The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-14 - SupplementalsToll Brothers Primary Case File No. DRC2024 -00373 January 14, 2026 PROJECT BACKGROUND DRC2024-00373 2 •Who: Toll Brothers •What: Design Review, Variance, and Minor Exception for 188 single-family homes located in the Low Residential (L) zone. •Where: Approved Tracts 16072-1 and 16072 -3, NEC Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue •When : •Deemed Complete on January 16, 2025; •DRC on November 4th, 2025 DRC2024-00373 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND (Cont.) •Approved Tracts 16072-1 and 16072-3, NWC East Avenue and Wilson Avenue •Final map (2023) and grading permits (2024) issued •Part of larger single -family residential development in tandem with another developer (Lennar) Project Area Unit Summary – Tracts 16072-1 and 16072-3 Plan Type Square Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms Garage Number of Homes A1 4,120 4 4.5 2 11 A1R 4,120 4 4.5 2 10 A2 4,572 5 4.5 2 13 A2R 4,572 5 4.5 2 12 A3 4,790 5 4.5 3 16 A3R 4,790 5 4.5 3 14 A4 4.861 5 4.5 3 10 A4R 4.861 5 4.5 3 17 B1 3,462 4 4.5 2 5 B1R 3,462 4 4.5 2 5 B2 4,812 5 5.5 3 8 B2R 4,812 5 5.5 3 13 B3 5,105 5 5.5 3 11 B3R 5,105 5 5.5 3 12 B4 5,133 5 5.5 3 14 B4R 5,133 5 5.5 3 11 Total Number of Single-Family Homes ----188 ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE DRC2024-00373 16 DRC Comments •Committee members noted that tubular steel fencing was used in rear yards rather than block or brick •Fencing choice is intended to account for unique topographic features of the site which would otherwise limit views for future residents. DEVELOMENT STANDARDSLow Residential (L) Development Standards Required Proposed Compliant Density 6 Dwelling Units Per Acre 2.5 Dwelling Units PerAcre Yes Lot Area (min)7,200 SF 7,866-26,570 SF (Existing Parcels)Yes Minimum Frontage (min)40 Feet 22.53-216.55 Feet (Existing Parcels)Yes* Building Height 35 Feet 22 Feet – 32 Feet Yes Front Yard Setback 37 feet (+/- 5ft)30-47 Feet Yes* Interior Side Yard Setback 5/10 Feet Varies Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet Varies Yes Lot Coverage 40%19%-38%Yes *With Minor Exception and Variance for certain lots Summary Of Minor Exception Requests Location Condition Request Deviation Purpose TR16072-1, Lot 14 Exceeds max rear retaining wall height .5 ft above standard Provide level yard areas for both Lot 1 and 2 allowing lots to conform to size standards. TR16072-1, Lot 48 Encroachment into front yard setback 2 ft below standard To maintain 1 story massing floor plan and consistency of the site’s architecture TR16072-1, Lot 49 Does not meet 5 ft front yard setback variation requirement 0.7 ft variation The required 5 ft variation would result in encroachment into the front yard setback. TR16072-1, Lot 80 Usable rear yard area depth below standard 1.3 ft below standard Standard rear yard depth would not allow for 400 sq ft of useable yard TR16072-1, Lot 81 Usable rear yard area depth below standard 2 ft below standard Additional retaining wall tier would encroach into neighboring yard TR16072-3, Lots 20, 23, 27 Exceeds max rear retaining wall height 2 ft above standard Topographical constraints prevent tiering of 2 ft retaining wall behind 4 ft retaining wall. TR16072-3, Lot 28 Usable rear yard area depth below standard 2.7 ft below standard Standard depth is not feasible on a triangular lot. TR16072-3, Lot 30, 31 Exceeds rear retaining wall height .6 ft above standard Topographical constraints prevent tiering of .6 ft retaining wall behind 4 ft retaining wall. TR16072-3, Lot 61 Exceeds rear retaining wall height 1.5 ft above standard Topographical constraints prevent tiering of 1.5 ft retaining wall behind 4 ft retaining wall. TR16072-3, Lot 72 Exceeds max side retaining wall height 1.5 ft above standard Lot configuration does not allow for tiered side retaining wall TR16072-3, Lot 80 Usable rear yard area depth below standard 1.7 ft below standard Requirements for single story development would not allow for standard rear yard depth. TR16072-3, Lot 82 Does not meet 5 ft front yard setback variation requirement .7 ft variance The required 5 ft variation would result in encroachment into the front yard setback. VARIANCE Summary of Variance Requests Location Condition Request Deviation Constraint 16072-1, Lot 97 Deficient setback of wall from sidewalk 3 ft setback between sidewalk and perimeter wall rather than required 5 Topographical constraints prevent a 5 ft setback from the perimeter wall to the edge of the pedestrian walkway. 16072-3, Lot 18 Deficient setback of wall from sidewalk 3.3 ft setback between sidewalk and perimeter wall rather than required 5 Topographical constraints prevent a 5 ft setback from the perimeter wall to the edge of the pedestrian walkway. DRC2024-00373 Parks and Amenities •The Fire, Engineering and Building Departments have reviewed the project and have provided conditions of approval included with this staff report. DRC2024-00373 22 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW DRC2024-00373 23 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW •City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report in 2004 (SCH 2002091053); •Letter received day before hearing; •Architectural review only . No further CEQA review required as: •There are no new or more severe impacts; •No substantial changes have occurred; •No new important information has been presented as part of this application; •No new mitigations feasible which could be imposed •Notices were mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (70 property owners) of the project site and posted on the project site on December 18 th , 2025. Notices were published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on December 24 th , 2025. •To date, staff has received one piece of correspondence related to the proposed project. DRC2024-00373 24 NOTICING RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the project through the adoption of the attached Resolution 26 -001, subject to the attached conditions of approval. DRC2024-00373 25 Conditional Use Permit DRC2025 -00245 January 14, 2026 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 9089 8 th Street CUP •Who: EPD Solutions on behalf of China Manufacturers Alliance LLC; •What: A request to permit E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light – Large uses at an existing 129,704 square foot industrial building; •Where: 9089 8 th Street in the Neo- Industrial (NI) Zone; •When: Submitted October 14, 2025. 2 9089 8 th Street CUP 3 4 5 Conditional Use Permit to allow the following uses: •E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center - Large; •Wholesale and Distribution – Medium; •Food Processing/Manufacturing; •Storage Warehouse; •Manufacturing Light – Large. 9089 8 th Street CUP PROPOSED PROJECT 6 PROJECT PLANS 7 •The Fire, Engineering and Building and Safety Departments have reviewed the project and have provided conditions of approval included with this staff report. 9089 8 th Street CUP INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 8 •Categorically exempt from CEQA review; •Class 1 Exemption. 9089 8 th Street CUP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9 •Notices mailed to the 387 property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site and the site was posted on December 18, 2025; •Legal advertisement published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspaper on December 24, 2025; •To date, staff have not received any inquiries regarding this project. 9089 8 th Street CUP NOTICING 10 RECOMMENDATION 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of DRC2025 -00245 through the adoption of the subject resolution and Conditions of Approval. 9089 8 th Street CUP 12 From:Hayley Uno To:Knight, Jared; Planning, City; Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc:Rebecca Davis; Chase Preciado; Emy Lipkind; Leslie Reider Subject:SAFER Comment Submission with Expert Exhibit for the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025- 00261; DRC2025-00263) Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:33:02 PM Attachments:2026.01.13 PC Comment - Etiwanda Estates - FINAL with Exhibit.pdf You don't often get email from hayley@lozeaudrury.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: The sender of this email failed validation. This may indicate phishing or impersonationfrom an unauthorized source. Verify the sender before clicking links or opening attachments. CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or openattachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Dear Chairman Morales, Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, Mr. Knight, and Ms. Thornhill, On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), please find attached comments, including an expert exhibit, regarding the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263). The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 2026 at 7pm. If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Hayley Uno -- Hayley Uno (she/her) Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Office: (510) 836-4200 hayley@lozeaudrury.com Correspondence Recieved PC Meeting 1-14-26 Item D5 Recieved 1-13-26 5:33 PM VIA EMAIL January 13, 2026 Tony Morales, Chair Jared Knight, Assistant Planner Al Boling, Vice Chair Planning Department Bryan Dopp, Commissioner City of Rancho Cucamonga James Daniels, Commissioner 10500 Civic Center Drive Melissa Diaz, Commissioner Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission jared.knight@cityofrc.us 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 planning@cityofrc.us Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 elizabeth.thornhill@cityofrc.us Re: Comment - Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263) Dear Chairman Morales, Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, Mr. Knight, and Ms. Thornhill: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in and around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”), in opposition to the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263) (“Project”) based on a 2004 environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 2026 at 7pm. The City cannot rely on the 2004 EIR, because CEQA Guidelines § 15162 requires preparation of a supplemental mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or EIR. As discussed below, new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available in the intervening 21 years since the certification of the 2004 EIR that would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Additionally, rather than improperly piecemealing its CEQA analysis, the City should have considered this Project’s impacts together with those of the Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project January 13, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Vinova Community Project, its sister project, which is proposed on the same parcel of land. SAFER thus respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Project, find that the City cannot rely on the 2004 EIR, and require the City to prepare a supplemental MND or EIR instead. SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by air quality expert Patrick Sutton, P.E., from Baseline Environmental Consulting. Mr. Sutton’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves the construction of 188 new single-family residences on approximately 80.8 vacant acres of a 150.8-acre site, located near the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood and is zoned Low Residential (L). The remaining 70 acres of the site would be developed with 166 single-family homes in the Vinova Community Project, a separate project proposed by a different developer that the City has already approved on December 3, 2025. The City is relying on an EIR it had originally certified on June 16, 2004 to analyze the development of 354 single-family homes on the 150.8-acre parcel for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. LEGAL STANDARD I. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (Pub. Res. Code § 21166) The City employs CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CCR”] 15162; Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21166) to claim that no supplemental CEQA review is required for the Project. However, under CEQA Guidelines § 15162, a supplemental MND or EIR is required when: (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: . . . (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project January 13, 2026 Page 3 of 6 (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(C)-(D).) As discussed below, under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 a supplemental MND or EIR is required because multiple new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available since the EIR’s 2004 certification that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts. Accordingly, the City must prepare a supplemental MND or EIR to require the new mitigation measures. DISCUSSION I. A supplemental EIR is required because new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available since the certification of the 2004 EIR. Air quality expert Patrick Sutton, P.E., from Baseline Environmental Consulting has reviewed the Project, the 2004 EIR, and other relevant documents regarding the EIR’s air quality analysis and mitigation measures. According to the EIR, construction of homes on the parcel where the Project site is located will have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts from construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. (Ex. A at 1, 5.) However, Mr. Sutton found that these impacts can be substantially reduced with incorporation of numerous new air quality mitigation measures that are substantially different from the measures proposed in the 2004 EIR, each of which were unavailable in 2004. (Id. at 5.) A supplemental EIR is required to disclose and mitigate these ongoing significant impacts . (Id. at 1.) A. New mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s adverse construction air quality impacts. According to the EIR, construction on the Project site would have significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of criteria air pollutant emissions. (Id.) The estimated daily emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and reactive organic gases (“ROGs”) from construction of the Project would exceed the significance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), even with implementation of the EIR’s existing proposed construction air quality mitigation measures. (Id. at 1-2; EIR at 5.4-14, 5.4-27.) The EIR’s existing mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROGs include: (1) MM AQ-5, which states that construction contractors will use construction equipment with low emissions and high energy efficiency, and that construction grading plans will include a statement that all construction equipment will be maintained accordingly; (2) MM AQ-6, which states that construction contractors will use electric or clean alternative fuel- powered equipment where feasible; (3) MM AQ-7, which states that construction grading plans will include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use; (4) MM AQ-8, which states that construction contractors will use architectural coatings with low levels of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”); (5) MM AQ-9, which states that temporary traffic control will be used during soil transportation; and (6) MM AQ-10, which states that only low volatility paints and coatings will be used. (Ex. A at 2.) However, even with the implementation of these Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project January 13, 2026 Page 4 of 6 mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that construction-related air quality impacts would be significant. Mr. Sutton identified numerous additional mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR that would substantially reduce the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts. For example, a new mitigation measure can be implemented to require all on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks to be model year 2018 or newer. (Id. at 3.) Newer model diesel trucks have vastly lower emissions and were not available in 2004. (Id.) Moreover, the City could require all off-road construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower to be equipped with electric engines or Tier 4 final engines certified by the California Air Resources Board. (Id.) Tier 4 Final engines would reduce construction emissions and were unavailable in 2004. (Id.) In addition, Mr. Sutton recommends engines should be powered with alternative fuels, such as natural gas, electricity, propane and hydrogen fuel cells, to the maximum extent possible during every construction phase and activity. (Id.) These technologies were not readily available in 2004, but are now available to reduce the Project’s construction-related air quality impact. Super compliant VOC paints are also now available but were not in 2004. The use of super-compliant VOC paints, rather than just low-VOC paints, would further reduce the Project’s VOC impacts. Thus, there are multiple readily available mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the 2004 EIR – and could not be analyzed at that time because they were not technologically feasible – that would substantially reduce NOx, ROG, and VOC emissions during Project construction. Additional CEQA review through a supplemental EIR is required to effectively evaluate and mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id. at 4.) B. New mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s adverse operational air quality impacts. According to the EIR, operation on the Project site would also have significant and unavoidable impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions. (Id. at 4.) The estimated daily operational emissions of NOx and ROGs would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, even with implementation of the EIR’s existing proposed operational air quality mitigation measures. (Id.; EIR at 5.4-15, 5.4-28.) The EIR’s existing mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions of NOx and ROGs include: (1) MM AQ-11, which states that the Project will contribute to the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee; (2) MM AQ-12, which states that all appliances in the Project’s residential units will be energy efficient; and (3) MM AQ-13, which states that the Project Applicant will contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the Project area to accommodate bus stops at the Project access points. (Ex. A. at 4.) Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project January 13, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Sutton identified numerous additional mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR that would substantially reduce the Project’s operational air quality impacts. For example, a new mitigation measure can be implemented to require each home to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations that meet the California Green Building Standards Code’s most ambitious voluntary standard. (Id. at 5.) A new mitigation measure can also be implemented to require the Project Applicant to use only electric landscaping equipment rather than equipment powered by gasoline, diesel, or other fossil fuels. (Id.) In addition, MM AQ-12 could be revised to require the use of all-electric energy appliances without any natural gas connections and exclude the use of propane and other fossil fuels for heating and cooking. (Id. at 5.) These technologies were not readily available in 2004 but are now available to reduce the Project’s operational air quality impacts. There are numerous readily available mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the 2004 EIR – and could not be analyzed at the time because they were not technologically feasible – that would substantially reduce the Project’s operational NOx and ROG emissions. Additional CEQA review through a supplemental EIR is required to ensure all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant air quality impacts. (Id. at 4.) II. By considering the impacts of this Project separately from those of the Vinova Community Project, City improperly piecemeals the CEQA analysis. CEQA prohibits piecemeal environmental analysis and instead requires agencies to consider the “whole of an action.” (14 CCR § 15378(a).) That means: “[T]he environmental review accompanying the first discretionary approval must evaluate the impacts of the ultimate development authorized by that approval. … Even though further discretionary approvals may be required before development can occur, the agency’s environmental review must extend to the development envisioned by the initial approvals. It is irrelevant that the development may not receive all necessary entitlements or may not be built. Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result will not be permitted.” See Kostka, et al., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 6.52, p. 298. Furthermore, “[a] public agency is not permitted to divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole.” (Orinda Assoc. v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1154, 1171.) CEQA requires that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimum potential impact on the environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Loc. Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975).) Here, the City relies on a 2004 EIR analyzing the development of 354 new single-family homes on a 150.8-acre parcel for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. The Etiwanda Estates Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project January 13, 2026 Page 6 of 6 Project involves the construction of 188 of those homes on 80.8 acres of the 150.8-acre parcel. The Vinova Community Project, its sister project proposed by a different developer, involves the construction of the remaining 166 homes on the remaining 70 acres of the same 150.8-acre parcel. On December 3, 2025, the City approved the Vinova Community Project separate from the Etiwanda Estates Project. Although the two projects are on the same parcel of land and are analyzed under the same EIR, the City conducted its newest round of CEQA review of the projects separately. This is the very essence of piecemealing. A new CEQA document, whether an MND or EIR, is required to analyze both projects together, including implementation of the new air quality mitigation measures discussed above. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, a supplemental EIR is required to reduce the Project’s significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Project and instead require the City to prepare a supplemental MND or EIR. Thank you. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP EXHIBIT A January 13, 2026 26203-00 Hayley Uno Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison St., Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts Analyzed for the Etiwanda Estates Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dear Ms. Uno: Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) understands that the Etiwanda Estates Project is a proposed housing development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed housing development was previously analyzed as part of a 2004 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in connection with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 (the “project area”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 2004 EIR included the development of 358 single-family homes on 150.8 acres. The Etiwanda Estates Project would develop 188 single-family homes on 80 acres of the project area. The remainder of the project area would be developed for the Vinova project, which includes 166 single-family homes on 70 acres of the project area. The primary purpose of our review was to determine whether the potential environmental impacts related to air quality from implementation of the Etiwanda Estates Project have been properly evaluated, mitigated, and disclosed to the public under the 2004 EIR. Based on our review, there are numerous improvements that can be made to the existing mitigation measures identified in the 2004 EIR that would warrant additional review of the Etiwanda Estates Project under CEQA. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION According to the 2004 EIR, construction of the project area would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutant emissions. As summarized in Table 1, the estimated unmitigated daily emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) during construction of the project area would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended thresholds of significance. 388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619 January 13, 2026 Page 2 Table 1. 2004 EIR Analysis of Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions during Construction Emissions Scenario NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) Unmitigated Emissions 405.0 187.7 Mitigated Emissions 351.2 99.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 75 Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, pages 5.4-14 and 5.4-27. November 25. The 2004 EIR identified the following mitigation measures to reduce construction NOx and ROG emissions to the maximum extent feasible: Mitigation Measure AQ-5: The Construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned to and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Mitigation Measure AQ-6: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-7: The construction contractor shall ensure that construction- grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Mitigation Measure AQ-8: The construction contractor shall use low VOC architectural coating during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measure AQ-9: During construction of the proposed improvements, temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) will be provided during soil transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle trucks on site for more than ten minutes. Mitigation Measure AQ-10: During construction of the proposed improvements, only low volatility paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. All paints shall be applied using either high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application. As shown in Table 1, the mitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during construction would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Based on current best practices typically implemented under CEQA, the existing air quality measures identified in the 2004 EIR can be improved as follows: Mitigation Measures AQ-5 and AQ-6 can be revised to require all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be equipped with electric engines, if available, or Tier 4 final engines as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). When the 2004 January 13, 2026 Page 3 EIR was published, the best available technology for off-road equipment was Tier 2 engines. Since 2015, all new off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower are equipped with Tier 4 Final engines, which reduce NOx and ROG emissions by approximately 96% and 86% relative to the Tier 2 emissions standards, respectively.1 In addition, engines should be fueled with alternative fuels, including natural gas, propane, hydrogen fuel cell, and electricity, as commercially available and to the maximum extent feasible during each construction phase and activity. A Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) should be prepared that includes an equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. In addition, the Emissions Plan should include a Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures AQ-7 and AQ-9 can be revised to require all on-road diesel vehicles and off-road diesel equipment to not idle for more than 2 minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state idling regulations. Documentation should be provided to equipment operators in multiple languages (e.g., English, Spanish, Chinese) to remind operators of the 2-minute idling limit. Mitigation measures AQ-8 and AQ-10 can be revised to require the use and enforcement of super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) paints with a maximum VOC content of 10 grams/liter, which is substantially lower than the current SCAQMD Rule 1113 requirements for low VOC paints that allow a maximum VOC content of 50 grams/liter. It should be noted that there have been numerous amendments to the SCAQMD Rule 1113 since the 2004 EIR was published, including the most recent amendment in 2016 which reduced the maximum VOC content in paints to 50 grams/liter. In response, paint manufacturers have developed super-compliant VOC paints for widespread use in recent years to remain well below the regulatory requirement. In addition, the project sponsor should be required to submit a signed certification statement to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, confirming that the super- compliant VOC requirement has been incorporated into the construction contract specifications, for review and approval. 1 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2025. Non-road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart. Accessed December 3. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-diesel-engine-certification-tier-chart. January 13, 2026 Page 4 A new mitigation measure should also be incorporated that requires all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the project site (e.g., haul trucks, water trucks, dump trucks, and concrete trucks) to be model year 2018 or newer. Due to substantial improvement in emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, the NOx and ROG emission factors for running exhaust in 2018 are approximately 68% and 83% lower than the corresponding emissions factors for heavy-duty trucks in 2004 when the EIR was published.2 According to 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review is required if mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. As described above, there are readily available mitigation measures that would substantially reduce emissions of NOx and ROG and improve the enforcement of mitigation measures during construction of the Etiwanda Estates Project; therefore, additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is warranted to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR OPERATION According to the 2004 EIR, operation of the project area would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutant emissions. As summarized in Table 2, the estimated unmitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during operation of the project area would exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance. Table 2. 2004 EIR Analysis of Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions during Operation Emissions Scenario NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) Unmitigated Emissions 64.7 87.9 Mitigated Emissions 60.3 83.5 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, pages 5.4-15 and 5.4-28. November 25. The 2004 EIR identified the following mitigation measures to reduce operation NOx and ROG emissions to the maximum extent feasible: Mitigation Measure AQ-11: The proposed project will participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee. This fee will be collected and utilized by the City to install and synchronize traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue. 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2025. EMFAC2025 V2.0.0 Web Platform. Accessed December 3. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/. January 13, 2026 Page 5 Mitigation Measure AQ-12: All appliances within the residential units of the project shall be energy-efficient as defined by SCAQMD. Mitigation Measure AQ-13: The project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense. As shown in Table 2, the mitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during operation would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Based on current best practices typically implemented under CEQA, these air quality measures can be improved as follows: Mitigation Measure AQ-12 can be revised to require the use of all-electric energy appliances without any natural gas connections and exclude the use of propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. Mitigation Measure AQ-13 can be revised to require the project proponent to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a new transit stop within a half mile of the project area prior to the issuance of building permits. Without a timeframe, the project proponent has no incentive to complete the mitigation measure. If a new transit stop is feasible, then the transit stop should be constructed at the project proponent’s expense prior to the issuance of building occupancy permits. A new mitigation measure can be incorporated that requires each home to be equipped with electric vehicle charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards (e.g., Tier 1 or Tier 2) in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval. A new mitigation measure can also be incorporated that requires the project proponent to use only electric landscaping equipment. No landscaping equipment powered by gasoline, diesel, propane, or other fossil fuels should be used. The project proponent should incorporate this requirement into the project design and tenant contracts (as applicable). As described above, there are readily available mitigation measures now available that would substantially reduce emissions of NOx and ROG and improve the enforcement of mitigation measures during operation of the Etiwanda Estates Project. Pursuant to 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is warranted to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public. Conclusions Based on our review of the 2004 EIR, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operation of the Etiwanda Estates Project can be substantially reduced with the incorporation of new mitigation measures. In accordance with January 13, 2026 Page 6 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is required to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public. It should be noted that any CEQA review that attempts to tier from the 2004 EIR should also account for the potential air quality impacts associated with the 166 single-family homes proposed for the Vinova project on the remaining portion of the project area. Sincerely, Patrick Sutton Principal Environmental Engineer ATTACHMENT A Staff Resume Areas of Expertise Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous Materials, Geology, and Hydrology Education M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis B.S., Environmental Science, Dickinson College Registration Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI) Years of Experience 20 Years Patrick Sutton, P.E. Principal Environmental Engineer Project Experience Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment. Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise, energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT-EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns. For mixed-use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially-deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring. Alameda CTC I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements. Prepared Phase I/II ESAs to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and support CEQA/NEPA environmental review. Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program- and project-level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target. CCTA I-680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA. Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program- and project-level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS. BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. Planning Areas 14,12, & 15 Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 January 14, 2026 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 •Who: SC Development Corp •What: Subdivision of 3 lots within the Resort North Specific Plan Area for the purpose of condominium development associated with previously approved design reviews. •Where: NE of The Resort Parkway and 6 th Street. APNs: 0209-561 -01, - 07, -12 •When: •Accepted August 26th, 2025 •Deemed Complete November 18th, 2025 2 Resort North - Planning Areas 14,12, & 15 3 4 SUBTT20687 – PLANNING AREA 14 5 SUBTT20688 – PLANNING AREA 12 6 SUBTT20689 – PLANNING AREA 15 7 Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 Context 8 •Planning Commission previously approved three design reviews for the purpose of Multi-Family Residential development within the three subject areas. •Subdivision is required for the purpose of creating condominium lots for individual sale of the approved units. Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 SUBTT20687 – Planning Area 14 9 Development Plan Review •Related to Design Review DRC2023-00331, approved on December 11 th , 2024 •Subdivision of existing 3.4 -acre lot for the creation of 84 condominium units •2 Numbered Lots •2 Lettered Lots •Establishes easements Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 SUBTT20688 – Planning Area 12 11 Development Plan Review •Related to Design Review DRC2023-00360, approved on December 11 th , 2024 •Subdivision of existing 3.18 - acre lot for the creation of 84 condominium units •Single lot •Establishes easements Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 SUBTT20689 – Planning Area 15 13 Development Plan Review •Related to Design Review DRC2023-00406, approved on August 20 th , 2024 •Subdivision of existing 3.4 - acre lot for the creation of 99 condominium units •S i n g le Lo t •Establishes easements 14 •The Fire, Engineering and Building Departments have reviewed the project and have provided conditions of approval included with this staff report. Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 15 Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 16 •EIR certified on May 18 th , 2016 in connection to the Resort North Specific Plan. •CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 – No additional CEQA review required for subsequent approvals of the same project unless new or more severe environmental impacts are identified. •Exempt from further CEQA review. •Notices mailed to all property owners within 660 feet of the project sites on December 22nd, 2025 and physical notices were posted on each of the project sites on December 18th, 2025. Notices were also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on December 24th, 2025. •To date, staff have received no inquiries regarding this project. Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 NOTICING 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: •Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20687 through ratification of Resolution No. 26-003 and the attached conditions of approval •Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20688 through ratification of Resolution No. 26-004 and the attached conditions of approval •Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20689 through ratification of Resolution No. 26-005 and the attached conditions of approval Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT20687, SUBTT20688, and SUBTT20689 19