From: Derek Johnson
To: Lucio, Marc; City Clerk; Comstock, Karen; Flores, Christopher; Ulloa, Eunice; Burton, Curtis; [email protected]
Subject: [EXT EMAIL] Opposition to Proposed Amsterdam Avenue Access – East Chino Specific Plan Amendment Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:14:15 PM
Dear Mayor Ulloa, Members of the Chino City Council, City Clerk, and Assistant Planner Cortez,
I am writing as a resident of the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed East Chino Specific Plan development to respectfully express my concern regarding the proposal to provide direct residential access onto Amsterdam Avenue.
I understand that development and growth are part of our community, and I am not writing simply to oppose the construction of new homes. My primary concern is the proposed use of Amsterdam Avenue as an access route for the new development, including the ten homes proposed to front directly onto Amsterdam Avenue.
Amsterdam Avenue currently serves as an important neighborhood access road for the existing residents in this area. Allowing additional homes to front directly onto Amsterdam, along with individual driveways and associated street parking, would significantly change the character and function of this roadway. It would introduce additional vehicle movements, cars backing into or out of driveways, delivery vehicles, service vehicles, trash collection, guest parking, and potentially overflow parking along a roadway that existing residents rely upon for safe and efficient access to our neighborhood.
We are particularly concerned that this change could effectively turn Amsterdam Avenue from a neighborhood access road into a throughfare serving a separate new development. This would increase traffic and potential conflict points while also affecting the safety, appearance, and quality of life of the existing neighborhood.
Based on the proposed site plan, the development appears to have the ability to provide internal circulation and access without requiring homes to front directly onto Amsterdam Avenue. We respectfully ask the City to carefully consider alternatives that keep the new development's residential traffic, driveways, and parking within the development itself and utilize its planned internal street network.
We recognize that extending utilities or modifying the development layout may result in additional costs to the developer. However, we do not believe avoiding those costs should outweigh the long-term traffic, safety, parking, and neighborhood impacts that will remain long after construction is complete.
Our request is straightforward: please preserve Amsterdam Avenue as an access road for the existing neighborhood and require the proposed development to utilize its own internal roadway system rather than adding direct residential driveways and additional development- related traffic onto Amsterdam Avenue.
I respectfully ask the City Council to deny the proposed ECSP amendment in its current form, or require revisions that eliminate the ten homes fronting directly onto Amsterdam Avenue and prevent the new development from using Amsterdam as a primary neighborhood access route.
Thank you for considering the concerns of the residents who live here and use Amsterdam Avenue every day. We hope the City will work with both the developer and the existing community to find a solution that allows responsible development while preserving safe and reasonable access for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Respectfully
18 year neighborhood residents
Derek and Crystal Johnson.
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please verify sender email. If unknown, DO NOT open links/attachments.
NEVER give out your user ID or password for any reason! '
Date: September 1, 2026
TO:
The Honorable Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa and Members of the Chino City Council Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk
Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, Development Services Department City of Chino, City Hall, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 FROM:
Printed Name: Fadi M Berni
Signature:
Fadi M Berni
Address:
E-mail / Phone:
SUBJECT: FO
RMAL RESIDENT PROTEST AND OPPOSITION TO EAST CHINO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PL25-0019 AND ASSOCIATED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20845 (PL25-0121) - 13918 CYPRESS AVENUE
Dear Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Clerk Gonzaga, and Mr. Cortez:
I am writing to request that the Mayor and City Councilmembers deny Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019). This letter is to express my absolute opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019), Site Approval (PL25-0120), and Tentative Tract Map No. 20845 (PL25-0121) for the 12.42 adjusted gross acre site at 13918 Cypress Avenue. The developer, PLC Communities, is seeking a self- serving amendment to the protective zoning and design standards of our neighborhood's governing zoning law, the East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP). Specifically, they request to front 10 single-family homes and their active driveways on Amsterdam Avenue (a designated Loop Road/Street), allow a reduced front setback of 15 feet for swing-in garages, and allow on-street parking directly in front of these homes. I strongly reject the Planning Department staff report's claims that these amendments 'will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by providing a more interesting street scene' and that they 'would not result in adverse impacts.' These claims are mathematically and layout-wise invalid under the current ECSP, and they do not reflect the safety and aesthetic desires for the surrounding community as intended in the ECSP.
The ECSP is nearly thirty years old, yet it remains a highly valid, contemporary, and legally binding document designed to manage growth in a phased, orderly, and sensitive manner. Nothing has changed in our community to justify the sweeping, backward-looking exceptions that this developer is seeking.
Forcing these concessions into our master-planned neighborhood is like trying to make the wrong puzzle piece fit; it simply does not fit, looks wrong, and degrades the neighborhood identity and character that our Specific Plan was established to protect. Denying the amendment does not stop development
EAST CHINO RESIDENT OPPOSITION COALITION
Preserving the Safety, Intent, and Aesthetic Integrity of the East Chino Specific Plan
altogether; it simply forces the developer to design a safer layout that respects and complies with the existing ECSP.
The real reason the developer wants to build 10 homes on our loop road is the convenient location of sewer lines on Amsterdam Avenue, which decreases their building costs – BUT this does not justify an amendment to the ECSP that will destroy the foundational design integrity of our neighborhoods, and potentially other neighborhoods moving forward. During the 6/17/2026 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted 5-1 to continue the item, recommending that the developer study 'flipping' the site design so the 10 homes would front Cypress Avenue instead, where loop road prohibitions do not apply. The developer refused because installing over 700 feet of sewer, storm drain, and other utilities along Cypress Avenue would cost an estimated $1 million and reduce their lot count by one. A private developer's utility grading costs and business profit margins are not a matter of public interest, and they must never be accepted as a valid excuse to dismantle local zoning laws.
The loop road standards in the ECSP are strict and unambiguous for a reason: they are designed to limit traffic conflicts and establish a cohesive, safe suburban environment. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino (and Chino) by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic-calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. The proposed amendment seeks to change the ECSP text that currently states that Side- on dwelling plottings shall be encouraged contiguous to the loop/paseo street system.Rear-on configuration shall be discouraged,front-on units are prohibitedalong the loop roads'. The proposed new language would remove the prohibition of front-on units on loop roads, and replace it with,and where appropriate, front-on configurations are permitted along the loop roads.' This language is incredibly vague and ambiguous. It completely removes the existing prohibition, replaces it with a highly subjective loophole, and leaves the community vulnerable by failing to define who determines what is 'appropriate' or what standards they must use.Amsterdam Avenue may be the last remaining loop road in East Chino. Even if this development were the last of its kind in East Chino, we/you should not be willing to amend the ECSP and ruin the identity of our neighborhoods on the last remaining loop road.
Furthermore, allowing this specific amendment directly compromises driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, creating severe traffic hazards on Amsterdam Avenue:
• Prohibited On-Street Parking: To alleviate resident concerns that guest vehicles from these 10 homes will overflow and clog nearby Dalton and Pepperdine Streets, the developer is requesting an additional amendment to permit parking directly in front of the homes on the loop road. This directly violates the ECSP standard, which strictly prohibits parking along loop roads to prevent traffic blockages, visibility obstructions, and emergency access delays. Adding parking spaces in front of these homes on a loop road is not a solution; it is a serious violation of established neighborhood safety standards.
I urge the City Council to stand with the residents of East Chino, protect the integrity of our long-standing planning laws, and reject Resolution No. PC2026-012. Please deny the Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019) and instruct the developer to submit a redesigned site plan that fully conforms to the existing, non- negotiable standards of the East Chino Specific Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature: _______Fadi M Berni____________________________________________
The real reason the developer wants to build 10 homes on our loop road is the convenient location of sewer lines on Amsterdam Avenue, which decreases their building costs – BUT this does not justify an amendment to the ECSP that will destroy the foundational design integrity of our neighborhoods, and potentially other neighborhoods moving forward. During the 6/17/2026 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted 5-1 to continue the item, recommending that the developer study 'flipping' the site design so the 10 homes would front Cypress Avenue instead, where loop road prohibitions do not apply. The developer refused because installing over 700 feet of sewer, storm drain, and other utilities along Cypress Avenue would cost an estimated $1 million and reduce their lot count by one. A private developer's utility grading costs and business profit margins are not a matter of public interest, and they must never be accepted as a valid excuse to dismantle local zoning laws.
The loop road standards in the ECSP are strict and unambiguous for a reason: they are designed to limit traffic conflicts and establish a cohesive, safe suburban environment. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino (and Chino) by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic-calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. The proposed amendment seeks to change the ECSP text that currently states that Side- on dwelling plottings shall be encouraged contiguous to the loop/paseo street system. Rear-on configuration shall be discouraged,
front-on units are prohibited along the loop roads'. The proposed new language would remove the prohibition of front-on units on loop roads, and replace it with, and where appropriate, front-on configurations are permitted along the loop roads.' This language is incredibly vague and ambiguous. It completely removes the existing prohibition, replaces it with a highly subjective loophole, and leaves the community vulnerable by failing to define who determines what is 'appropriate' or what standards they must use. Amsterdam Avenue may be the last remaining loop road in East Chino. Even if this development were the last of its kind in East Chino, we/you should not be willing to amend the ECSP and ruin the identity of our neighborhoods on the last remaining loop road.
Furthermore, allowing this specific amendment directly compromises driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, creating severe traffic hazards on Amsterdam Avenue:
• Prohibited On-Street Parking: To alleviate resident concerns that guest vehicles from these 10 homes will overflow and clog nearby Dalton and Pepperdine Streets, the developer is requesting an additional amendment to permit parking directly in front of the homes on the loop road. This directly violates the ECSP standard, which strictly prohibits parking along loop roads to prevent traffic blockages, visibility obstructions, and emergency access delays. Adding parking spaces in front of these homes on a loop road is not a solution; it is a serious violation of established neighborhood safety standards.
I urge the City Council to stand with the residents of East Chino, protect the integrity of our long-standing planning laws, and reject Resolution No. PC2026-012. Please deny the Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019) and instruct the developer to submit a redesigned site plan that fully conforms to the existing, non- negotiable standards of the East Chino Specific Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature: ______ ___________________
From:
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 8:30 PM
To: Comstock, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXT EMAIL] CONCERNED RESIDENT: Please Listen to This 5-Minute Briefing on Proposed East Chino Specific Plan Amendment PL25-0019
Dear Councilmember Comstock,
As an East Chino resident, I am writing to share a brief, 5-minute audio overview outlining our neighborhood's deep concerns regarding the proposed East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP) Amendment (PL25-0019) at 13918 Cypress Avenue.
Before you cast your vote on PL25-0019, I respectfully ask that you take five minutes to listen to this briefing. It synthesizes several critical planning, traffic, and safety violations that the developer’s proposed layout would introduce:
• The Tandem Garage Parking Illusion: While the developer claims 3-car garages will resolve parking issues, the actual plans show only 8 homes will have them, and 5 of those will rely on tandem garage spaces. Because tandem configurations are highly inconvenient, they are rarely used for parking—forcing vehicles onto Amsterdam Avenue where parking is strictly prohibited by the ECSP to prevent traffic conflicts.
• Merge Friction & Sightline Hazards: Widening Amsterdam Avenue (a designated loop/paseo street) only in front of these homes will create severe "merge friction". Residents backing out of these driveways must merge into a narrower standard segment of the road traveling north, and with poor sightlines both north and south, creating a massive safety risk.
• Destroying Neighborhood Character: The request to slash the front yard setback from the standard 25 feet to 15 feet will make these homes look jammed and out of character with the surrounding, established neighborhoods.
• Utility Convenience vs. Public Safety: The audio details how the developer’s layout is motivated entirely by the ease of tying into the sewer line on Amsterdam Avenue. A private developer’s profit margins must not override community safety and long-standing planning standards.
The ECSP was established in 1987—with Mayor Ulloa herself contributing to its creation and approval as Mayor Pro Tem—specifically to provide residents with future "necessary assurances" on development character and neighborhood safety. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic- calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. Denying this amendment does not stop development on the property; it simply forces the developer to design a safer, more respectful layout that honors the existing ECSP.
Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to preserving East Chino.
Very respectfully,
Derek Webster
EAST CHINO RESIDENT OPPOSITION COALITION
Preserving the Safety, Intent, and Aesthetic Integrity of the East Chino Specific Plan Date: September 9, 2026
TO:
The Honorable Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa and Members of the Chino City Council Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk
Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, Development Services Department City of Chino, City Hall, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 FROM:
Printed Name: Brenda Dial
Signature:
Address:
E-mail / Phone:
SUBJECT: FORMAL RESIDENT PROTEST AND OPPOSITION TO EAST CHINO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PL25-0019 AND ASSOCIATED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20845 (PL25-0121) - 13918 CYPRESS AVENUE
Dear Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Clerk Gonzaga, and Mr. Cortez:
I am writing to request that the Mayor and City Councilmembers deny Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019). This letter is to express my absolute opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019), Site Approval (PL25-0120), and Tentative Tract Map No. 20845 (PL25-0121) for the 12.42 adjusted gross acre site at 13918 Cypress Avenue. The developer, PLC Communities, is seeking a self- serving amendment to the protective zoning and design standards of our neighborhood's governing zoning law, the East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP). Specifically, they request to front 10 single-family homes and their active driveways on Amsterdam Avenue (a designated Loop Road/Street), allow a reduced front setback of 15 feet for swing-in garages, and allow on-street parking directly in front of these homes. I strongly reject the Planning Department staff report's claims that these amendments 'will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by providing a more interesting street scene' and that they 'would not result in adverse impacts.' These claims are mathematically and layout-wise invalid under the current ECSP, and they do not reflect the safety and aesthetic desires for the surrounding community as intended in the ECSP.
The ECSP is nearly thirty years old, yet it remains a highly valid, contemporary, and legally binding document designed to manage growth in a phased, orderly, and sensitive manner. Nothing has changed in our community to justify the sweeping, backward-looking exceptions that this developer is seeking.
Forcing these concessions into our master-planned neighborhood is like trying to make the wrong puzzle piece fit; it simply does not fit, looks wrong, and degrades the neighborhood identity and character that our Specific Plan was established to protect. Denying the amendment does not stop development altogether; it simply forces the developer to design a safer layout that respects and complies with the existing ECSP.
The real reason the developer wants to build 10 homes on our loop road is the convenient location of sewer lines on Amsterdam Avenue, which decreases their building costs – BUT this does not justify an amendment to the ECSP that will destroy the foundational design integrity of our neighborhoods, and potentially other neighborhoods moving forward. During the 6/17/2026 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted 5-1 to continue the item, recommending that the developer study 'flipping' the site design so the 10 homes would front Cypress Avenue instead, where loop road prohibitions do not apply. The developer refused because installing over 700 feet of sewer, storm drain, and other utilities along Cypress Avenue would cost an estimated $1 million and reduce their lot count by one. A private developer's utility grading costs and business profit margins are not a matter of public interest, and they must never be accepted as a valid excuse to dismantle local zoning laws.
The loop road standards in the ECSP are strict and unambiguous for a reason: they are designed to limit traffic conflicts and establish a cohesive, safe suburban environment. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino (and Chino) by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic-calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. The proposed amendment seeks to change the ECSP text that currently states that Side- on dwelling plottings shall be encouraged contiguous to the loop/paseo street system. Rear-on configuration shall be discouraged, front-on units are prohibited along the loop roads'. The proposed new language would remove the prohibition of front-on units on loop roads, and replace it with, and where appropriate, front-on configurations are permitted along the loop roads.' This language is incredibly vague and ambiguous. It completely removes the existing prohibition, replaces it with a highly subjective loophole, and leaves the community vulnerable by failing to define who determines what is 'appropriate' or what standards they must use. Amsterdam Avenue may be the last remaining loop road in East Chino. Even if this development were the last of its kind in East Chino, we/you should not be willing to amend the ECSP and ruin the identity of our neighborhoods on the last remaining loop road.
Furthermore, allowing this specific amendment directly compromises driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, creating severe traffic hazards on Amsterdam Avenue:
• Prohibited On-Street Parking: To alleviate resident concerns that guest vehicles from these 10 homes will overflow and clog nearby Dalton and Pepperdine Streets, the developer is requesting an additional amendment to permit parking directly in front of the homes on the loop road. This directly violates the ECSP standard, which strictly prohibits parking along loop roads to prevent traffic blockages, visibility obstructions, and emergency access delays. Adding parking spaces in front of these homes on a loop road is not a solution; it is a serious violation of established neighborhood safety standards.
I urge the City Council to stand with the residents of East Chino, protect the integrity of our long-standing planning laws, and reject Resolution No. PC2026-012. Please deny the Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019) and instruct the developer to submit a redesigned site plan that fully conforms to the existing, non- negotiable standards of the East Chino Specific Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature:
EAST CHINO RESIDENT OPPOSITION COALITION
Preserving the Safety, Intent, and Aesthetic Integrity of the East Chino Specific Plan
Date: September 9, 2026
TO:
The Honorable Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa and Members of the Chino City Council Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk
Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, Development Services Department City of Chino, City Hall, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 FROM:
Printed Name: James Dial
Signature:
Address:
E-mail / Phone:
SUBJECT: FORMAL RESIDENT PROTEST AND OPPOSITION TO EAST CHINO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PL25-0019 AND ASSOCIATED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20845 (PL25-0121) - 13918 CYPRESS AVENUE
Dear Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Clerk Gonzaga, and Mr. Cortez:
I am writing to request that the Mayor and City Councilmembers deny Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019). This letter is to express my absolute opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019), Site Approval (PL25-0120), and Tentative Tract Map No. 20845 (PL25-0121) for the 12.42 adjusted gross acre site at 13918 Cypress Avenue. The developer, PLC Communities, is seeking a self- serving amendment to the protective zoning and design standards of our neighborhood's governing zoning law, the East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP). Specifically, they request to front 10 single-family homes and their active driveways on Amsterdam Avenue (a designated Loop Road/Street), allow a reduced front setback of 15 feet for swing-in garages, and allow on-street parking directly in front of these homes. I strongly reject the Planning Department staff report's claims that these amendments 'will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by providing a more interesting street scene' and that they 'would not result in adverse impacts.' These claims are mathematically and layout-wise invalid under the current ECSP, and they do not reflect the safety and aesthetic desires for the surrounding community as intended in the ECSP.
The ECSP is nearly thirty years old, yet it remains a highly valid, contemporary, and legally binding document designed to manage growth in a phased, orderly, and sensitive manner. Nothing has changed in our community to justify the sweeping, backward-looking exceptions that this developer is seeking.
Forcing these concessions into our master-planned neighborhood is like trying to make the wrong puzzle piece fit; it simply does not fit, looks wrong, and degrades the neighborhood identity and character that our Specific Plan was established to protect. Denying the amendment does not stop development altogether; it simply forces the developer to design a safer layout that respects and complies with the existing ECSP.
The real reason the developer wants to build 10 homes on our loop road is the convenient location of sewer lines on Amsterdam Avenue, which decreases their building costs – BUT this does not justify an amendment to the ECSP that will destroy the foundational design integrity of our neighborhoods, and potentially other neighborhoods moving forward. During the 6/17/2026 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted 5-1 to continue the item, recommending that the developer study 'flipping' the site design so the 10 homes would front Cypress Avenue instead, where loop road prohibitions do not apply. The developer refused because installing over 700 feet of sewer, storm drain, and other utilities along Cypress Avenue would cost an estimated $1 million and reduce their lot count by one. A private developer's utility grading costs and business profit margins are not a matter of public interest, and they must never be accepted as a valid excuse to dismantle local zoning laws.
The loop road standards in the ECSP are strict and unambiguous for a reason: they are designed to limit traffic conflicts and establish a cohesive, safe suburban environment. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino (and Chino) by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic-calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. The proposed amendment seeks to change the ECSP text that currently states that Side- on dwelling plottings shall be encouraged contiguous to the loop/paseo street system. Rear-on configuration shall be discouraged, front-on units are prohibited along the loop roads'. The proposed new language would remove the prohibition of front-on units on loop roads, and replace it with, and where appropriate, front-on configurations are permitted along the loop roads.' This language is incredibly vague and ambiguous. It completely removes the existing prohibition, replaces it with a highly subjective loophole, and leaves the community vulnerable by failing to define who determines what is 'appropriate' or what standards they must use. Amsterdam Avenue may be the last remaining loop road in East Chino. Even if this development were the last of its kind in East Chino, we/you should not be willing to amend the ECSP and ruin the identity of our neighborhoods on the last remaining loop road.
Furthermore, allowing this specific amendment directly compromises driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, creating severe traffic hazards on Amsterdam Avenue:
• Prohibited On-Street Parking: To alleviate resident concerns that guest vehicles from these 10 homes will overflow and clog nearby Dalton and Pepperdine Streets, the developer is requesting an additional amendment to permit parking directly in front of the homes on the loop road. This directly violates the ECSP standard, which strictly prohibits parking along loop roads to prevent traffic blockages, visibility obstructions, and emergency access delays. Adding parking spaces in front of these homes on a loop road is not a solution; it is a serious violation of established neighborhood safety standards.
I urge the City Council to stand with the residents of East Chino, protect the integrity of our long-standing planning laws, and reject Resolution No. PC2026-012. Please deny the Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019) and instruct the developer to submit a redesigned site plan that fully conforms to the existing, non- negotiable standards of the East Chino Specific Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature:
EAST CHINO RESIDENT OPPOSITION COALITION
Preserving the Safety, Intent, and Aesthetic Integrity of the East Chino Specific Plan
Date: 09/10/2026
TO:
The Honorable Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa and Members of the Chino City Council Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk
Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, Development Services Department City of Chino, City Hall, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 FROM:
Printed Name: Bertha Duarte
Signature: B ertha D uarte
Address:
E-mail / Phone:
SUBJECT: FORMAL RESIDENT PROTEST AND OPPOSITION TO EAST CHINO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PL25-0019 AND ASSOCIATED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20845 (PL25-0121) - 13918 CYPRESS AVENUE
Dear Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Clerk Gonzaga, and Mr. Cortez:
I am writing to request that the Mayor and City Councilmembers deny Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019). This letter is to express my absolute opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019), Site Approval (PL25-0120), and Tentative Tract Map No. 20845 (PL25-0121) for the 12.42 adjusted gross acre site at 13918 Cypress Avenue. The developer, PLC Communities, is seeking a self- serving amendment to the protective zoning and design standards of our neighborhood's governing zoning law, the East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP). Specifically, they request to front 10 single-family homes and their active driveways on Amsterdam Avenue (a designated Loop Road/Street), allow a reduced front setback of 15 feet for swing-in garages, and allow on-street parking directly in front of these homes. I strongly reject the Planning Department staff report's claims that these amendments 'will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by providing a more interesting street scene' and that they 'would not result in adverse impacts.' These claims are mathematically and layout-wise invalid under the current ECSP, and they do not reflect the safety and aesthetic desires for the surrounding community as intended in the ECSP.
The ECSP is nearly thirty years old, yet it remains a highly valid, contemporary, and legally binding document designed to manage growth in a phased, orderly, and sensitive manner. Nothing has changed in our community to justify the sweeping, backward-looking exceptions that this developer is seeking. Forcing these concessions into our master-planned neighborhood is like trying to make the wrong puzzle piece fit; it simply does not fit, looks wrong, and degrades the neighborhood identity and character that our Specific Plan was established to protect. Denying the amendment does not stop development altogether; it simply forces the developer to design a safer layout that respects and complies with the existing ECSP.
The real reason the developer wants to build 10 homes on our loop road is the convenient location of sewer lines on Amsterdam Avenue, which decreases their building costs – BUT this does not justify an amendment to the ECSP that will destroy the foundational design integrity of our neighborhoods, and potentially other neighborhoods moving forward. During the 6/17/2026 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted 5-1 to continue the item, recommending that the developer study 'flipping' the site design so the 10 homes would front Cypress Avenue instead, where loop road prohibitions do not apply. The developer refused because installing over 700 feet of sewer, storm drain, and other utilities along Cypress Avenue would cost an estimated $1 million and reduce their
lot count by one. A private developer's utility grading costs and business profit margins are not a matter of public interest, and they must never be accepted as a valid excuse to dismantle local zoning laws.
The loop road standards in the ECSP are strict and unambiguous for a reason: they are designed to limit traffic conflicts and establish a cohesive, safe suburban environment. Granting this specific amendment sets a problematic precedent for other established neighborhoods in East Chino (and Chino) by showing that developer preference can override long-standing traffic-calming and neighborhood aesthetic designs. The proposed amendment seeks to change the ECSP text that currently states that Side-on dwelling plottings shall be encouraged contiguous to the loop/paseo street system. Rear-on configuration shall be discouraged, front-on units are prohibited along the loop roads'.
The proposed new language would remove the prohibition of front-on units on loop roads, and replace it with, and where appropriate, front-on configurations are permitted along the loop roads.' This language is incredibly vague and ambiguous. It completely removes the existing prohibition, replaces it with a highly subjective loophole, and leaves the community vulnerable by failing to define who determines what is 'appropriate' or what standards they must use. Amsterdam Avenue may be the last remaining loop road in East Chino. Even if this development were the last of its kind in East Chino, we/you should not be willing to amend the ECSP and ruin the identity of our neighborhoods on the last remaining loop road.
Furthermore, allowing this specific amendment directly compromises driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, creating severe traffic hazards on Amsterdam Avenue:
• Prohibited On-Street Parking: To alleviate resident concerns that guest vehicles from these 10 homes will overflow and clog nearby Dalton and Pepperdine Streets, the developer is requesting an additional amendment to permit parking directly in front of the homes on the loop road. This directly violates the ECSP standard, which strictly prohibits parking along loop roads to prevent traffic blockages, visibility obstructions, and emergency access delays. Adding parking spaces in front of these homes on a loop road is not a solution; it is a serious violation of established neighborhood safety standards.
I urge the City Council to stand with the residents of East Chino, protect the integrity of our long-standing planning laws, and reject Resolution No. PC2026-012. Please deny the Specific Plan Amendment (PL25- 0019) and instruct the developer to submit a redesigned site plan that fully conforms to the existing, non- negotiable standards of the East Chino Specific Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature: B ertha D uarte