserve open space and ecological connectivity. This project undermines those goals
by fragmenting wildlife corridors, introducing noise and lighting into sensitive habitat,
and eliminating conservation-designated open space. The MND includes no seasonally
appropriate biological surveys.
7. Water Supply and Sewer Capacity Concerns CEQA requires substantial evidence of
sufficient long-term water supply. The MND provides none. Rancho Cucamonga faces
ongoing water constraints, and new development intensifies that burden. Sewer and
stormwater capacity analyses are also absent.
8. Overdevelopment and Loss of Community Character The amendment undermines
residential expectations established in the EHNCP, altering community character by
Page 97
increasing density, introducing incompatible commercial uses, and creating scenic and
visual impacts not evaluated in the MND.
9. Property Value and Construction-Related Impacts Extended construction will
cause noise, dust, truck traffic, and view obstruction. CEQA requires analysis of
construction impacts when significant, yet the MND’s discussion is conclusory and
unsupported.
Departure from the EHNCP
The proposed amendment represents a drastic departure from the original intent of the
Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The EHNCP was carefully
crafted to balance growth with conservation, protect open space, and preserve
community character. By introducing higher-density residential development and
commercial uses, the City is disregarding the plan’s conservation goals and the
expectations of residents who relied on the EHNCP as a binding framework for future
development. Such a fundamental shift requires not only a full EIR but also a
transparent, community-driven reevaluation of the plan itself.
III. The Specific Plan Amendment Triggers Mandatory EIR Requirements
Because the project amends the EHNCP by increasing development intensity,
introducing new land-use designations, and eroding conservation intent, CEQA
considers this a major policy-level change. This further strengthens the requirement for
a full EIR.
IV. Request for Corrective Action
We respectfully request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga:
1. Withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
2. Prepare and circulate a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with
comprehensive analyses in all categories listed above.
3. Provide the public with full CEQA review, including adequate time for comments
and a thorough alternatives analysis.
4. Evaluate reduced-intensity or conservation-oriented alternatives consistent with
the EHNCP’s original intent.
Failure to require an EIR would violate CEQA and expose the City to unnecessary legal
risk.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is insufficient and
unlawful under CEQA. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the proposed Specific
Page 98
Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps will result in significant environmental
impacts. A full Environmental Impact Report is legally required before any further
consideration or approval of this project.
Please include this letter in the project’s CEQA administrative record and provide written
confirmation of its receipt.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael W. Vogel
11112 Gettysburg Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91737
12/3/2025
Page 99