The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-12-10 - Supplementals RANCHO - CUCAMONGA _Tx - _ - _ _...- "� ''X �� _y - .a• .. ... ri x,R 'E .�e .-� d •�.•i" i�... -+��11� -T .'• R 3�fr+t-7 r�c.. ' 4` - f f^ .. � ..�? . _ .�' - .- jr -, .. � ,_ ., •� - _ �:"-tom : r� � _�'-,� --.�. ...-... - ,..�a�.- � _-. � � '��. _ � i";s ''q .= ,•,Ft:,,, ,ts�.:x`:.it• ��' --�a._3i`.. �[� _ _�. � -�! - �!". ,,., — _ .�.- - - -f �4_ _._..._ µ - ,.•i t• a .. _RIM _ _ •i w - 1 v.. Am Q fiezio� Joi low l: r _ I - •. �- AHr XNE SIGNAL c e i ,o H �- e a �- _ - -�7711 Aw December .4.0 , 2025 'L j y , Who: Trinity Alliance ; - o # ��" •w1F V What: A request for site plan and design review of a 6 -lot subdivision with 6 single-family homes '� • . on 4 acres of land and a minor exception to wall height; ' • Where: 5360 Hermosa Avenue APNs: 1074 - 201 -01 and 02 • When :4 - + ` ' Tentative Ma Approved January 13 , 2021 p p p y 4 • Accepted on September 9 , 2021 ; �• • • Deemed Complete on October 8 , 2025 . DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 2 p '. � I J. .I•' r�' - ' ri - r f • t -11 J - hIL _ . d #o P •1 k �J �. ro Will r �• of � •i ��.� � '�, •��•• la � � yr` I• F , i ELI 4 In =1- r I ado. tit. . �• .may }} wood.Dr *,ram • `*��+.' i r .:� - - ,,I, - - - 1 rti.. - � •. -S- �. 7 .r= + 1 .7 i+k. F�. ,jam � J � •y '�. .•�.•� ,�+�4• . � � � .�'i'_ Id,• •• -+� :; ��t, +. 1 S l F .� er Pi # dv h -#'S-.�.�b�'.1�}'3_�- :X _ - .. - }+ r..rr�' �.} M1l�� :.l � �•3'-�'� - kY_},y~J•� } '1_S ��f'- # - ~�ti � - t.'n�.: r -' . _.}'•� { � � �.. f :,� .. ,�. - ..._ .J.. - - - - -. . � - _ - -ice i� _ �_'�- _ _ ice. ,1• Jul. .. � .. f - � _ •. � fir. r�' - ::-f; _ � -- _ _ ' � - _ - ' 2-•ar-��;f�'�-�� _ . tir+ �m L L I r M 0M, ' o�xrar n ING TO y H GA7E �,! I i ni-I i - - -PLC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 257�66' � - - � - - - REa6ENTVL ERNE I I-53 i -[2,� m PRfSl11TE 6RI4rukaE EASE VENT 4Y 1. r _ - �f iT�4 i'71 E E� - I.FPRA)A-DH FOR - — LU AdWq_ 366 - gFm.ar.K R r3Se 4 3 E-0UE3TRiV4 7RAL # > [ -366] E#47� [ ] I.flCE&8 PER BTAFFf IMPROVEMENTPLAN -C -0-43 f* LU iNa 1 EXPANSION f • I �g• �. � � � � �� 1 56 �d�9] - SETBACK �. IL re�a'I I I SET6Lk€#i m �d �91163G~4'p��E � 4214' --- --- --- c [Q �E ET9hCK # ,_ _-_ 7S'-O' IX-0' f#•� -y rS7& I I I w 4-#S I •r9 ra7ar W-Cr Lo W-0. 1 ��Hn70 rasa T 2-3ca r. J � ..-. 1 V�R4UflFIT W �2-a11] IDU74 �'� �• TRJM` -r - -- - r- -- FkVM €3 M1TE _ _ _- rl _ W E?WhNBgN �� 2,611] ..r~`'�76-ty f w (TYP.F r I — _ �441ifluEHT -0+x RAN C GATE{rYP. gg o- ifr � 7 aeTetiac f' fy# + - o Er - y as,B SPEUT � I I �� I -- c� .�ti � .1 L • I iii LL �• -i I I -- 2-ase E%PIW eK3N r'+ I b m PL 26152' ' T .5 I if& [�- a i iI _ _ m —�� I I Cii- � -- i'.�, ifr— � o4R7C]UEHr RON u k - inoa +A _- 3fiTe�rrP.E_�,�— - ' l BETSAA:K �. ..E}{p-JkWI •-.,r �' .5f ;n �36e] I ri�1�6L'aFl L-07� I I y_- �EIM YCK r36e 1_ 1 z�co � .7g._g• � � y},-o• I I ]i ; SE "Cl{ --- — I I L_ ----m _ ----- — — - N f[ m ^mod ? EOUESTRiSN ErAEM ENf 2-366] E4UEaTR115N Ef.BEMENT � - I l.3iS}~ PL 23t7S „ems 36m „Rr.M [rase] ,I [rasa] [rasa] TRLM I DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 6 Standard Required Proposed Compliant? Density 2 du/ac (max) 2 du/ac Yes Front Setback 42 ft (min) 42 ft — 47 ft Yes Side Yard Setback 10/15 ft (min) 10 ft — 27 ft 9 in Yes (Interior) Side Yard Setback 27 ft (min) 27 ft — 30 ft Yes (Corner) 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) 24ft6in - 27ft1l in Yes DRC2021 -00227 and DRC2025-00244 7 UNITS JMM k''At-L .1 a, Unit Type Stories Unit Size (SF) Building Number of Footprint (SF) Units Plan 1 ( Elevation A) 1 57709 SF 51248 SF 1 Plan 1 (Elevation B) 1 57697 SF 51236 SF 1 Plan 2 ( Elevation A) 2 67099 SF 31732 SF 2 Plan 2 (Elevation B) 2 6 ) 120 SF 3, 762 SF 2 Total Number of s Units AM Fre o tion "A " _ Spanish Stele Elevation T Italian Sty/� put). a ro I I l tFrout 1 J iy I;j wl 1 �T4 - From ,Aj& Elevation "B" - Italian S!ijle (N8 OAS IM7 Y2 Front YJ — 707 Farou µ+ � : SI -_ PER G.R. 2899a/179 &_-_ INST. NO. 2ii 579 $TREETS TD RE IAAIIaTAIMM aY �ENSIEfG SY AN HAD-A. TOEET7W / I 1 S T]'3N CR.k, N89'30.3�"E fT 930.93• f --- ox PIWL NW k�.7 �� ' Q (PHI PATE 8THEs�7] O F sa c u r I�Av .a7y N LOT'A' _ _ __» 1� � _LDT 'A' 17 ,a' FWESEWEN 1 _ 21 21 iRrlr.FASEUEHT 1'x 28 r1 24.DDT'R ' I ` _ 51 I ve.s.L. .. wcT,r Y89'34'33•E. 3t.e7'TF' 26.a E lk� gEOGE Minor Exception in review ' 22 f S ❑ `3 PA LEY I r•. I ' 35 xou k . ..1• t x'S;s �_ o -� .,' - Approved Minor Exception i 47 ,PAD=23.50 I \ I r I I ' I I I TRACT SPUFH 48 CF] GFF-23.17� I \ a3 TR. BOII AFtY y ��• z W •1 4 -_ X•- 8 3n' L9Q 3i Tl 8 Lij n ff fi' 1 ' U w,�I€ LOlESTRIw Ert�iiJ11 w W 22 �5 ; LJ OW y :1 LpFf 'f. 3.$L� A.t FAVEME1T FL ¢ 1 rs s.=_.L s T s� � _ 15 � � --TT ime 1 __ I ul r � rt��ax YCR �� "- � r:L�' I E105TING dlrB[i 1 21 G — cPrcl22 �+ st cuUasL TYPE w S 47 n 2 VISTA GROVE STREET (LQ F "A" &•EgJESTR WJ � I 'A AFIRF ADJACFNT TT3 EOIIESTFMAN TRAYL a J I .a-wkyE'..i-.- ---- -R VATE STREET CAOS3�T sE:RLE: FF�16.457 I�$ C Easmi r,I 10 I r�'I }}. a93 'p L_�� I 1 ' I - r 63, 33 u I 11 KIM A" EX Fzkk�r LIN 42 34 •�^ s _- __-__ - ___==is'-'= >,rMs4Hfx t°i - - - _ i :- -------- ' SA7C 7 L � EP- _ I - IT} W h HFRM0SA A\ r SCALE: 1`=10• +7 'p ofe 9 34 2 x 1 H` .r, _2,pa 4 6 r, r-z47 38 V I L r s ti + ------ I 1 sLc+3E AwA - I s s 20% MAX A FF 14.Fi7 "I I Ff:ENf)• AP BASIN E M,Erm�"W. -a m. PAD=14.00 L::IL f •Ap ��1r' �--"-' AND 2.0% h GE LEVEL 07.1 'US 5 I cl "S` -' - HdIGiTES E79511NG C77NTOUR IM! - 04.60 Z ---- - fID"TES 5TROET CEN7EAU%E - f1oIG4TEs aR6 L� Ti - - - 1� �'• >n arx- 4 �r..- l� .i T;Ly 32 15 .,,�.�y 8+ } --—-- - INDICATES vRo�PERrr LINE - - - - y � � - nolchr[s PLOW uNE -' -' - - - --- - = ` FF-54-a - WK-AlEs FRII$FI FL"ELEVATION 4 31 7 7Y 0. - L s - $: I� �'PHMlTE TC - MEIKATE5 TOP CIF CURB - '�' LO11L51isinr� 4 pQ i :. ai q LOi "PAI4A-E 47 r. ,RAIL EASEA IT S ¢ B `•� _ • r. fi Fw��FHT E FL - MOICA=n-OW LINE FIE - HOIL'R n FHISN 911RFAi£ E%ISTIN F POLE T�o EE �, FG - H6ICFTES P'NISN GRAbE FFYOuF] TFtw -wp"TES TOP Of r¢iaUNluG Wl.L TF -■iowATEs TOP of F4P8NG DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 10 • Meeting held on September 30 , 2025 ; • 5 attendees; • General questions regarding : • lot size • Residence size • Sa le price • ]Location of equestrian trails; 0 No concerns or modifications requested . DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 10 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Comm • Meeting held on November 4 � 2 0 2 5 � Design Review Meeting Agenda ends tee November 4, 2025 DRAFT,1 imuTEs 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 meetingwas called to order by Sean McPherson,Staff Coordinator,at 6_00 p.m. • Positive feedback from Committee Members regarding • Design Review Committeemembers present:~lice Chairman Doling and Commissioner Daniels Staff Present:Jared Knight,Assistant Planner and Sophia Serafin,Assistant Planner • Architecture B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments,closed public communications. • Design features C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adapt Special Meeting Minutes of September 23,2025. • Necessity for increased wall height, Item C 1 Motion carried 2-0 vote as amended and posted online- D. Pro}ect Review Items D1. DESIGN REVIEW&MINOR EXCEPTION—TRINffY 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 Meriay;APN 1074-20 1 01 and 02.Staff finds the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative Hedaration 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 • Pro J e ct recommended to move forward to the full Negative Declaration rResign Review °RG20ive Tract and Minor Exception D Exception 5- 00244).Previously approved related files:Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305,Minor Exception HRC2020-00217,and Tree Removal Permit RRG2020-00218_ Planning Commission a s proposed by the applicant. Staffpreserntedthe rterrr to the Design,o me bear of the on Novepublic w er4,n ad The applicant; Trin+ty ,4llrance, was present and no members of the public were rn a#taendance. Bath Committee Members provided positive feedback on the pied prcyect and architectural components sefected for the residences. Garnn�liftee Members were appreciatrm 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 whole stilt being subtle enough to create a cornprehensn a devefopment. The Committee Membem afso noted that the Minor Exception request was justrlrad as it dogged xWh the previous request and wvoufd accommodate the grade difference on the site and the property to the east. The project was recommended to move forward to the fud Planning Commission as proposed by the applicant_ The Design Review Cornmdttee voted to move Me project forward to the Planning CofnmfsSfon wim a recomrnend&fian of sppnovai_ DRC2021-00227 and DRC2025-00244 10 • Required to provide artwork that has a minimum value of $ 750 per unit; • Total public art value of $ 4 , 5 00 for a six-unit development; • Public Art Options: • Onsite artwork • Donate artwork to City • Pay an in-lieu fee to the City's public art trust fund . DRC2021-00227and DRC2025-00244 10 • Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) WF and Mitigation Monitoring Program • (MAP) prepared for Tentative Tract Map SUBTTI 8 3 0 5 ' • Housing product already considered and accounted for; • Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 , no subsequent or supplemental NegativeA J J A F Declaration is required as new environmental impacts are not generated . DRC2021 -00227 and DRC2025-00244 10 • kgal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspaper • November 25 , 2025 ; • Public notices mailed • November 25 , 2025 ; • Site posted • November 26 , 2025 . DRC2021-00227and DRC2025-00244 10 404 +C.ice,: .{-: Jhh joI f = ±_ rl r _ '�.r" i r r a�. -g.�r 9e"` •. qi. '��- ,�.�•_,� - _ _`z��a. ��r. �S t.,- -. is - .�� µ�-n...- ,� �. �, ti..• .. -- I.11/. f'. III��{iii Ju '... ,•��• r� • �. ` - �d i.w — :F- � - .'tihr�•. +�w �� r - �'�.i►v+ ��+��w..y�'`'.+a��•1��. :.3_� �. `S .. - ..l •_ . _ �.i+113�i-r ��I *1� �i �.i. x''.`•�F,.' "�.. ='rr'f` .. v �` .� `a.�. _� ^i� ,.z �" �� ...�`:�4 �µ_me �,;, �s.� s�J '•-�='uNL. .�i�. - r .,*1(=. ...t'� r ..� �w;� '�+!` �� ,. -'�"'.:' _.s--i'-'t"'� ':"" ',��Y:� "-"-�Y.i..w�.+t ,i•. '�` , r• � r r- r- -.ram ir•.sr-�� y •;+� .- _ � :,,.. :. �J lk�_..KJ�'�'•:,7s,+�"-' -e-•�r7.�•Lt � arc rr wi��C::.GI�� r�..t�1 It�!,i�Icf l�.,.K...�..�.,j�y.`,.��_'1��7'F�,r ��[ rt'�fL.#�'��..`•.c> -•w.r.�-r '�.�''. 1y+ fir ma-� y y� �:.►�` - '� 'F,► J. __ ___ ��.,..r _��!..�tit �.i"'� '''°!`� -_. s `L-'_ .. � •� " r— -1' � � - �.� - �� ?r+sRFY— •- r w,�w.w'rrr -�r7 r - ' 'a',�� _ - � _ _ - Ali e�:i�-L�'Z,Y _ •� �e�yl� .�' -- r'� - ;r.w��w�r.�s�ssr�a��. .__�� k Se• � l 4 4 tl' �s i FLIrI7AA"KI I?I a!ML11 • 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. DRC2021 -00227 and DRC2025-00244 13 RANCHO - CUCAMONGA _Tx_ - _ _...- "� ''X �� _y - .a• .. n ... ri x,R 'E .�e .-� d •�.•i" i�... --*Imp -T .'• R 3�fr+t-7 r�c.. ' 4` - f f^ .. .7-7 . _ .�' - .- jr -, .. � ,_ ., •� - _ �:"-tom : r� � _�'-,� --.�. ...-... - ,..�a�.- � _-. � � '��. _ � i";s ''q .= RIM ,•,Ft:,•, ,ts�.:x`:.it• �� --�a._3i`.. �[� _ _�. � -�! - �!". ,,., — _ .�.- - - -f �4_ _._..._ µ - ,.•i t• w - 1 v.. Am Q fiezil� Joi 77' =1: A a AHI WEAQ • 4 • ,te a > ! ? �-r ..� _ �► ` +' F SIGNAL ,,ma�yy,, .r _ . . r. may. �1 �.• ;:�,.., ,. 'r 4DRC Y �c AV DECEMB R ,4O, CountyFlood Control Property 2007 County deemed 1 , 200 acres of land surplus s • Initiated a search for a partner develo ment p • 2008 — Great Recession • 2017 — County and City agree to allow City to lead 4 planning effort Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan � 3 _ • City initiated development of the Plan * }}• Goal : New neighborhoods and substantial conservation �.F � - � : -ry'A • Total area : over 4 000 acres ; .y k • Adopted in 2019 p y:, r VA • Annexed in 2020 Alk General Plan • 2020 — General Plan Update initiated by City PLAN RC • Address state housing mandates and other requirement _ ; � ► , �, Y '�` - Community conversation about our future � �j �,_ ROUTE 0 2021 — PlanRCwas adopted � *6_ 6 Changes in State Law 2019 — Housing Crisis Act (SB 330 ) _ ' �• Streamline housing projects • Limit local control J, • Protect existing housing City of Rancho Cucamonga GENERAL PLAN • Over 100 housing bills signed in the last 6 years Priority given to housing production i� �a�2 o Adopted December 2021 • Significant enforcement efforts 0 W Alk County Sells Land • 2024 - County approves agreement to sell to Previti Group • Master developer for site .. . .... Specific Plan Amendments • Developer initiated discussions about changes *5 • Application to Amend EHNCP Submitted _ s • Align densitywith the General Plan - Y � _ :_ Y r = J4? • Ndevelopmentn r rdensityew standards ds to support wpv fY aa� r it • Manage development density - M NOW IT! 9 , Subdivide Planning Areas 1 and ? Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood • Tract maps to subdivide for single family homes Conservation Plan Application Planning Commission Submitted Recommendation Staff Review/ City Council Recommendation Decision � � - -• � �� 't� - t_S•.. � r, ".+fir .� .� ...^aF��..._ _ � _..��"'r--.- .--�_ --" - . ��,p11 ! .>,��a::�:5•,, � _ `tea-'' - � ^' � �� '�-e _... � �� µ�� -.-!I — .. ,��rY �� '_--� _� � ---� .. _ �':'��tir ram..:':^.s.Ah,7r:��..�"�6 rY'Nr.�'- T�:'J>aF�ariN:�:� �+ � - • RIF _ .: - - - - - .r: fr•� �4�. . ..'�=--.� .•.`. �. .>� ..rzv� A+`Y 'r.. '�•k- - - 'a - "'' .� - .�..� - ....��,^~_a.fr7�. YR,,y .� .� a .. _. ._:-:+w!� :i•_ .-. ... -"k T'•g - �F -.a+.'x �.... �. — r K"a'w',r � �t'1��` �~�.>. _ , .. ._.._. .. _ _. _ ��`_ � ��Y . . - - _ -e i .•+.•„�,_,-�r•�._ ... •' :n.F.;. -�. '�w'� '?�Y Vi_�� •>, '3. �'�`�'�"�'�Y ^a..-�� .. ---�'._=-c: d`�,�1Sjlf a _� _-. —"--." -...` -•" "-- ��...�. f-�._—r.r�•._ _ AFT ' - + . '•! � f*oeNL AW . �f.R a^7F/'� ^ •a '[ ;♦ i # SCR 4- - �• �� low. r r�w. il �r1�r�M NOW rz --_ -_ ------- - --- r OVERVEIW AreasAffected Fi ure 1.4 Conservation vs. Nei �borhoad Area • Amendments limited to Neighborhood Area Areas Not Affected r • No changes proposed to the Rural Conservatio Rural/ConseraationArea 3,603 zkcee� Area - - P ,I 2 uaaRa E Neighborhood Area i Main Areas of Change � � Wow.AW��e Wi1wn A%c • Align density with the General Plan C7, t los amps I do @iu}' h51 F - w 3t od --- I wan Si rrpn SI • New development standards to support density • Manage development density in Neighborhood Area EHNCP TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD Purpose & 'ri#ent � � • Traditional Neighborhood To maintain and promote single family housing in neig hborhoads with tradltranal pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development patterns, � ;ocl� ,,; � including in new master planned neighborhoods. a� m • Inspired by Etiwanda Heights r� CAL La nd U se & Veve fOPM a nt 1 ntensity �� ■v.m - uses are primarily how and low-medium demity residential. Context-sensiiive `-- # �` - • Maximum 8 units gross acre neighbonccodoommercial uses are also alk ved in certain locations,such asper neighborhood-edges and at designated nodes wrthin new master planned neighborhooes Iseechapter.21'ocu5 Areas for additional details on the Etiwanda Heights Town-Center). General Plan vs . Zoning C-New uses,such as.fire stations,school and churches may be alkwved provided such uses are oriented toward serving the needs of neighborhoods. Housing Crisis Act Pesldential Density: Max.a unitslacre • Mon-Residential Errtensiity:Max.0.4 FAN Built Form & Character r4erghborhood s are trad itionai i n character.Buildings are set back from the sidewalk wish moderately sized front yards and wettomi ng entries scaled and oriented to pedestrians.Commercial groundtloors may beset nearer to the sidewalk to support such activities a&outdoor dining and provide clew r+news into shopfronts.-Buddi ri-gs are up to 25 stories in heig lit with varied massi ng a nd a wide range of architectural styles compatible with the existi ng cha ratter of adjacent houses. Muitrfam ily and mixed-use bu ild ings are compatible in scale,form,and character with nearby houses. Laos conform to natura I Lerr6in Lour blocks,and streets conform to the natural terrain,minimizing grading and preservi ng natural landforms.Sueetscapes provide safe and comfortable ernrironments for pedestrians and bicyclists with continuous sidewalks un interrupted by wide driveways, lame shade trees and natrve landscaping. Streets are highly interconnected with a grid net%*Drk pattern and human scoe blocks, pedestrian and equestnan connections iotrail systems are provided From neighborhood streets Buffered or protected bii<e lanes may be added to collector streets along with street trees and other landscape C enha ncements that define the publ is spaces and provide shade campy. Parks & Open Space Open spate is in the form of neighborhood parks for active and passive recr eatkimal use for a II ages and other sma II open spaces such as plazas and "House-form"tv vn houses squares ai mixed-use and commertia I areas. Single Family Detached Building Types • Small lot detached Small lot front load • Motor Courts N r The gcrage IS s back from the rest of the facade, A porch r i furM er highlights th e front door an d engqges the s tweet, Motor Court entries can be covered as shown enclosing the court and creafit�g a more con6nuous and engaging street frontage. EHNCP 8 rA.., Alk Missing Middle Building Types • Duplex • Quadplex • 12 plex • Walk up • Cottage Court -- a rd Building y• Court „ 311 1 ; J •� t - ]J is JJ117 11 ■ � k1li AA Jill An132�� 1 ; 1u1.1 1JJJ11 - N 1 w LIV2- Mid-Rise Triplex: - Multiplex: Cottage Townhouse Stacked Work Courtyard Medium � Duplex: Fourplex:Stacked Building Court r Side-By-Side + ng Detached Single-Family le }{oS� � stacked tiSsl�"1� [ l�C� �1.� . Hot.lses � PLIr2 C.opyriphtt-I 2020 n P T I C d 5 Opticos Design.Ins _ EHNCP 8 - 19- FF '�`• �- k — Y ,f .s rk ,� oil � ;. F - 1 . r •S'•C • rr A roj- err f a stoop create the �� _� ��i � � Coft e C.Ourt with 0 rich variety of v e,taUo f? 111 air - — appearance of a house-form building w1th a single entrance f AV r �} k �S:yk portico. ;ii 1kI It 1 lip II Quodplex with o centrals h ared en try for upper-level units. EHNCP 8 NEW OPEN SPACE AND FRONTAG- 1 ATTACHED . P Mar FlexibilityDevelopmentin Patterns • Compatible with new and existing building types FIG. 5.3.3L NO REAR LANE F, I -mow � ' �r III f {y■■ Lon ]' EHNCP 8 W 'M W I A Existing TDR • Transfer density from Rural Conservation Area to Neighborhood Area • Designed to encourage conservation TRANSFER OF DENSITY Proposed Program • Allows transfer of unused density between Planning o Areas m o � � � m o 0 o a m ID--, om o oo . o 71n • Encourages lower density near surrounding &L ...7, neighborhoods SINGLE- FAMILY COTTAGE Planning Areas 1 HOMES COURT • Proposed larger lots along the western edge How Does it Work? • Must be requested as part of a development application • Unused units would be banked for future development • Use of banked density can only be requested as part of another development application • There must be units in the bank to be used Conditions • Banked units expire after 10 years • Bank is maintained by the City and posted on website with annual review • Site must be suited to accept additional units • Cannot create abrupt changes in scale and character • Cannot create new environmental impacts • Maximum density — 29 du/acre � � - -• �� - '•.S'.. r, "•fir .� .� ...raF��..._ _ _..��"'r--.- .--�_ --" - RIF _ .: - - - - - .r: fr•� 4. , ..'�=--.+ .,.`. .,. '�„ ..rzv . . - - _ -e i .•+.•„�,_,-�r•�._ ... •' ;�.. -. '�w'� '?�Y Vi-�� •>, '3. � ��"��Y ^a..-�� .. --•�'._=-c: d`�,�1Sjlf a _� _-. —"--." -..-` -•" "-- ��..--'. f,�._�.r�„_ _ �f*oe . �' } Nor* -'-#� - JEr '� �' YF �r�"•r�i. -I-.. 4�y-ri+�. n�i. ^ w. i="j::�.= a=xlc. ;' '•! �'• .Y# S 4- - �• �• low. r r�w. il �r1�r�M - rz u■ x .� +i PLANNING AREA 1�� TRACT 20853 � �■; r� rig � _ i 7' � �+ -ti 1 - 1 '�■ia= li' • . . . • • . • • • I • cdW I �F�II■F �li�� ''�� f �f - .'1 =-� � S■ � e r to r� L. Ir � f f. �r PLAN N I N G AREA 2�� TRACT 20853 =.Y . IL 4. 5 r'� aM1 i� , � �•- rt • • • { • so • Im AIL Am Oil = so 0 0 0 H z!"'; ti �. _ . • Draft Environmental Impact Report for the • 20191 EIR certified for the Plan Ethvanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Flaw SCH No. 2017051027 • Addendum to EIR was prepared for this -qR% C,HO LTC A NfONGA project • Under CEQA guidelines : e No substantial change - g - Y - F No changes in circumstance • No new effects not previously considered t New mitigation measure Revised MMRP rovided April 2019 EHNCP • • 4'x8' Noticing signs were placed around the Neighborhood Area • Hearing notices posted and legal ad published in 14 „ ►� 5 the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on November 19 , 2025 • To date , staff have received emails and phone calls regarding this project. • Staff has also met with residents to answer questions . EHNCP • Fire hazards • Increased traffic • No N/S or E/W access y,� • School impacts , • Water supply • Compromised open space is Multi -family • Public input EHNCP RECOMMEII�L ' MOK. -AM Staff recommends Planning Commissiondopt resolutions 2025 -042 , 2025 -043 and 2025 -045 to do the following : Recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Tract Map 20853 and Tract Map 20854 EHNCP OnIMI Application Planning Commission Submitted Recommendation Staff Review/ City Council Recommendation Decision Correspondence Received PC Meeting 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-10-25 9:09AM From: Planning,Citv To: Nakamura.Jennifer; Mcoherson,Sean Subject: FW: Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 9:30:31 AM From: Brian Patrick<brian.patric1k840@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:09 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Cc: Planning, City<City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: You don't often get email from brian.12atrick840&gmail.com.Learn why this is important 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. Dear Mayor Michael and City Council members, My wife and I reside at 6101 Softwind Pl. here in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.We have owned this home for the past 11 years and love the area and the City we live in. I am writing because I have concerns regarding the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Development specifically adjacent to where we live. In this immediate area,we already have Chaffey Community College and Los Osos High School along with the traffic created by each school. Over the past two years, the parents picking up students at Los Osos have started picking up their kids on Banyan west of Milliken, which is clearly marked as "No Stopping Anytime." Banyan is marked 45 MPH in this area which makes this very dangerous for students crossing the street with no crosswalks while trying to get to their parents' cars. In this development,will there be an area designated for student pick up near the high school? To my knowledge,there is no retail, 4-plexes or 12-plexes in this City north of Banyan. There is also no other part of the City where there is a community college and a large high school within nearly a block of each other. I am asking for you to consider this in the planning of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood. The area we live in is already heavily congested with college and high school students. As a resident of this City for over 30 years and public servant for over 32 years, I am asking you to pay special attention to the planning of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood specifically near our area. Respectfully, Brian Patrick (626) 703-7030 Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP From: Al Engelking Received 12/10/2025 12:21 pm To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: Proposed Etiwanda Development Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 12:21:41 PM You don't often get email from al.engelking@gmail.com. Learn w v this is important 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. I Please do not allow this development to happen. Our city is fast becoming the next Orange County...gridlock everywhere. It's just not safe around our schools. There is no way to have proper infrastructure for 3,000 homes in this area. Lori and Al Engelking Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/2025 11:55am From: Kim Harless To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Housing development in Etiwanda heights Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 11:55:14 AM [You don't often get email from krogersharless030l@gmail.com.Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] 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. My name is Kim Rogers Harless and I live at 11334 Pyramid Peak Ct in Rancho Cucamonga,Vintage Heights.I moved there because it was quiet and away from a lot of things and people.I moved above Foothill because that has always been considered a better area,above Baseline even better.Now I hear you are going to build homes and low income housing above me.Do you know what that will do to this neighborhood?Do any of the council members live here?Would you vote for this if you did?How do the schools plan on handling hundreds of more kids what about the hospitals?They are already overloaded.A few years ago we were conserving water barely able to water our lawns.Now you want that water to go to hundreds of more homes.You can not cry water shortage to this city again.Let the council members lawns turn brown. Seriously how can you ask us to ration water then dump hundreds of more homes onto that burden?How would you like 30 minutes added to your commute 10 more just to get to the store. I don't want to feel like I am cattle.People are already starting to sell their homes.Please don't do this. Kim Harless Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP From: Brook Harris Received 12/10/25 11:10am To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: Opposition of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 11:05:49 AM You don't often get email from brookmh80@gmail.com. Learn w v this is important 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. Hello, I am a resident of 91737 and strongly oppose the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Our city already has high traffic congestion,water source limitations and energy concerns. Adding more homes, especially high density living will exacerbate these issues. The 210 freeway was also not designed to take on any more vehicles, it already takes 15-20 mins to go 3 miles at times. I have not heard/read of one resident in the area who supports adding these homes. Thank you for your time - Brook Harris From: Brian Johnson To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 12:44:02 PM You don't often get email from brianjohnsonart@gmail.com. Learn why this is important 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. Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment—The Previti Group Dear Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The Planning Director and developer claim that these amendments must be approved because the General Plan (Plan) requires them.This is misleading.The City Council has full authority to amend the Plan as needed, and in fact,the Plan was updated afterthe EHNCP was adopted. Using the Plan to justify weakening the EHNCP effectively moves the goalposts and disregards the original intent to preserve open space and uphold meaningful conservation commitments. The proposal significantly amends the City's existing EHNCP, adopted in 2019.Of greatest concern with the proposal are the impacts to the following: Growth Must Match Infrastructure • Traffic at Milliken and Banyan is already dangerous during school hours.Adding thousands of daily trips is irresponsible and dangerous without significant roadway improvements. • Emergency evacuation capacity has not been re-evaluated despite serious wildfire risk. Preserve Community Character and Expectations • Trust and transparency matter. Residents bought homes based on the EHNCP. • This proposal shrinks yards and increases density in ways residents were assured would not occur. Uphold the Conservation Promise • The conservation portion of the EHNCP loses credibility if open space protections can be weakened at anytime. • Wildlife corridors and scenic foothills are part of the City's identity. Environmental Review is Outdated and Inadequate • An Environmental Impact Report(EIR)Addendum ignores current conditions, cumulative impacts, and new risks. • The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires a full EIR given the scale of land-use changes. Public Engagement Has Been Lacking • Residents were not adequately consulted and notification relied only on posted signs. • The City should not rush a project of this scale without genuine community partnership. Legal and Fiscal Risk to the City • Approving a weak CEQA analysis opens the City to costly legal challenges. • Infrastructure burdens shift to taxpayers when development intensity exceeds original planning assumptions. For these reasons—the inconsistency with the existing plan,the lack of adequate environmental review,the significant infrastructure and safety concerns, and the erosion of public trust—I ask that you do not recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment or the tract maps tonight. Instead, please direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and return with a proposal that truly reflects the balance, character, and conservation goals of the original Etiwanda Heights Plan. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Sincerely, Brian Johnson Rancho Cucamonga Resident Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/2025 11:35am From: iason solano To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment—The Previti Group Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 11:33:30 AM You don't often get email fromjsolano07@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important 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. Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment— The Previti Group Dear Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The Planning Director and developer claim that these amendments must be approved because the General Plan (Plan) requires them. This is misleading. The City Council has full authority to amend the Plan as needed, and in fact, the Plan was updated after the EHNCP was adopted. Using the Plan to justify weakening the EHNCP effectively moves the goalposts and disregards the original intent to preserve open space and uphold meaningful conservation commitments. The proposal significantly amends the City's existing EHNCP, adopted in 2019. Of greatest concern with the proposal are the impacts to the following: Growth Must Match Infrastructure • Traffic at Milliken and Banyan is already dangerous during school hours. Adding thousands of daily trips is irresponsible and dangerous without significant roadway improvements. • Emergency evacuation capacity has not been re-evaluated despite serious wildfire risk. Preserve Community Character and Expectations • Trust and transparency matter. Residents bought homes based on the EHNCP. • This proposal shrinks yards and increases density in ways residents were assured would not occur. Uphold the Conservation Promise • The conservation portion of the EHNCP loses credibility if open space protections can be weakened at any time. • Wildlife corridors and scenic foothills are part of the City's identity. Environmental Review is Outdated and Inadequate • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum ignores current conditions, cumulative impacts, and new risks. • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full EIR given the scale of land-use changes. Public Engagement Has Been Lacking • Residents were not adequately consulted and notification relied only on posted signs. • The City should not rush a project of this scale without genuine community partnership. Legal and Fiscal Risk to the City • Approving a weak CEQA analysis opens the City to costly legal challenges. • Infrastructure burdens shift to taxpayers when development intensity exceeds original planning assumptions. For these reasons — the inconsistency with the existing plan, the lack of adequate environmental review, the significant infrastructure and safety concerns, and the erosion of public trust— I ask that you do not recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment or the tract maps tonight. Instead, please direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and return with a proposal that truly reflects the balance, character, and conservation goals of the original Etiwanda Heights Plan. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Jason Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/2025 12:45pm From: Brian Johnson To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 12:44:02 PM You don't often get email from brianjohnsonart@gmail.com. Learn why this is important 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. Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment—The Previti Group Dear Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The Planning Director and developer claim that these amendments must be approved because the General Plan (Plan) requires them.This is misleading.The City Council has full authority to amend the Plan as needed, and in fact,the Plan was updated afterthe EHNCP was adopted. Using the Plan to justify weakening the EHNCP effectively moves the goalposts and disregards the original intent to preserve open space and uphold meaningful conservation commitments. The proposal significantly amends the City's existing EHNCP, adopted in 2019.Of greatest concern with the proposal are the impacts to the following: Growth Must Match Infrastructure • Traffic at Milliken and Banyan is already dangerous during school hours.Adding thousands of daily trips is irresponsible and dangerous without significant roadway improvements. • Emergency evacuation capacity has not been re-evaluated despite serious wildfire risk. Preserve Community Character and Expectations • Trust and transparency matter. Residents bought homes based on the EHNCP. • This proposal shrinks yards and increases density in ways residents were assured would not occur. Uphold the Conservation Promise • The conservation portion of the EHNCP loses credibility if open space protections can be weakened at anytime. • Wildlife corridors and scenic foothills are part of the City's identity. Environmental Review is Outdated and Inadequate • An Environmental Impact Report(EIR)Addendum ignores current conditions, cumulative impacts, and new risks. • The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires a full EIR given the scale of land-use changes. Public Engagement Has Been Lacking • Residents were not adequately consulted and notification relied only on posted signs. • The City should not rush a project of this scale without genuine community partnership. Legal and Fiscal Risk to the City • Approving a weak CEQA analysis opens the City to costly legal challenges. • Infrastructure burdens shift to taxpayers when development intensity exceeds original planning assumptions. For these reasons—the inconsistency with the existing plan,the lack of adequate environmental review,the significant infrastructure and safety concerns, and the erosion of public trust—I ask that you do not recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment or the tract maps tonight. Instead, please direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and return with a proposal that truly reflects the balance, character, and conservation goals of the original Etiwanda Heights Plan. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Sincerely, Brian Johnson Rancho Cucamonga Resident Correspondence received PC Meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP From: Jesse Baraias Received 12/10/25 9:40am To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: Multi Unit housing Etiwanda Heights Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 9:24:42 AM You don't often get email fromjpnoah74@gmail.com. Learn w v this is important 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. I Good morning, I am concerned that the city of Rancho Cucamonga would want to place multi unit complexes in the beautiful area of Etiwanta. Please keep this area of Rancho Cucamonga beautiful. It would destroy from beautiful scenery and impose more traffic in that area. Of all parts of Rancho Cucamonga, Etiwanda is viewed as one of the most beautiful parts of the city. Multi units would look horrible in the area they are looking to place them. Please reconsider this measure as it would cause it to lesser the value of our homes in that area and create an unwarming view to all that live up there. I am a concerned citizen of our city and wanted to make myself heard. If you want the best then please reconsider this decision as it would make that area look undesirable with apartment complexes near the million dollar homes. Thank you concerned citizen. Jesse Barajas Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP From: My Kha,M.D. Received 12/10/202511:21am To: Thornhill,Elizabeth;Sean Brannon Subject: Opposition to Specific Plan Amend ment—Previn Group Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 11:21:03 AM You don't often get email from my.khamd@gmail.com. Learn w v this is important 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. December 10, 2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Submitted via email: Elizabeth,Thornhill&ci ofrc.us Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment—The Previti Group Dear Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan(EHNCP). The Planning Director and developer claim that these amendments must be approved because the General Plan(Plan)requires them. This is misleading. The City Council has full authority to amend the Plan as needed, and in fact, the Plan was updated after the EHNCP was adopted. Using the Plan to justify weakening the EHNCP effectively moves the goalposts and disregards the original intent to preserve open space and uphold meaningful conservation commitments. The proposal significantly amends the City's existing EHNCP, adopted in 2019. Of greatest concern with the proposal are the impacts on the following: Growth Must Match Infrastructure • Traffic at Milliken and Banyan is already dangerous during school hours. Adding thousands of daily trips is irresponsible and dangerous without significant roadway improvements. • Emergency evacuation capacity has not been re-evaluated despite serious wildfire risk. Preserve Community Character and Expectations • Trust and transparency matter. Residents bought homes based on the EHNCP. • This proposal shrinks yards and increases density in ways residents were assured would not occur. Uphold the Conservation Promise • The conservation portion of the EHNCP loses credibility if open space protections can be weakened at any time. • Wildlife corridors and scenic foothills are part of the City's identity. Environmental Review is Outdated and Inadequate • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Addendum ignores current conditions, cumulative impacts, and new risks. • The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires a full EIR given the scale of land-use changes. Public Engagement Has Been Lacking • Residents were not adequately consulted, and notification relied only on posted signs. • The City should not rush a project of this scale without genuine community partnership. Legal and Fiscal Risk to the City • Approving a weak CEQA analysis opens the City to costly legal challenges. • Infrastructure burdens shift to taxpayers when development intensity exceeds original planning assumptions. For these reasons—the inconsistency with the existing plan, the lack of adequate environmental review,the significant infrastructure and safety concerns, and the erosion of public trust—I ask that you do not recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment or the tract maps tonight. Instead,please direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and return with a proposal that truly reflects the balance, character, and conservation goals of the original Etiwanda Heights Plan. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Sincerely, My Kha, MD and Sean Brannon, Ph.D. Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/25 10:55am December 10, 2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Submitted via email:Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Opposition to Specific Plan Amendment-The Previti Group Dear Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The Planning Director and developer claim that these amendments must be approved because the General Plan (Plan) requires them.This is misleading. The City Council has full authority to amend the Plan as needed, and in fact, the Plan was updated after the EHNCP was adopted. Using the Plan to justify weakening the EHNCP effectively moves the goalposts and disregards the original intent to preserve open space and uphold meaningful conservation commitments. The proposal significantly amends the City's existing EHNCP, adopted in 2019. Of greatest concern with the proposal are the impacts to the following: Growth Must Match Infrastructure • Traffic at Milliken and Banyan is already dangerous during school hours.Adding thousands of daily trips is irresponsible and dangerous without significant roadway improvements. • Emergency evacuation capacity has not been re-evaluated despite serious wildfire risk. Preserve Community Character and Expectations • Trust and transparency matter. Residents bought homes based on the EHNCP. • This proposal shrinks yards and increases density in ways residents were assured would not occur. Uphold the Conservation Promise • The conservation portion of the EHNCP loses credibility if open space protections can be weakened at anytime. • Wildlife corridors and scenic foothills are part of the City's identity. Environmental Review is Outdated and Inadequate • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Addendum ignores current conditions, cumulative impacts, and new risks. • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full EIR given the scale of land-use changes. Public Engagement Has Been Lacking • Residents were not adequately consulted and notification relied only on posted signs. • The City should not rush a project of this scale without genuine community partnership. Legal and Fiscal Risk to the City • Approving a weak CEQA analysis opens the City to costly legal challenges. • Infrastructure burdens shift to taxpayers when development intensity exceeds original planning assumptions. For these reasons—the inconsistency with the existing plan, the lack of adequate environmental review, the significant infrastructure and safety concerns, and the erosion of public trust— I ask that you do not recommend approval of the Specific Plan Amendment or the tract maps tonight. Instead, please direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and return with a proposal that truly reflects the balance, character, and conservation goals of the original Etiwanda Heights Plan. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Stephanie & Robert Reimer 10089 Copper Mountain Ct. Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/25 11:00am From: brian spatz To: Thornhill,Elizabeth Subject: Etiwanda Heights Planned Housing Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 10:49:19 AM You don't often get email from im_spatz@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important 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. I Hello Elizabeth, My name is Brian Spatz and am a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed housing expansion in the Etiwanda Heights/Los Osos area. I understand there is a planned meeting tonight,but wanted to formally express my disapproval. I can be reached for any additional feedback if needed. Thank you, Brian Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/25 10:57am From: truiillore(null) To: Thornhill.Elizabeth Subject: Amendment to the Ottawa Heights neighborhood and conservation plan. Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 10:49:15 AM [You don't often get email from trujillore@aol.com.Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] 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, I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga since 1989. Since that time I watched the population grow from approximately 101,000 to currently approximately 177,000. Traffic congestion is horrible along with any shopping that you may do.The shopping center at Haven and the 210 freeway is horrendous. The development of a conservation area is absolutely ridiculous,in my opinion. Unfortunately,I am out of town and not able to attend the meeting this evening. Regards, Ronald Trujillo Correspondence received PC meeting 12/10/2025 Item D2-EHNCP Received 12/10/2025 11:30 am From: Jason wilkerson To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Etiwanda Heights and Conservation plans Date: Wednesday,December 10,2025 11:27:32 AM [You don't often get email from jasonwl63@icloud.com.Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] 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. I oppose the prosed amendments of this project.As a resident of this area the traffic is already to bad.In the 9 yrs I have lived the corner of Banyan street we have had over 8 car crashes and this has been in the last 4 yrs with 2 of them in my front yard.The area can not handle more people and more homes,it will just bring more congestion and traffic and turn Banyan St in too a Fwy. This is not what the residents of Rancho Cucamonga want. Sent from my Whone Main Office-825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 1 Phone: 909.387.7910 Fax: 909.387.7911 WWW.SBCOunty.gov Department of Public Works Noel Castillo,P.E. SAN BERN`�RDINO • Flood Control • Special Districts • Operations • Surveyor Byanks Velaseo,P.E. COUNTY • Solid Waste Management • Transportation Assistant Director David Doublet,M.S.,P.E. Correspondence received Assistant Director PC meeting 12/10/25 Item Dt DR&ME December 9, 2025 Received 12/9/25 10:41am Transmitted Via Email File: 10(ENV)-4.01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Planning Department Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 planning(a.cityofrc.us RE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND MINOR EXCEPTION FOR 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES Dear Planning Department: Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on December 02, 2026 and pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided: Water Resources Division (Michael Fam, Engineering Manager, 909-387-8120): 1. The district's recommendations are most often made for site specific conditions. Therefore, the recommendations made here are general in nature until such a time as more detailed plans become available. 2. According to the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel 06071C7890J, dated September 2, 2016, Portions of the Project lies within Zone X. 3. Prior to any encroachment on District right-of-way, a permit shall be obtained from the District's Flood Control Operations Division. Other on-site or off-site improvements may be required which cannot be determined at this time. 4. A 6-foot black wall, chain link fence or other District approved barrier shall be constructed along the district's right-of-way or easement line adjacent to the North of the site. BOARD OF ' COL.PAUL COOKr • Luther Snoke First District Second District Chairman,"Ibird District FourthDistrict Vice Chair,Fifth District jA J�:r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DESIGN'REVIEW AND MINOR EXCEPTION FOR 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES December 9, 2025 Page 2 of 2 Flood Control Planning Division (Michael Fam, Engineering Manager, 909-387-8120): 1. The Project proponent has initiated the permit process with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) Permit Section (Permit P-12019015) for the work being performed within the District right-of-way/facility. The City of Rancho Cucamonga should ensure that the Project proponent has a fully executed permit issued from District, prior to authorizing any work on the proposed project. Permits Division (David Belicki, P.E., Engineering Manager, 909-387-7995): 1. This project already has a flood construction permit (FCCON-2025-00025) for the proposed storm drain outlet into the District's Alta Loma Storm Drain channel in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The district does not have an issue with the change in wall height. If the wall location is within the district's right-of-way, then Permits staff will need to modify the permit activity to reflect this change. If the wall location is outside of the district's right-of-way, then there is no comment on this amendment. We respectfully request to be included on the circulation list for all, project notices, public reviews, or public hearings. In closing, I would like to thank you again for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of 'Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above- referenced project. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above. Sincerely, NWICc SaHS011kU Nancy Sansonetti,AICP Supervising Planner Environmental Management Division Correspondence Received PC meeting: 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-9-25 10:23AM From: wllkies20venzon.net To: Mcoherson.Sean Subject: Fw: Public Meeting Wednesday December loth 2025 Date: Tuesday,December 9,2025 10:23:12 AM IYou don't often get email from wilkies2@verizon.net.Learn why this is important 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. Here are my concerns regarding the proposed Development in our Foothills. 1. The devious back room dealing by Rancho Cucamonga officials and developers. 2. The total secrecy by Rancho Cucamonga officials for 2 years. 3. The half acre zoning regulations above Banyan has been totally ignored. 4. The Rancho Cucamonga residents' wishes have been ignored. 5 The 2019 Binding Agreement for single family homes with individual yards, is now appealed with 9 new building types including high density. (Could Jimmy Previti decide he'd also like to build skyscrapers)? When is a Binding Agreement just a suggestion not a rule? 6. Who will pay for the roads, sidewalks, infrastructure, drains, electricity&gas facilities? Who will be legally responsible? Does the developer have the financial resources to pay for all the work or could he declare bankruptcy and abandon a partially built project. Is Rancho Cucamonga insured against developer malfeasance? 7. How many homes are planned? 3,000? How many estimated people? Will new schools have to be built? Who pays for that? 8. We have had droughts in Rancho Cucamonga with severe water restrictions. How can our Water Dept miraculously find millions of gallons of water per day for this development? If so, why didn't they produce it when we were in a drought? 9 What is the financial status of Jimmy Previti? How was he chosen? Were there other bidders? Why was he chosen by San Bernardino County when the property is in Rancho Cucamonga? Was Rancho Cucamonga involved in this decision? How is he held responsible if he defaults? 10. How will this 3,000 development affect our homeowner/fire insurance rates, special assessments, school bonds, traffic, road repairs, medical facilities etc. etc.? 11. Has this development limited the fire access areas? 12. Has the Council decided the flood control dam is unnecessary? Very foolish in my opinion! 13. What benefit is this to Rancho Cucamonga residents? NONE!!! We lose our beautiful foothills and get ugly buildings, higher taxes,traffic and crime! No thanks to our arrogant Rancho Cucamonga overlords! Correspondence Received PC meeting: 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-9-25 10:05AM From: Plannino.City To: Nakamura.Jennifer Mcpherson.'wan Subject: FW:Spedtic Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 Date: Tuesday,December 9,2025 10:05:13 AM From: B Sommers<sommersstar@live.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:41 AM To: Planning, City<City.Plan ning@cityofrc.us> Subject:Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 You don't often get email from sommers8mialive corn.Lem why this is important 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. Dear Planning Comission, I wholeheartedly object to the proposed plan amendment for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood.Just because there is land, doesn't mean it needs to be developed.Traffic along Banyan from Haven to the Etiwanda area is already congested during school drop off and pick up times. Students that drive to school and parents who pick them up park along Banyan. It is dangerous and very difficult to drive through. Adding more homes in the area will only increase congestion. Plus, there already is a hugh complex being built at the intersection of Haven and Banyan across from a church.There is no need for more housing here. Part of the beauty of the neighborhood is the undevelped areas. Don't ruin it by filling every inch of it with housing. We don't need it. Stop approving this construction! Crime is another reason for my objection. In my neighborhood off of Fredericksburg and Banyan, crime has already increased with neighbors having to deal with stolen catalytic converters and strangers looking into parked cars. All my neighbors have security systems and Ring doorbells that were unnecessary just a few years ago. People pick up their mail and bring in their packages immediately. All I see on the neighborhood Ring App are messages about stolen items. Why make it worse?Would you like to slowly watch your neighborhood become congested all for the sake of greed? Would you like to worry about your posessions being stolen? Developers don't care what they do to a neighborhood, but you can care. Please do not amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.The plan was created with the word "conservation" in it. Building more homes and creating a more crowded living area is not in line with the original plan. The very fact that an amendment has been proposed should give the planning comission pause. Do the right thing by voting against this amendment. Page 1 of 2 Sincerely, Barbara Sommers, Homeowner 11038 Shiloh Ct. Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 of 2 Correspondence Received PC meeting: 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-8-25 11:16AM From: City Council To: Nakamura.Jennifer Mcoherson.Sean Subject: FW:Addendum to the EHNCP EIR—request for information and objection to certification Date: Monday,December 8,2025 11:16:23 AM Public Comment Submittal From:Cucamonga <crofcucamonga@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 6, 2025 7:42 PM To: Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>; sean.mcpherson@citvofrc.us Cc: City Clerk<City.Clerk@cityofrc.us>; City Council<CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Subject: Re: Addendum to the EHNCP EIR— request for information and objection to certification You don't often get email from crofcucamnneanemail.corn.Learn why this is imnnrtant 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. Dear Planning Department, I am writing to submit formal public comment on the October/November 2025 Addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood& Conservation Plan EIR(PlaceWorks/NOREAS). I object to certification of the Addendum at this time for the following reasons: 1. The Addendum's conclusion that the San Bernardino kangaroo rat(SBKR) is absent from the Neighborhood Area is not supported by adequate, verifiable data in the record. The Addendum references trap surveys but does not include the raw trap logs, GPS trap locations, or nightly trap results necessary to constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. Please add the full trap logs, trap-location shapefiles/KMZ, and raw field data to the administrative record. 2. The Addendum identifies"Feature I" as a delineated Water of the State but minimizes its significance and asserts that no RWQCB/CDFW permits should be necessary. This is a regulatory determination that must be verified by the agencies. Please provide the full WOTS shapefiles/KMZ, field photos, and all correspondence with RWQCB/CDFW regarding permit needs, and request formal concurrence from those agencies before certification. 3. The Addendum contains inconsistent statements about growth and population. It simultaneously states no net change to units/population and also reports an additional increment of 4,744 persons that could exceed SCAG forecasts. The traffic/VMT analysis must be re-opened and the traffic model inputs and outputs provided for public review. 4. Several conclusions rely on consultant judgment and desktop datasets (NWI/NHD) which the report states are "outdated" but does not provide the underlying raw data. Per CEQA,the City must include all supporting data in the administrative record and obtain agency concurrence where appropriate. For these reasons, I request that the City: (a) post all raw biological and hydrologic field data (trap logs, geotagged photos, KMZ/shapefiles for WOTS), (b) post the trafficNMT Page 1 of 2 model inputs and results; (c) obtain and post written concurrence (or comment) from USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB on the key biological and WOTS conclusions; and (d) delay certification of the Addendum until these materials and agency responses are included in the record. Thank you for including this comment in the administrative record. Page 2 of 2 I Correspondence Received PC meeting: 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-8-25 9:42PM From: Darlene Reyes To: Plannina.Citv Cc: Nakamura,Jennifer;Monherson.Sean Subject: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Date: Monday,December 8,2025 9:42:29 PM ISome people who received this message don't often get email from darlareyes88@hotmail.com.Learn whg this is imnortant 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 City Officials of Rancho Cucamonga: I am writing to register my strong and unequivocal opposition to the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The City's sudden attempt to introduce high-density and multifamily housing into this area is not only alarming but a direct contradiction of the commitments repeatedly made to residents during the annexation process. The community participated in years of public hearings, workshops, and surveys, and the message was unmistakable: no apartments, no condos, and no high-density development. These standards formed the basis of the City's successful appeal to LAFCO. To now reverse course— without clear explanation, transparency, or meaningful public engagement—is profoundly disrespectful to the residents who relied on the City's assurances in good faith. The secrecy surrounding these proposed changes only heightens concerns. Stonewalling inquiries and limiting information to a select few within City Hall diminishes public trust and raises legitimate questions about whose interests are actually being served. High-density development in Etiwanda Heights would violate the adopted plan, damage the rural character of the area, and undermine the integrity of the City's own planning process. I strongly urge you to reject this amendment and honor the commitments made to the community. Sincerely, Darlene Reyes From: Thornhill,Elizabeth To: Thornhill.Elizabeth Subject: FW:Voicemail for EHNCP Date: Tuesday,December 9,2025 2:37:37 PM Attachments: K4H5ADCA6.wav Voice Mail Message regarding Item D2. PC Meeting 12/10/2025 Received 12/8/2025 @ 2:00PM Mr.Valdovinos,resident,expressed opposition of the Etiwanda Heights proposed development. Against all high- density in the city because it brings a lot of crime and traffic congestion. Phone:909-210-9743 -----Original Message----- From:Mcpherson,Sean<Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us> Sent:Tuesday,December 9,2025 2:07 PM To:Thornhill,Elizabeth<Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us> Subject:FW:Voicemail for EHNCP Hi Liz, Is it possible for you to transcribe this phone call and include it in the record for distribution to Commissioners? Thanks, Sean -----Original Message----- From:Knight,Jared Sent:Monday,December 8,.2025 2:10 PM To:McPherson,Sean<Sean.MCPherson@cityofrc.us> Cc:Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Subject:FW:Mite]voice message from VALDOVINOS,VANE,+19092109743 for mailbox 4317 Hi Sean, I received a voice mail regarding the EHNCP amendment from one Mr.Valdovinos voicing his opposition. Sincerely, Jared Knight Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)774-4317 -----Original Message----- From:Mite]Voice Mail<shoretel.voicemail@cityofrc.us> Sent:Monday,December 8,2025 2:01 PM To:Knight,Jared<Jared.Knight@cityofrc.us> Subject: Mitel voice message from VALDOVINOS,VANE,+19092109743 for mailbox 4317 You have received a voice mail message from VALDOVINOS,VANE,+19092109743 for mailbox 4317.Message length is 00:01:42.Message size is 800 KB. Correspondence Received PC meeting: 12-10-25 Item D2 Received 12-8-25 8:14AM From: Plannina.Citv To: Nakamura,3ennifer;Mmherson.Sean Subject: FW: High Density Housing Project Date: Monday,December 8,2025 8:14:35 AM From: Kim Earl<skylane075@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 8:08 AM To: Planning, City<City.Plan ning@cityofrc.us>;City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Cc: Kim Earl <Skylane075@aol.com> Subject: High Density Housing Project You don't often get email from skylane075knol.com.Learn why this is important 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. Dear Planning Commission, Years ago, I believe back in 2017, there were several planning meetings attended by many concerned resident's about the "NESAP" annexation project north of Los Osos High School and to the East. We were asked for our input. During several of these meetings, we had break-out groups where we were provided a map of this proposed development area. We were asked to draw our ideas on these maps of how we thought this area should be developed. Most residents were wanting parks, open space, low density housing, etc. NOT apartments and especially NOT high density housing. Fast forward to today. We as resident's are hearing that the Developer is proposing an amendment to the plan, which would include 12-plex housing units to be built above Banyan. As many of the members of the Planning Commission are aware, the traffic congestion in our city has become a nightmare. The whole city is a traffic disaster. The 210 freeway is a mess. More and more people inexcusably run red lights, sometimes causing accidents, because of their aggravation of having to sit at lights for several cycles because of too many cars!! Why can't you minimize ANY new development, specifically housing and more Page 1 of 2 importantly DO NOT allow high density housing units such as the 12-plex being proposed. I've lived in Rancho Cucamonga for most of my adult life. I've seen it go from a great city to gridlock traffic, areas of homelessness and of course more crime. I don't have the sense of security that I once had living here. If the people in charge of this City, continues to make poor decisions, it affects all of us and it's not fair. You make these decisions for the resident's, then you ultimately retire and move away and we are stuck with the fall-out of your bad decisions. Don't use the excuse that you get demands from Sacramento to continue to build housing. Why can't you push back and just say NO to Sacramento???!!!! As resident's, we're tired of the Planning Commission and City Council making bad decisions for the city we know and have loved. Lastly, when you choose to approve more and more housing, are you planning for more schools, Fire Departments, more Police and better infrastructure? Please think about your decisions impacting our City and NOT about the almighty dollar. Regards, Kim Earl Page 2 of 2