The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-02-25 - Supplementals1 Aguirre, Haide From:Aguirre, Haide Sent:Monday, February 23, 2026 9:20 AM To:Yiyisun7@gmail.com Subject:FW: Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed 180-Unit Vineyard Crossing Development at Etiwanda (Newbridge Homes) Hello Yi Yi Sun, Thank you for submitting comments. All comments received will be provided to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Haide Aguirre Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)477-2750 ext. 4326 From: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 7:31 AM To: Aguirre, Haide <Haide.Aguirre@cityofrc.us> Subject: FW: Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed 180-Unit Vineyard Crossing Development at Etiwanda (Newbridge Homes) From: Yi Yi Sun <yiyisun7@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 2:07 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed 180-Unit Vineyard Crossing Development at Etiwanda (Newbridge Homes) 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'm writing as a resident directly across the street from the proposed Vineyard Crossing development by NH Etiwanda, LLC (Newbridge Homes), to formally object to the approval of this 180-unit residential project. You don't often get email from yiyisun7@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Correspondence receivedPC meeting 2-25-2026Item D2 - TTM and MDRReceived 2-20-2026 7:30am 2 Rancho Cucamonga already has 3 large scale developments like Alta Merita (260 units, leasing now), 8500 Haven (248 apartments, under construction), Vinova (188 homes, site work underway), adding Vineyard Crossing as the 4th to overwhelm our infrastructure: 1. Hospital capacity collapse. No ER expansion planned for hundreds of new residents. Our hospitals lack beds/services for peak demand surges. 2. Etiwanda traffic gridlock: No road widening, signals, or VMT mitigation despite exceeding regional thresholds. 3. Construction & permanent noise. Construction noise, dust, and heavy equipment will disrupt our neighborhood for years, followed by permanent increases in vehicle noise and safety risks for pedestrians. AB 130 is supposed to help get more housing built, but really it's just handing developers a free pass, skipping the environmental checks and dumping extra strain on our roads, water, and services that us residents end up dealing with. I urge you to deny this project or require a full CEQA review, hospital capacity study, and traffic mitigation plan before any entitlements. Thank you for considering this urgent community concern. Sincerely, Yi Yi Sun 12984 Riley Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909)660-3676 1 Aguirre, Haide From:Aguirre, Haide Sent:Monday, February 23, 2026 11:50 AM To:november3010@hotmail.com; arun_sehgal2k3@yahoo.com Subject:RE: Objecting NH Etiwanda Newbridge homes Hello Mr. Sehgal, Thank you for submi ng comments. All comments received will be provided to the Planning Commission for their considera on. Haide Aguirre Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)477-2750 ext. 4326 -----Original Message----- From: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:39 AM To: Aguirre, Haide <Haide.Aguirre@cityofrc.us> Subject: FW: Objec ng NH E wanda Newbridge homes Sophia Seraﬁn, AICP | Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga | Planning 909-774-4311 | h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/?url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofrc.us%2F&data=05%7C02%7CHaide.Ag uirre%40cityofrc.us%7Cba5368a456f2442e4bﬀ08de73133218%7C4b433582df6c4498ac682ba6de5d8261%7C0%7C0%7C 639074723441883816%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXa W4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ouphX9axNzNYdVl2QV68fnr7KTJhilkihNL970Cgm CM%3D&reserved=0 -----Original Message----- From: C D <november3010@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:02 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Aaa Arun Hubby Sehgal <arun_sehgal2k3@yahoo.com> Subject: Objec ng NH E wanda Newbridge homes [You don't o en get email from november3010@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at h ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁca on ] CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and can conﬁrm the content is safe. I am wri ng to formally object to the proposed 180-unit residen al development near my home due to serious concerns about increased pollu on and environmental impact. Correspondence received PC meeting 2-25-2026 Item D2 - TTM and MDR Received 2-23-2026 11:02 am 2 A development of this size will signiﬁcantly increase air pollu on from addi onal vehicle traﬃc. More cars in the area will lead to higher emissions, reduced air quality, and poten al health risks for residents, especially children and the elderly. In addi on, construc on ac vi es will generate dust, noise pollu on, and debris over an extended period. This will nega vely aﬀect the daily lives of nearby residents and may contribute to respiratory issues and other health concerns. Traﬃc and Safety Concerns Our streets are already heavily congested, par cularly during peak hours. Adding 180 residen al units will signiﬁcantly increase vehicle traﬃc, crea ng safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and especially children in the area. Emergency vehicle access may also be nega vely aﬀected. Strain on Infrastructure and Services Local schools, healthcare facili es, drainage systems, and u li es are already opera ng near capacity. This development could place addi onal strain on essen al services without clear plans for infrastructure upgrades. Environmental Impact The proposed construc on may result in the loss of green space and mature trees, nega vely aﬀec ng wildlife, stormwater absorp on, and overall air quality. Neighborhood Character and Property Values The scale and density of the proposed development appear inconsistent with the character of the exis ng neighborhood, which primarily consists of lower-density housing. A project of this size could alter the visual character of the area and poten ally aﬀect property values. Thank you, Sandeep Sehgal 209-581-3555 7289 sunnyside pl Rancho Cucamonga, ca 91739 Sent from my iPhone Feb 24, 2026 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at Baseline Road and Shelby Place To: elizabeth.thornhill@cityofrc.us; al.boling@cityofRC.us; James.daniels@cityofRC.us; Bryan.dopp@cityofRC.us; melissa.diaz@cityRC.us; tony.morales@cityofRC.us; Cc: manager@cityofRC.us; city.clerk@cityofRC.us; nghirelli@rwglaw.com; Planning@cityofRC.us; Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 180-unit housing development project at Baseline Road and Shelby Place, which includes 9 very low income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 130. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org Correspondence received PC Meeting 2/25/2026 Item D2 - TTM and MDR Received 2/24/26 @ 4:35pm CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to non-residential use mix requirements, minimum built percentage along primary frontage, Courtyard and Rowhouse Building Entrances and Access, Courtyard Building Configuration, Courtyard Maximum Building Depth, Courtyard Open Space Width, Courtyard Open Space Depth, Rowhouse Unit Width, Rowhouse Private Usable Open Space, Main Street Building Depth, Main Street Ground Floor Transparency, Main Street Building Massing & Paseos, building façade design and articulation standards, Rowhouse Private Open Space & Min. Dimensions, Courtyard Open Space/Courtyard Width, Courtyard Open Space/Courtyard Depth, Residential Finish Floor Elevation above Grade at Maximum Build-to-Line, and Non-Residential Finish Floor Elevation above Grade at Maximum Build-to-Line. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide 2 of 3 housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:desireed627 To:Planning, City Subject:180-Unit residential on Baseline Rd. & Etiwanda Ave. Proposal Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:48:08 PM You don't often get email from desireed627@gmail.com. Learn why this is important 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the proposed 180-unit residential subdivision (tentative tract map located on Baseline Road at Etiwanda Avenue and Shelby Place) due to the following material concerns. Highway Safety, traffic congestion, parking, and access issues. A major new development could create dangerous congestion, inadequate roads, poor visibility at junctions, or insufficient parking/on-site turning. • Rancho Cucamonga directly connects to the 210 and 15 freeways while in close proximity to the 10 freeway. Baseline Rd utilizes 5 connections to interstate 15, 2 offramps and 3 onramps. Interstate 15 exits onto Baseline Rd approximately 1000 feet from this proposal. A 2021 study conducted by Cal State University of San Bernadino analyzing 15 San Bernadino County cities found that Rancho Cucamonga saw traffic exceeding 2.9 million trips with 40% of those attributed to non-work-related activities. The study can be found at the following link: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=etd Considering these facts, it is clear that heavy traffic already exists on Baseline. This is witnessed by anyone traveling on Baseline between 0700 and 0900 near this proposed development. • Two traffic lights currently border this proposal, one on Etiwanda Ave and the other on Shelby Pl. To safely allow future residents to enter and exit their community, a new traffic light would need to be installed. The spacing between the two current lights on Etiwanda Ave and Shelby Pl is approximately 1000 feet. The California Department of Transportation suggests that traffic lights be placed between 1300 and 2600 feet apart to ensure efficient traffic flow, synchronization, and to prevent traffic jams. Please see the following link: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca- mutcd/nmutcd/part4/2026-camutcd-2026-4d-a11y.pdf General traffic engineering guidelines suggest even more space between lights. Traffic jams are already present. Optimal flow will not be achieved. Baseline Rd is an arterial road throughout the city, connects to the City of Fontana, and as mentioned above, closely accesses interstate 15. Placing more than three traffic signals per mile on an arterial road can increase the rate of traffic accidents. • Drivers heading east on Baseline Rd will not be able to access these new residents. No current median turn (on-site turning) exists between Etiwanda Ave and Shelby Pl. Rancho Cucamonga requires that non-signalized, four-way intersections and median openings be spaced far enough apart to ensure safety (often 500+ feet, depending on street classification), which informs where signals can be placed. This ensures that drivers will encounter more red lights and more disrupted traffic flow as east bound drivers will need to make U-turns at the Shelby Pl light. • Chapter 10.16 subsection .030 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Code of Ordinances states that “the city traffic engineer...shall maintain traffic signals...to prevent or relieve traffic congestion or to protect life or property...” The section also states “The city traffic engineer shall ascertain and determine the locations where such signals are required by an engineering and traffic survey and his or her determination therefrom shall be made in accordance with those traffic engineering and safety standards.” Has a traffic study or traffic impact assessment been completed? • Rancho Cucamonga Code of Ordinances § 10.08.100Traffic investigation procedures. Upon request of citizens, citizens' groups, the traffic enforcement division or traffic engineering division, traffic investigations shall be conducted leading to proposed action related to traffic controls. Such investigation may be submitted to the traffic committee for review and recommendation to the city traffic engineer for implementation. Any party disagreeing with the recommendation of the traffic committee or the action of the city traffic engineer may appeal such action to the city council. (Code 1980, § 10.08.100; Ord. No. 39, § 2.10, 1978) • Logic would dictate that 180 units would be accompanied by at least 180 additional vehicles. What about residents with 2 or more vehicles? What about visitors and guests of those residents? What are the proposed parking spaces for these units? If only one space is created, we will likely see vehicles spilling into the nearby neighborhood. Existing street parking prohibition and observed overflow from nearby East Ave/Chateau Dr complex suggest that any shortfall in on-site parking could materially injure adjacent residential properties. Overdevelopment, density, layout, and scale issues. The proposal might be too dense for the area (overcrowding the site), out of character with surrounding buildings, or create an oppressive/overbearing effect on neighbors. • The City’s General Plan and Housing Element already contemplate significant new housing citywide, including in the HART District and Etiwanda Heights. Adding another 180 units at this constrained arterial location raises questions about cumulative traffic and infrastructure impacts that should be fully analyzed in the project’s environmental review. • Rancho Cucamonga’s HART District, the city council-approved 2,700–3,000 homes in Etiwanda Heights, the 176-unit Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use development, and other ongoing projects indicate substantial planned growth. The cumulative effects of this additional 180-unit subdivision at a high-traffic Baseline Rd location warrant careful scrutiny for consistency with surrounding low- to medium-density character and infrastructure capacity. Inadequate infrastructure / public services strain. Demonstrable lack of school places. • According to the California Department of Education, the legal teacher-to-student ratios for public schools is as follows: • Transitional Kindergarten (TK): Average enrollment of not more than 24 students per classroom. • Kindergarten: Average class size not to exceed 31 students, max 33. • Grades 1-3: Average class size not to exceed 30 students, max 32. • Grades 4-8: Average not to exceed the greater of 29.9. • Grapeland Elementary, Etiwanda Intermediate, and Etiwanda High will be greatly impacted by any additional student enrollment. For the school year beginning in 2025, Grapeland saw the following numbers: • Total student enrollment: 650 • 55 TK students averaging approximately 19 per class. • 72 K students averaging approximately 24 per class. • 86 1st grade students averaging approximately 22 per class. • 104 2nd grade students averaging approximately 26 per class. • 100 3rd grade students averaging approximately 25 per class. • 93 4th grade students averaging approximately 31 per class. • 114 5th grade students averaging approximately 29 per class. Based on these totals, our 4th grade class already exceeds the limit while 5th grade is at the limit. While Tk through 3rd grade does fall below the limit, we cannot accurately predict the number of new students’ grade levels emerging from the potential new residents. A fair estimate of 50-100 new students can be expected. The California Department of Housing and Community Development with regards to Rancho Cucamonga states “The Development Code states in part, "[t]he project includes school facilities or adequate school facilities exist which are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by this project." (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing- elements/docs/rancho-cucamonga-6th-draft060321.pdf) Environmental and ecological harm. Loss of important trees/hedges, destruction of habitats/wildlife sites, harm to protected species, flood risk increase (e.g., paving over permeable land), or building on high-quality agricultural land. • Residential wildlife visits are at an all-time high. Anyone with the Ring or Neighborhood app can attest to the numerous reports of coyote and bobcat sightings. Other critters such as rabbits, rats, gophers, and possums make frequent visits as well. This open field is a safe haven for these creatures. Foreclosing on their homes will certainly drive them into ours putting our pets and children at risk. • Flooding occurs on Baseline between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Ave. With the loss of open land to help subdue excess rain, where will the water now flow? • Were impacts to species assessed? Loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking, or loss of privacy. New buildings could allow direct overlooking into private spaces. • Depending on proposed building height, setbacks, and window placement relative to homes on Sunnyside Pl, this proposed development could potentially result in loss of privacy for the residents located on Sunnyside Pl. For the reasons above, the project as proposed fails to satisfy the required findings for approval under the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Major Design Review and/or Conditional Use Permit), including consistency with the General Plan, site suitability, compatibility with surrounding uses, and that the project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. Therefore, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the tentative tract map. Sincerely, Desiree N. Herrera Resident of 7192 Acorn Place Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From:Connie Lee To:Planning, City Subject:Deny proposed 180 unit on Baseline Road Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:48:02 PM You don't often get email from conniechoii@gmail.com. Learn why this is important 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the proposed 180 unit residential subdivision located on Baseline Road at Etiwanda Avenue and Shelby Place due to significant concerns related to traffic safety, overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, environmental impact, and community compatibility. Traffic Safety and Congestion Baseline Road is already heavily impacted by regional traffic. Rancho Cucamonga directly connects to the 210 and 15 freeways and is in close proximity to the 10 freeway. Baseline Road alone utilizes five connections to Interstate 15, including two off ramps and three on ramps. Interstate 15 exits onto Baseline approximately 1,000 feet from this proposed project. A 2021 study conducted by Cal State San Bernardino found that Rancho Cucamonga experienced more than 2.9 million trips, with 40 percent attributed to non work related activities. Anyone traveling on Baseline between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM can attest to the existing congestion, particularly near this proposed site. Two traffic signals currently border this project, one at Etiwanda Avenue and one at Shelby Place. The spacing between these signals is approximately 1,000 feet. California Department of Transportation guidelines generally recommend traffic signals be spaced between 1,300 and 2,600 feet apart to promote efficient traffic flow and reduce congestion. Adding another signal within this short distance would further disrupt flow and increase accident risk. Eastbound drivers on Baseline currently have no median turn access between Etiwanda and Shelby. Residents of the proposed development would likely be required to make U turns at Shelby, increasing congestion and safety risks. City code Chapter 10.16.030 requires traffic engineering review to determine the necessity and placement of signals. Has a comprehensive traffic impact study been completed and made available for public review? Given the scale of this project, a full and transparent traffic impact assessment is critical. Parking Concerns A 180 unit subdivision will likely generate at minimum 180 additional vehicles, not accounting for multi vehicle households or visitors. If on site parking is insufficient, overflow will spill into surrounding neighborhoods. Nearby areas already experience parking strain and restrictions. Any shortfall in parking capacity will directly impact adjacent residents. Overdevelopment and Density Correspondence received PC meeting 2/25/2026 Item D2 - TTM and MDR Received 2/25/2026 1:48pm The City General Plan and Housing Element already include substantial new housing development citywide, including thousands of units in the HART District and Etiwanda Heights, as well as the Spruce and Red Oak mixed use development. Adding 180 additional units along an already constrained arterial corridor raises serious concerns about cumulative traffic and infrastructure impacts. The proposed density appears inconsistent with the surrounding low to medium density residential character. The cumulative effect of multiple developments in this corridor warrants careful environmental and infrastructure review. School Capacity Public school capacity is already strained. According to state guidelines: Transitional Kindergarten average enrollment should not exceed 24 students per classroom Kindergarten average class size should not exceed 31 students Grades 1 to 3 average class size should not exceed 30 students Grades 4 to 8 average class size should not exceed 29.9 students Grapeland Elementary currently has 650 students. Fourth grade already exceeds recommended averages and fifth grade is at the limit. While some lower grades are currently below maximum thresholds, it is not possible to accurately predict grade distribution from new residents. A conservative estimate suggests 50 to 100 additional students could result from this development. The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires that projects demonstrate adequate school facilities to accommodate generated enrollment. Has this been fully evaluated? Environmental and Ecological Impact The proposed site currently provides habitat for local wildlife, including coyotes, bobcats, rabbits, gophers, and opossums. Development would displace these animals into surrounding neighborhoods, increasing safety concerns. Flooding has historically occurred along Baseline between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue. Removing permeable open land could worsen runoff and stormwater flow. A full environmental impact review, including species assessment and drainage analysis, is essential. Privacy and Community Character Depending on building height, setbacks, and window placement, the project may result in direct overlooking into homes along Sunnyside Place, diminishing privacy and altering neighborhood character. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development does not satisfy required findings under the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, including consistency with the General Plan, compatibility with surrounding uses, site suitability, and protection of public health, safety, and welfare. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the tentative tract map as currently proposed. Sincerely, Connie and Jason Lee Resident of 7139 Acorn Place From:Thornhill, Elizabeth To:Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject:FW: Vineyard Crossing Project DRC2024-00429 - Planning Commission 2/5/26 Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:39:01 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Begin forwarded message: From: Sandra Sosa <sandra.sosa@reactionrealty.com> Date: February 24, 2026 at 5:26:06 PM PST To: Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Subject: Vineyard Crossing Project DRC2024-00429 - Planning Commission 2/5/26 Elizabeth, We are excited for the new planned development on Etiwanda and Baseline. While we understand there may be some bumps in the logistics initially, we can clearly see a path forward with this new community. The vacant lot on that corner has been an eye sore for the past 12 years. We reside on Sunnyside Place, and the new development brings us optimism that the City’s is focused on improving our town while continuing to increase housing options for our community. We are pleased to inform you that we are in support of this development. Should you have any questions please feel free to reach out. Best regards, Sandra . IMPORTANT NOTICE: The content of this email is confidential and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution of this message or its contents is PROHIBITED. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system. Please call the escrow company directly to verify wire instructions before transferring any funds. Fraudulent wire transfer requests in the real estate industry are on the rise, and we strongly recommend exercising caution. Never send money to individuals acting as the landlord who demand you wire transfer funds to receive the keys to a property. Be aware that computer viruses and online scams targeting the real estate sector are increasingly prevalent. We advise all recipients to ensure proper security protocols are followed and to confirm the identity of anyone requesting sensitive information or financial transactions. Reaction Realty, Inc. is committed to full compliance with all applicable Fair Housing laws, both at the federal level and in the state of California, ensuring equal opportunity and non- discriminatory practices in housing for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. Reaction Realty, Inc. is the brokerage, with Broker of Record, Rony Sosa, holding brokerage license number 02066206 (Department of Real Estate License). Reaction Realty, Inc.'s office is independently owned and operated. I am a licensed real estate professional in the states of California. My license number is as follows: California - 01851437 (Department of Real Estate License). Correspondence received PC meeting 2/25/2026 Item D2 - TTM and MDR Received 2/25/2026, 2:30pm VINEYARD CROSSING Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20790 and Major Design Review DRC2024 -00429 February 25, 2026 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 •Newbridge Homes (NH Etiwa nda , LLC ) •Mixed -Use Development 9.37 - gross a cres •180 residentia l units (5% very-low -income housing) •8,100 sq ft commercia l building •Northea st corner of Etiwa nda Avenue a nd Ba seline Roa d. •APNs 0227-131-17, -38, -39, -46, -50, -51 • •Accepted on December 16, 2024 •Deemed complete on April 29, 2025 •Processed pursua nt to SB 330, AB 130, a nd Sta te Density Bonus La w 2 Pacific Electric Trail Sh e l b y P l a c e VINEYARD CROSSINGS ZONING SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 4 Low Medium Residential (LM-ESP) Low Medium Residential (LM-ESP) Parks Low Medium Residential (LM-ESP) Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Va ca nt/ Undevelo ped Tra ditiona l Town Center Center 1 North Dwelling, Single - Fa mily/ School, Aca demic (Public) Tra ditiona l Town Center/ Genera l O pen Spa ce a nd Fa cilities Center 1/ Pa rks West Dwelling, Single - Fa mily Tra ditiona l Neighborhood Low Medium Residentia l South Dwelling, Single - Fa mily Suburba n Neighborhood Low Low Medium Residentia l – Etiwa nda Specific Pla n East Dwelling, Single - Fa mily Tra ditiona l Neighborhood Low Medium Residentia l – Etiwa nda Specific Pla n Center 1 (CE1) VINEYARD CROSSINGS SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 5 STREET VIEW – SHELBY PLACE SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 6 STREET VIEW – ETIWANDA AVENUE SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 7 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 PROJECT BACKGROUND 8SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 8 LOT 1 LOT 2 Tentative Tract Map •Merge six undeveloped pa rcels tota ling a pproxima tely 9.37 gross a cres •Proposed lots: •Lot 1 – Residentia l: 8.69 a cres •Lot 2 – Commercia l: 0.68 - a cres Major Design Review •Construct a mixed-use development consisting of: •– 24 Buildings / 180 For -Sale Units •13 Courtyard Buildings: 121 units •11 Rowhouse Buildings: 59 units • – 1 Building •Main Building: 8,100 sq ft SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 9 UNIT SUMMARY Courtyard Building Type Floor Plan Type Unit Size Number of Units Plan 1 - 3 bedrooms, 2.5 ba th 1,451 23 Plan 2 - 3 bedrooms, 2.5 ba th 1,707 8 Plan 3 - 3 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,874 10 Plan 4 - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,967 13 Plan 5 - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 2,115 13 SFD A - 3 bedrooms, 2 ba th 2,366 13 Duplex A - 3 bedrooms, 2.5 ba th 1,795 21 Duplex B - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,840 20 Rowhouse Building Type Plan 1 - 3 bedrooms, 2.5 ba th 1,451 11 Plan 2 - 3 bedrooms, 2.5 ba th 1,707 8 Plan 3 - 3 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,874 8 Plan 4 - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,967 13 Plan 5 - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 2,115 3 Duplex B - 4 bedrooms, 3.5 ba th 1,840 16 Main Building Ma in Street 8,100 1 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 •5% Very Low-Income Units (9 of 180 units) •One incentive, multiple waivers or adjustments to development standards • Automatic parking reduction •Preliminary application submitted December 16, 2024 •Accepted and Vested: April 29, 2025 •Project vested under development review standards and fees 10 SITE PLAN SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 11 State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) Parking: •1.5 spaces per 2 - to 3 -bedroom units •2.5 spaces per 4 - to 5 -bedroom units. 380 spaces total •360 spaces in two -car garages •20 on -site surface spaces – 33 spaces SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 12 RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE - AMENITIES SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 13 COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 15 COMPLIANCE TABLE – Center 1 (CE1) Zone Zone and Building Standards (Chapter 17.130) Development Standard Required Proposed Compliance Built Percenta ge of Prima ry Fronta ge W idth 80% min.66%W a iver** Residential Finish Floor Eleva tion a bove Gra de a t Ma ximum Build -to -Line 30 in. min.0 in. - 36 in.W a iver** Non -Residentia l Finish Floor Eleva tion a bove Gra de a t Ma ximum Build -to -Line 18 in. ma x.4.5 ft.W a iver** Standards Specific to Main Street Building Type Building Depth 100 ft. ma x.108 ft., 9 in.W a iver** Standards Specific to Rowhouse Building Type Unit W idth 30 ft. ma x.32 ft.W a iver** Priva te Usa ble O pen Spa ce 8 ft. min. in a ny direction 5 ft. or grea ter W a iver** Standards Specific to Courtyard Building Type Building Depth 120 ft. ma x.82 ft. - 129 ft.W a iver** O pen Spa ce/ Courtya rd W idth 25 ft. min./ 50 ft. ma x.8 ft. - 20 ft.W a iver** O pen Spa ce/ Courtya rd Depth 25 ft. min./ 75 ft. ma x.56 ft. - 129 ft.W a iver** DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 16 Building Entrances and Facades (Chapter 17.132) Small Front Yard, Porch, and Stoop Variations for Courtyard and Rowhouse Building Types Ground Floor Above Gra de a t Building Fronta ge 18 in. min./ 3 ft. ma x.0 ft. - 3 ft.W a iver** Shopfront and Gallery, Arcade, Terrace, and Recess Variations for Main Street Building Type Tra nspa rency, Ground Floor 70% min./ 90% ma x.43%W a iver** Setba ck from Curb 2 ft. min.14 ft., 6 in. – 17.5 ft., 6 in.W a iver** Large Site Development (Chapter 17.138) Non -Residentia l Use Mix (min.)33%5%Incentive* *Per SDBL a nd Section 17.46.040(B)(1) of the Development Code, the a pplica nt ma y request one incentive or concession for projects tha t include a t lea st 5% for very low -income households in a housing development in which the units a re for sa le. **Per the SDBL a nd Section 17.46.030(E)(1) of the Development Code, a nd a pplica nt ma y submit to the City a proposa l for the wa iver or reduction of development sta nda rds, when sta nda rds would ha ve the effect of physica lly precluding the proposed development. SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS - COURTYARD 17 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS - MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL 18 Front Eleva tion – Ba seline Roa d Rea r Eleva tions – Interna l SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS - MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL 19 Side Eleva tions - Interna l Side Eleva tions – Shelby Pla ce SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLAN 20 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 RENDERINGS - COURTYARD 21 Pla n 1 Courtya rd Building a s viewed from Ba seline Roa d SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 RENDERINGS - COURTYARD 22 Pla n 1 Courtya rd Building a s viewed from the interior SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 RENDERINGS - ROWHOUSE 23 Pla n 2 Rowhouse Building a s viewed from Etiwa nda Avenue a nd Ba seline Roa d SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 RENDERINGS – MAIN STREET BUILDING 24 Pla n 4 Ma in Street Building a s viewed from Ba seline Roa d a nd Shelby Pla ce • • • •Traffic, circulation, and street improvements •Parking availability for residents, guests, and customers •School impacts and student safety •Emergency response and access •Land use compatibility and density •Architecture, color, design, and historic character SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 25 • • •Project Architecture •Recommended removal of Spanish Elements •S-tile roofing and arched elements •Acknowledge applicable State legislation •5% very low-income Housing evenly distributed project wide •School district outreach discussed •Representative attended community meeting •Etiwanda School District correspondence limited to school fees SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 26 •Minimum required contribution: $143,100 •180 residential units x $750/unit •8,100 sq. ft. commercial x $1/sq. ft. •The Project will likely qualify for an exemption to the public art requirement due to the inclusion of income-restricted affordable housing units. SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 27 •This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the site was posted with three notices on February 10, 2026 •Public notices mailed to 248 property owners within 660 feet on February 11, 2026 •As of the Staff Report, one correspondence was received objecting the project •As of today, six additional written comments were received: •Five opposing the project •One in support •One from California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 28 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modifications of existing Planning Department Conditions of Approval : Condition of Approval No . 26 has been added to include Uniform Sign Program requirement. SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modifications of existing Planning Department Conditions of Approval : Condition of Approval No . 51 will be deleted, as landscape language is included in Condition No . 52 . SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 30 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modifications of existing Engineering Conditions of Approval : Condition of Approval No . 18 will be revised, modifying the language in parenthesis stating (min. width of 11 feet) and replacing it with (width of 11 feet or as determined by the City Engineer) SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 31 The Project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursua nt to AB 130, Section 21080.66, meeting a ll requirements. •Mixed -use development over two -thirds of residentia l floor a rea •Urba nized a rea , surrounded by existing development •Site below 20 a cre ma ximum •Consistent with the Genera l Pla n a nd loca l regula tions •Meets minimum residentia l density •No environmenta l ha za rds or historic structures •Ma nda tory Triba l Consulta tion SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 STATUTORY CEQA EXEMPTION 32 RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to the Density Bonus Law, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2026 -006 for the approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20790 and Major Design Review DRC2024 -00429 subject to the revised Conditions of Approval . SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 33 Questions SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 34 WALL AND FENCING SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 35 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 •Requested CEQA exemption for infill housing under State Section 21080.66 •Applicable to projects that meet all statutory requirements •Requires mandatory tribal consultation •Requires Phase I environmental hazard assessment 36 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS - COURTYARD (DUPLEX) 37 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS – COURTYARD (SFD) 38 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 FLOOR PLAN – DUPLEX 39 First Floor Second Floor Third Floor SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL 40 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 COLORS AND MATERIALS 41 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 ELEVATIONS - ROWHOUSE 42 SUBTT20790 & DRC2024-00429 TYPICAL COURTYARD AREAS 43