From: Hayley Uno
To: Planning, City; City Council; City Clerk; City Council; Knight, Jared Cc: Rebecca Davis; Chase Preciado; Emy Lipkind; Leslie Reider Subject: SAFER Appeal Comment Submission with Expert Exhibit for the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263)
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 2:02:27 PM
Attachments: 2026.02.26 CC Comment - Etiwanda Estates - FINAL with Exhibit.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important WARNING: The sender of this email failed validation. This may indicate phishing or impersonation from an unauthorized source. Verify the sender before clicking links or opening attachments.
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Michael, Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Mr.
Knight, and Ms. Sevy:
On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), please find appeal attached comments, including expert exhibits, regarding the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263). The Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, March 4, 2026 at 7pm.
If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Hayley Uno
--
Hayley Uno (she/her)
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Office: (510) 836-4200
[email protected]
Correspondence Received
CC Meeting 3-4-26 Item
G1. Appeal Received
2-26-25
VIA EMAIL
February 26, 2026
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Jared Knight, Assistant Planner Lynne Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem Planning Department
Ryan Hutchison, Council Member City of Rancho Cucamonga Kristine Scott, Council Member 10500 Civic Center Drive Ashley Stickler, Council Member Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga City Council [email protected]
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Kim Sevy, City Clerk
[email protected] Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk’s Office [email protected] 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Comment - Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025- 00261; DRC2025-00263)
Dear Mayor Michael, Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Mr. Knight, 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 January 14, 2026 decision to approve the Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024- 00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263) (“Project”) based on a 2004 environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Rancho Cucamonga City Council meeting on March 4, 2026 at 7pm.
The City cannot rely on the 2004 EIR, because CEQA Guidelines § 15162 requires preparation of a supplemental mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or EIR. As discussed below, new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available in the intervening 21 years since the certification of the 2004 EIR that would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Additionally, rather than improperly piecemealing its CEQA analysis, the City should have considered this Project’s impacts together with those of the Vinova Community Project, its sister project, which is proposed on the same parcel of land.
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 MND or EIR
Appeal Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project
February 26, 2026
instead.
SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by air quality expert Patrick Sutton, P.E., from Baseline Environmental Consulting. Mr. Sutton’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves the construction of 188 new single-family residences on approximately 80.8 vacant acres of a 150.8-acre site, located near the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood and is zoned Low Residential (L). The remaining 70 acres of the site would be developed with 166 single-family homes in the Vinova Community Project, a separate project proposed by a different developer that the City has already approved on December 3, 2025.
The City is relying on an EIR it had originally certified on June 16, 2004 to analyze the development of 354 single-family homes on the 150.8-acre parcel for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (Pub. Res. Code § 21166)
The City employs CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CCR”] 15162; Pub.
Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21166) to claim that no supplemental CEQA review is required for the Project. However, under CEQA Guidelines § 15162, a supplemental MND or EIR is required when:
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: . . .
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(C)-(D).)
Appeal Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project
February 26, 2026
As discussed below, under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 a supplemental MND or EIR is required because multiple new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available since the EIR’s 2004 certification that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts.
Accordingly, the City must prepare a supplemental MND or EIR to require the new mitigation measures.
DISCUSSION
I. A supplemental EIR is required because new feasible air quality mitigation measures have become available since the certification of the 2004 EIR.
Air quality expert Patrick Sutton, P.E., from Baseline Environmental Consulting has reviewed the Project, the 2004 EIR, and other relevant documents regarding the EIR’s air quality analysis and mitigation measures. According to the EIR, construction of homes on the parcel where the Project site is located will have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts from construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. (Ex. A at 1, 5.) However, Mr.
Sutton found that these impacts can be substantially reduced with incorporation of numerous new air quality mitigation measures that are substantially different from the measures proposed in the 2004 EIR, each of which were unavailable in 2004. (Id. at 5.) A supplemental MND or EIR is required to disclose and mitigate these ongoing significant impacts . (Id. at 1.) A. New mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s adverse construction air quality impacts.
According to the EIR, construction on the Project site would have significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of criteria air pollutant emissions. (Id.) The estimated daily emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and reactive organic gases (“ROGs”) from construction of the Project would exceed the significance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), even with implementation of the EIR’s existing proposed construction air quality mitigation measures. (Id. at 1-2; EIR at 5.4-14, 5.4-27.) The EIR’s existing mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROGs include: (1) MM AQ-5, which states that construction contractors will use construction equipment with low emissions and high energy efficiency, and that construction grading plans will include a statement that all construction equipment will be maintained accordingly; (2) MM AQ-6, which states that construction contractors will use electric or clean alternative fuel- powered equipment where feasible; (3) MM AQ-7, which states that construction grading plans will include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use; (4) MM AQ-8, which states that construction contractors will use architectural coatings with low levels of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”); (5) MM AQ-9, which states that temporary traffic control will be used during soil transportation; and (6) MM AQ-10, which states that only low volatility paints and coatings will be used. (Ex. A at 2.) However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that construction-related air quality impacts would be significant.
Appeal Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project
February 26, 2026
Mr. Sutton identified numerous additional mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR that would substantially reduce the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts. For example, a new mitigation measure can be implemented to require all on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks to be model year 2018 or newer. (Id. at 3.) Newer model diesel trucks have vastly lower emissions and were not available in 2004. (Id.)
Moreover, the City could require all off-road construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower to be equipped with electric engines or Tier 4 final engines certified by the California Air Resources Board. (Id.) Tier 4 Final engines would reduce construction emissions and were unavailable in 2004. (Id.) In addition, Mr. Sutton recommends engines should be powered with alternative fuels, such as natural gas, electricity, propane and hydrogen fuel cells, to the maximum extent possible during every construction phase and activity. (Id.) These technologies were not readily available in 2004, but are now available to reduce the Project’s construction-related air quality impact.
Super compliant VOC paints are also now available but were not in 2004. The use of super-compliant VOC paints, rather than just low-VOC paints, would further reduce the Project’s VOC impacts.
Thus, there are multiple readily available mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the 2004 EIR – and could not be analyzed at that time because they were not technologically feasible – that would substantially reduce NOx, ROG, and VOC emissions during Project construction. Additional CEQA review through a supplemental MND or EIR is required to effectively evaluate and mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id. at 4.)
B. New mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project’s adverse operational air quality impacts.
According to the EIR, operation on the Project site would also have significant and unavoidable impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions. (Id. at 4.) The estimated daily operational emissions of NOx and ROGs would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, even with implementation of the EIR’s existing proposed operational air quality mitigation measures. (Id.; EIR at 5.4-15, 5.4-28.)
The EIR’s existing mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions of NOx and ROGs include: (1) MM AQ-11, which states that the Project will contribute to the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee; (2) MM AQ-12, which states that all appliances in the Project’s residential units will be energy efficient; and (3) MM AQ-13, which states that the Project Applicant will contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the Project area to accommodate bus stops at the Project access points. (Ex. A. at 4.)
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 Appeal Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project
February 26, 2026
air quality impacts. For example, a new mitigation measure can be implemented to require each home to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations that meet the California Green Building Standards Code’s most ambitious voluntary standard. (Id. at 5.) A new mitigation measure can also be implemented to require the Project Applicant to use only electric landscaping equipment rather than equipment powered by gasoline, diesel, or other fossil fuels. (Id.) In addition, MM AQ-12 could be revised to require the use of all-electric energy appliances without any natural gas connections and exclude the use of propane and other fossil fuels for heating and cooking. (Id. at 5.) These technologies were not readily available in 2004 but are now available to reduce the Project’s operational air quality impacts.
There are numerous readily available mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the 2004 EIR – and could not be analyzed at the time because they were not technologically feasible – that would substantially reduce the Project’s operational NOx and ROG emissions. Additional CEQA review through a supplemental MND or EIR is required to ensure all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant air quality impacts. (Id. at 4.)
II. By considering the impacts of this Project separately from those of the Vinova Community Project, City improperly piecemeals the CEQA analysis.
CEQA prohibits piecemeal environmental analysis and instead requires agencies to consider the “whole of an action.” (14 CCR § 15378(a).) That means:
“[T]he environmental review accompanying the first discretionary approval must evaluate the impacts of the ultimate development authorized by that approval. … Even though further discretionary approvals may be required before development can occur, the agency’s environmental review must extend to the development envisioned by the initial approvals. It is irrelevant that the development may not receive all necessary entitlements or may not be built. Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result will not be permitted.”
See Kostka, et al., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 6.52, p. 298.
Furthermore, “[a] public agency is not permitted to divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole.” (Orinda Assoc. v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1154, 1171.) CEQA requires that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimum potential impact on the environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Loc. Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975).)
Here, the City relies on a 2004 EIR analyzing the development of 354 new single-family homes on a 150.8-acre parcel for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. The Etiwanda Estates Project involves the construction of 188 of those homes on 80.8 acres of the 150.8-acre parcel.
The Vinova Community Project, its sister project proposed by a different developer, involves the construction of the remaining 166 homes on the remaining 70 acres of the same 150.8-acre Appeal Comment Re: Etiwanda Estates Project
February 26, 2026
parcel. On December 3, 2025, the City approved the Vinova Community Project separate from the Etiwanda Estates Project. Although the two projects are on the same parcel of land and are analyzed under the same EIR, the City conducted its newest round of CEQA review of the projects separately. This is the very essence of piecemealing. A new CEQA document, whether an MND or EIR, is required to analyze both projects together, including implementation of the new air quality mitigation measures discussed above.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, a supplemental MND or 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 MND or EIR. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT A
January 13, 2026
26203-00
Hayley Uno
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts Analyzed for the Etiwanda Estates Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Dear Ms. Uno:
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) understands that the Etiwanda Estates Project is a proposed housing development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed housing development was previously analyzed as part of a 2004 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in connection with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 (the “project area”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 2004 EIR included the development of 358 single-family homes on 150.8 acres. The Etiwanda Estates Project would develop 188 single-family homes on 80 acres of the project area. The remainder of the project area would be developed for the Vinova project, which includes 166 single-family homes on 70 acres of the project area.
The primary purpose of our review was to determine whether the potential environmental impacts related to air quality from implementation of the Etiwanda Estates Project have been properly evaluated, mitigated, and disclosed to the public under the 2004 EIR. Based on our review, there are numerous improvements that can be made to the existing mitigation measures identified in the 2004 EIR that would warrant additional review of the Etiwanda Estates Project under CEQA.
NEW MITIGATION MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
According to the 2004 EIR, construction of the project area would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutant emissions. As summarized in Table 1, the estimated unmitigated daily emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) during construction of the project area would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended thresholds of significance.
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
January 13, 2026
Table 1. 2004 EIR Analysis of Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions during Construction
Emissions Scenario NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day)
Unmitigated Emissions 405.0 187.7
Mitigated Emissions 351.2 99.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 100 75
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, pages 5.4-14 and 5.4-27. November 25.
The 2004 EIR identified the following mitigation measures to reduce construction NOx and ROG emissions to the maximum extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: The Construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned to and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible.
Mitigation Measure AQ-7: The construction contractor shall ensure that construction- grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
Mitigation Measure AQ-8: The construction contractor shall use low VOC architectural coating during the construction phase of the project.
Mitigation Measure AQ-9: During construction of the proposed improvements, temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) will be provided during soil transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle trucks on site for more than ten minutes.
Mitigation Measure AQ-10: During construction of the proposed improvements, only low volatility paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. All paints shall be applied using either high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application.
As shown in Table 1, the mitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during construction would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Based on current best practices typically implemented under CEQA, the existing air quality measures identified in the 2004 EIR can be improved as follows:
Mitigation Measures AQ-5 and AQ-6 can be revised to require all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be equipped with electric engines, if available, or Tier 4 final engines as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). When the 2004 January 13, 2026
EIR was published, the best available technology for off-road equipment was Tier 2 engines.
Since 2015, all new off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower are equipped with Tier 4 Final engines, which reduce NOx and ROG emissions by approximately 96% and 86% relative to the Tier 2 emissions standards, respectively.1 In addition, engines should be fueled with alternative fuels, including natural gas, propane, hydrogen fuel cell, and electricity, as commercially available and to the maximum extent feasible during each construction phase and activity. A Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) should be prepared that includes an equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. In addition, the Emissions Plan should include a Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Mitigation Measures AQ-7 and AQ-9 can be revised to require all on-road diesel vehicles and off-road diesel equipment to not idle for more than 2 minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state idling regulations. Documentation should be provided to equipment operators in multiple languages (e.g., English, Spanish, Chinese) to remind operators of the 2-minute idling limit.
Mitigation measures AQ-8 and AQ-10 can be revised to require the use and enforcement of super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) paints with a maximum VOC content of 10 grams/liter, which is substantially lower than the current SCAQMD Rule 1113 requirements for low VOC paints that allow a maximum VOC content of 50 grams/liter. It should be noted that there have been numerous amendments to the SCAQMD Rule 1113 since the 2004 EIR was published, including the most recent amendment in 2016 which reduced the maximum VOC content in paints to 50 grams/liter. In response, paint manufacturers have developed super-compliant VOC paints for widespread use in recent years to remain well below the regulatory requirement.
In addition, the project sponsor should be required to submit a signed certification statement to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, confirming that the super- compliant VOC requirement has been incorporated into the construction contract specifications, for review and approval.
1 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2025. Non-road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart. Accessed December 3. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-diesel-engine-certification-tier-chart.
January 13, 2026
A new mitigation measure should also be incorporated that requires all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the project site (e.g., haul trucks, water trucks, dump trucks, and concrete trucks) to be model year 2018 or newer. Due to substantial improvement in emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, the NOx and ROG emission factors for running exhaust in 2018 are approximately 68% and 83% lower than the corresponding emissions factors for heavy-duty trucks in 2004 when the EIR was published. 2 According to 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review is required if mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. As described above, there are readily available mitigation measures that would substantially reduce emissions of NOx and ROG and improve the enforcement of mitigation measures during construction of the Etiwanda Estates Project; therefore, additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is warranted to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public.
NEW MITIGATION MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR OPERATION
According to the 2004 EIR, operation of the project area would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutant emissions. As summarized in Table 2, the estimated unmitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during operation of the project area would exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance.
Table 2. 2004 EIR Analysis of Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions during Operation
Emissions Scenario NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day)
Unmitigated Emissions 64.7 87.9
Mitigated Emissions 60.3 83.5
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, pages 5.4-15 and 5.4-28. November 25.
The 2004 EIR identified the following mitigation measures to reduce operation NOx and ROG emissions to the maximum extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure AQ-11: The proposed project will participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee. This fee will be collected and utilized by the City to install and synchronize traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue.
2 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2025. EMFAC2025 V2.0.0 Web Platform. Accessed December 3. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/.
January 13, 2026
Mitigation Measure AQ-12: All appliances within the residential units of the project shall be energy-efficient as defined by SCAQMD.
Mitigation Measure AQ-13: The project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense.
As shown in Table 2, the mitigated daily emissions of NOx and ROG during operation would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Based on current best practices typically implemented under CEQA, these air quality measures can be improved as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-12 can be revised to require the use of all-electric energy appliances without any natural gas connections and exclude the use of propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
Mitigation Measure AQ-13 can be revised to require the project proponent to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a new transit stop within a half mile of the project area prior to the issuance of building permits. Without a timeframe, the project proponent has no incentive to complete the mitigation measure. If a new transit stop is feasible, then the transit stop should be constructed at the project proponent’s expense prior to the issuance of building occupancy permits.
A new mitigation measure can be incorporated that requires each home to be equipped with electric vehicle charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards (e.g., Tier 1 or Tier 2) in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
A new mitigation measure can also be incorporated that requires the project proponent to use only electric landscaping equipment. No landscaping equipment powered by gasoline, diesel, propane, or other fossil fuels should be used. The project proponent should incorporate this requirement into the project design and tenant contracts (as applicable).
As described above, there are readily available mitigation measures now available that would substantially reduce emissions of NOx and ROG and improve the enforcement of mitigation measures during operation of the Etiwanda Estates Project. Pursuant to 14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is warranted to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public.
Conclusions
Based on our review of the 2004 EIR, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operation of the Etiwanda Estates Project can be substantially reduced with the incorporation of new mitigation measures. In accordance with January 13, 2026
14 CCR 15162 (a)(3)(D), additional CEQA review of the Etiwanda Estates Project is required to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the severity of potential air quality impacts to the public. It should be noted that any CEQA review that attempts to tier from the 2004 EIR should also account for the potential air quality impacts associated with the 166 single-family homes proposed for the Vinova project on the remaining portion of the project area.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Resume
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California – Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI)
Years of Experience
20 Years
Patrick Sutton, P.E.
Principal Environmental Engineer
Project Experience
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.
Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise, energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT-EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns.
For mixed-use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State
Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially-deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring.
Alameda CTC I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements. Prepared Phase I/II ESAs to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and support CEQA/NEPA environmental review.
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program- and project-level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.
CCTA I-680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.
Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program- and project-level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.
BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.
From: Jong, Nancy
To: Nakamura, Jennifer; Knight, Jared
Cc: Guerra, Alicia C.
Subject: Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263) [IMAN-BUCHALTER.FID2751387] Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:08:26 AM
Attachments: Letter to City Council 3-4-26(108480368.1).pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Ms. Nakamura and Mr. Knight:
Please see attached copy of letter.
Thank you,
Nancy Jong
Assistant to Alicia Guerra
Buchalter
Nancy Jong
Legal Assistant to Jay Paxton, Thomas Sherwood and Bukola Mabadeje.
T
(415) 296-1659
F (415) 227-0770
[email protected]
425 Market Street, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.buchalter.com
Notice To Recipient: This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For additional policies governing this e-mail, please see http://www.buchalter.com/about/firm-policies/
.
Correspondence received
CC meeting 3-4-26
Item G1. Appeal
Received 3-4-26
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
415.227.3508 Direct
[email protected]
March 4, 2026
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga City Hall
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Etiwanda Estates Project (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025- 00263)
Dear Honorable Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council:
Buchalter, LLP, (“Buchalter”) represents Toll Brothers, Inc. (“Toll Brothers”) as land use counsel regarding its project to develop 188 single-family homes and associated infrastructure (the “Etiwanda Estates Project” or “Project”) on an approximately 80.8-acre vacant site located northeast of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga (the “Property”). The Property is a portion of a 354-lot subdivision on the 150.8-acre property approved in 2004. On June 16, 2004, the City certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2002091053) (the “2004 EIR”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The 2004 EIR evaluated the annexation of the Property and approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 16072 (“SUBTT16072”).
Toll Brothers is the developer of the Etiwanda Estates Project, one of two remaining subdivisions in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Lennar Homes is the developer of a sister project with 166 single-family homes on the remaining 70-acre site (the “Lennar Project”). The City approved the Toll Brothers Project and the Lennar Project when the City approved the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. The City later approved final maps for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2 and 16072-3 in 2023, and issued grading permits in January 2024. On September 3, 2025, the City Council adopted a CEQA exemption and approved rezoning of the property within SUBTT16072 to change the zoning from Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) to Low Residential (L) in furtherance of implementing the Specific Plan. There were no successful challenges to the 2004 EIR, the Specific Plan or Tract Map 16072 approvals.
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
On January 13, 2026, Rebecca Davis, Esq. from Lozeau-Drury sent the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission a comment letter on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) raising new concerns about the City’s reliance on the 2004 EIR for approval of the Project design review (DRC2024-00373; DRC2025-00261; DRC2025-00263) for Subdivision SUBTT16072 (“Design Review”). SAFER requested that the City prepare a new EIR for the Project Design Review due to two claims. First, SAFER claimed that CEQA requires a new EIR when new feasible mitigation measures become available after the 2004 EIR was certified. Second, SAFER claimed the City improperly piecemealed its approval of the Vinova Community Project and the Etiwanda Estates Project and failed to evaluate both projects in one new EIR. The Planning Commission rejected SAFER’s comments and its request for another supplemental EIR and approved the Project Design Review at its hearing on January 14, 2026.
Contrary to SAFER’s unsubstantiated claims, the 2004 EIR is based on substantial evidence, and since then, the City has relied on this evidence for its approval of subsequent entitlements necessary to implement the Specific Plan. Once an EIR has been certified for a Project CEQA does not require a new EIR unless there are new significant impacts associated with a subsequent discretionary approval. The purpose of this letter is to explain why the City’s reliance on the prior 2004 EIR for the Project Design Review approvals complies with CEQA contrary to SAFER’s comments, and request that the City Council uphold the Project Design Review approval and that the City continue processing the Project plans and building permits.
The City Council Must Approve the Project in Accordance with the Housing Accountability Act.
The Legislature has long recognized that “housing is of vital statewide importance,” and the provision of suitable housing for every Californian is “a priority of the highest order.” (Gov.
Code § 65580(a).) But California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and to address California’s severe housing shortage, the Legislature enacted the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) to significantly limit a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that provide affordable housing units. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).)
Toll Brothers predecessor in interest obtained entitlements for the 354-unit Trails at Etiwanda residential subdivision over four phases, along with associated infrastructure in the Etiwanda area of Rancho Cucamonga. Entitlements included tentative and final subdivision maps, consistent with the then-applicable Etiwanda North Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). The City certified the 2004 EIR and approved all of the entitlements necessary to implement the Toll Brothers Project other than Design Review. Under the HAA, the City may not deny, reduce the density of or make the Project infeasible unless there is a preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that the housing development will result in a significant public health and safety impact.
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
That could not be further from the case here. SAFER’s comments address only the existence of new mitigation measures to address operational air quality impacts that are typical of traffic and mobile source emissions associated with other residential projects in the community. There is no evidence whatsoever that approval of Design Review for the previously approved Toll Brothers Project would result in any public health and safety impacts. For that reason, the City Council must uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review and reject SAFER’s appeal in accordance with the HAA.
Substantial Evidence Supports the City’s Determination that the Project would not Trigger any New Significant Environmental Impacts, and would not Require Subsequent Environmental Review under Public Resources Code § 21166.
CEQA defines an approval as the decision by a public agency committing the agency “to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15352(a).) For private projects, an approval “occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue” some discretionary entitlement. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15352(b).) CEQA further limits the situations in which an activity will be subject to additional CEQA review, after a lead agency has already satisfied the environmental review requirements.
Under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, if a lead agency has already certified an EIR for a project, a subsequent discretionary approval will not be subject to CEQA review unless:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR;
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or (3) new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available.
(Pub. Res. Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162.)
Even if changed circumstances occur, subsequent environmental review will not be required if the resulting environmental impacts were already addressed in the prior EIR or if the changed circumstances will not result in effects that are substantially more severe than those previously evaluated. (Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Mun.
Transp. Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1255-56.) In this case, the City complied with CEQA when it certified the 2004 EIR for the approval of TTM16072. When the City approved TTM 16072 following its approval of the Specific Plan, the City committed to the Project as part of the entire development of the 384-unit residential community, a portion of which included the 188 units included in the Etiwanda Estates Project. It was at that time that the City could (and did) impose conditions of approval and mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
environmental impacts evaluated in the 2004 EIR. To date, the City has issued ministerial approvals for the Project including, for example, final maps and grading permits, to implement the approved Project.
Even though the City Council is now considering Design Review approval for the Project consistent with the prior 2004 entitlements and recent rezoning in 2025, none of the circumstances exist (described above) that would require subsequent CEQA review. The SAFER letter did not identify any new information associated with the Design Review approvals that would show that there are significant changes in the Project that would result in new significant or substantially greater impacts than the previously identified Project impacts already evaluated the 2004 EIR. Since nothing about the Project or how it is being developed has changed, and because the Project will not result in any new environmental impacts, no additional CEQA review is required as a result of the City Council’s approval of the Project Design Review. The City’s reliance on the 2004 EIR to approve the Project Design Review therefore complies with CEQA.
The Availability of New Air Quality Mitigation Measures does not Require Preparation of a Supplemental EIR.
SAFER mistakenly claims the City must prepare another EIR for Toll Brothers’ Project because new mitigation measures to address air quality impacts have become available since the City certified the 2004 EIR. With respect to the existence of new mitigation measures, Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provide that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, if:
(a)(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:
(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. (Emphasis added.) The SAFER Letter asserts that newly available mitigation measures exist to reduce the Project’s adverse construction and operational air quality impacts, and therefore a supplemental EIR is required to “effectively evaluate and mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts.” SAFER identifies six air quality mitigation measures included in the 2004 EIR and suggests that the City can just revise the measures to improve on the prior mitigation measures that they already adopted and for which conditions of approval were incorporated into the prior Project approvals.
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
SAFER misstates CEQA’s requirements. The mere availability of new mitigation measures does not, by itself, trigger a subsequent EIR. That is not what CEQA requires. Rather, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a subsequent EIR is required if, and when “project proponents decline to adopt” the newly available mitigation measures. In this case, Toll Brothers agreed to incorporate the prior required mitigation measures into its Project, and it has been complying with the applicable conditions of approval since then. There is no substantial evidence in the record indicating that that Toll Brothers declined to adopt any applicable mitigation measures included in the 2004 EIR.
With respect to the Design Review approvals, SAFER has not provided any evidence that the City’s approval of Design Review results in new significant or substantially greater impacts compared to the prior analysis included in the certified 2004 EIR that would have otherwise required new or different mitigation measures. That is because they can’t because the Project includes the same number of dwelling units compared to the approved Project and there are no new or substantially greater air quality impacts associated with building the same number of housing units evaluated in the 2004 EIR. Because there are no new impacts or substantially greater air quality impacts compared to the prior EIR analysis, CEQA does not require that the City change the mitigation measures it already adopted when it approved the 2004 entitlements and the Project.
SAFER has failed to demonstrate that there is substantial evidence requiring that the City replace the prior adopted mitigation measures with new measures to mitigate the same impacts caused by the Project. CEQA does not require a new EIR simply because a project opponent prefers that the lead agency replace mitigation measures that were already effective in reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Accordingly, CEQA allows the City to rely on the prior 2004 EIR for the subsequent Design Review approval.
The City’s Approval of the Project Design Review Separate from the Vinova Community Project Does Not Constitute Improper Piecemealing under CEQA.
The SAFER Letter suggests that the City’s December 3, 2025 approval of the Vinova Community Project1 separate from the Project constitutes improper piecemealing because those two projects are located on the same parcel and were analyzed under the 2004 EIR. SAFER (and their attorneys) are confused and appear to misunderstand CEQA’s requirements.
Environmental review of a project under CEQA must encompass the whole of an action affecting the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) This means a lead agency may not chop “a large project into many little ones — each with a minimal potential impact on the environment — which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 370.) Courts, however, have ruled
1 The City’s approval of the Design Review, Minor Exception, and Variance for the Vinova Community Project.
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
that two projects may properly undergo separate environmental review (i.e., no piecemealing) when the projects have different proponents, serve different purposes, or can be implemented independently. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223.) That is the case here.
Toll Brothers is the proponent of the Toll Brothers Project and Lennar is the proponent of the Lennar Project. Both projects happen to be located in the same Specific Plan area and were subject to one EIR for the Specific Plan. But the two projects are not located on the same property. The 2004 EIR analyzed and evaluated the environmental impact of the Specific Plan consisting of 354 single-family homes. The Toll Brothers Project and the Lennar Project are merely two different subdivisions proposed by two different project proponents located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area which were already evaluated in a single EIR covering the Specific Plan. The two projects have utility independent of each other and may proceed regardless of whether or not the City approves one or both projects. As set forth above, case law provides that CEQA does not prohibit different proponents from implementing different portions of a previously approved project covered by the same EIR, especially when each portion can be implemented independently.
For SAFER to be able to demonstrate the City improperly piecemealed the Project, SAFER must show that the City improperly segmented a single project in a way to avoid analyzing the cumulative impacts. That showing cannot be made here. The cumulative impacts of the combined project (the Specific Plan) and Tentative Tract Map 16072 were fully analyzed in the 2004 EIR in accordance with CEQA. The 2004 EIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the entire development of 359 single family residential lots on 150.79 acres of property in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Contrary to SAFER’s assertions, the City did not improperly piecemeal its evaluation of the Project.
We respectfully request that the City Council reject SAFER’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review, rely on the 2004 EIR and approve the Project’s Design Review in accordance with the HAA. We also request that the City continue processing the Project plans and issue the Project building permits in accordance with the prior discretionary approvals authorizing the development of 188 homes on the Property in furtherance of the City’s objectives to provide much needed housing in the Rancho Cucamonga community.
Mayor L. Dennis Michael and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga March 4, 2026
BUCHALTER 108302666v2
Toll Brothers appreciates the City Council’s deliberations this evening, and looks forward to the City’s issuance of the Project building permits in the very near future.
Regards,
BUCHALTER LLP
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
Cc: City Clerk
Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney
Jennifer Nakamura
Jared Knight
Gregory Deacon
David Nemrow
Spencer Tsai