VIA EMAIL
December 3, 2025
Sean McPherson, Principal Planner L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Planning Department Lynne Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem
City of Rancho Cucamonga Ryan Hutchison, Council Member 10500 Civic Center Drive Kristine Scott, Council Member Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ashley Stickler, Council Member [email protected] 10500 Civic Center Drive
[email protected] Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Kim Sevy, City Clerk [email protected]
Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk’s Office
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Comment - Vinova Community Project (DRC2024-00395; DRC2025- 00168; DRC2025-00169)
Dear Mayor Michael, Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Mr.
McPherson, and Ms. Sevy:
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 support of SAFER’s appeal of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission’s October 22, 2025 decision to approve the Vinova Community Project (DRC2024- 00395; DRC2025-00168; DRC2025-00169) (“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 City Council meeting on December 3, 2025.
The City cannot rely on the 2004 EIR, because CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requires preparation of a supplemental 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. SAFER thus respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal, find that the City cannot rely on the 2004 EIR, and require the City to prepare a supplemental EIR instead.
SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by air quality expert Patrick Sutton, 2025-12-03 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G2. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Appeal Comment Re: Vinova Community Project
December 3, 2025
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 166 new single-family residences on 70 vacant acres of the parcel, located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the north and east, single-family residences to the west, and a water district facility and residences to the south. The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood and is zoned Low Residential (L). The remaining 80.8 acres of the parcel would be developed with 188 single-family homes in a separate project by a different developer.
In its approval of the Project, the City relies on an EIR it had originally certified on June 16, 2004 to analyze the development of 354 single-family homes on a 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 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.
(14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(C)-(D).)
As discussed below, under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 a supplemental 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 EIR to require the new mitigation measures.
Appeal Comment Re: Vinova Community Project December 3, 2025 Page 3 of 5 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 City’s Staff Report for the October 22, 2025 Planning Commission hearing on the Project, the 2004 EIR, and other relevant documents regarding the EIR’s air quality analysis and mitigation measures. According to the EIR, construction 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 than the measures proposed in the 2004 EIR, each of which were unavailable in 2004. (Id. at 5.) Unless these mitigation measures are required by the City and adopted for the Project, a supplemental EIR is required. (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.) Even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the EIR concluded 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.
Appeal Comment Re: Vinova Community Project December 3, 2025 Page 4 of 5 (Id.) Additionally, 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 not available in 2004. (Id.) 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. 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. Thus, there are 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 3.) 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.) 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 Appeal Comment Re: Vinova Community Project December 3, 2025 Page 5 of 5 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 4.) 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 3.) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, a supplemental EIR is required to implement new feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and require the City to prepare a supplemental EIR. Thank you. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT A
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
December 3, 2025
25242-00
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts Analyzed for the Vinova Residential Community, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Dear Ms. Davis:
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed the 2025 Staff Report from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
1 for the Vinova residential community project proposed by Lennar Homes on Tracts 16072 and 16072-2 in Rancho Cucamonga. According to the Staff Report, the Vinova project was previously analyzed as part of a 2004 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in connection with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 (the “project area”) and is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 2004 EIR included the development of 358 single-family homes on 150.8 acres. The Vinova project would develop 166 single-family homes on 70 acres of the project area. The remainder of the project area would be developed by Toll Brothers and include 188 single family homes.
The primary purpose of our review was to determine whether the potential environmental impacts related to air quality from implementation of the Vinova project have been properly evaluated, mitigated, and disclosed to the public. 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 Vinova 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.
1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Panning Commission, 2025. Staff Report, Design Review, Minor Exception, Variance – Vinova (Lennar). October 22.
December 3, 2025
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
December 3, 2025
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.2 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- and off-road diesel equipment to not idle for more than 2 minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations regarding idling for off-road equipment. 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.
2 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.
December 3, 2025
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.3 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 Vinova project; therefore, additional CEQA review of the Vinova 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.
3 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2025. EMFAC2025 V2.0.0 Web Platform. Accessed December 3. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/.
December 3, 2025
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 standard (currently Tier 2) in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
A new mitigation measure can 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 Vinova project. Pursuant to 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Vinova 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 2025 Staff Report and 2004 EIR, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operation of the Vinova project can be substantially reduced with the incorporation of new mitigation measures. In accordance with
December 3, 2025
14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Vinova 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 188 single-family homes proposed for development by the Toll Brothers on the remaining portion of the project area.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Resume
Patrick Sutton, P.E.
Principal Environmental Engineer
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 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.
Project Experience
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. 2025-12-03 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – ITEM G2 – CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
From: Alicia Mosley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 4:57 PM
To: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Tracts 16072 and 16072-2
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
To the members of the RC Planning Department:
I am a resident near tracts 16072 and 16072-2 off Etiwanda and Wilson. I strongly oppose the Planning Commission's decision to approve a request for Design Review, Minor Exception and Variance for 166 single-family residences, squeezing in more homes in smaller lots rather than the originally planned smaller quantity of larger lots. The more tightly compacted houses are not consistent with our surrounding neighborhoods, will more significantly increase traffic congestion, negatively impact the quality of our environment, and frankly is a sneaky and deceptive way to make changes to the neighborhood, whose current residents were told otherwise.
Furthermore, I have not received any notice about the proposed development of 73 condominium units and 16 commercial spaces in the SW corner of East and Wilson, but I passed by a board there with no public hearing notice attached. I strongly oppose any condominium building and any commercial spaces in this lot and neighborhood. This is a residential area of single family detached homes on larger lots, not fit for higher density housing or commercial spaces.
Sincerely,
Alicia Mosley
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important