Etiwanda Heights
Etiwanda Heights is 4,393 acres of foothills on the city's northeast edge. In 2019 the City Council set a cap of 3,000 homes there. In 2021 it adopted a citywide General Plan that allows up to 8 homes an acre on that same land. In 2026 it voted to remove the cap, at the landowner's request, after 16 of 17 speakers said no. Here is the whole story, from the City's and the County's own documents. Every fact links to its source.
The short version
In 2019, after two years of public meetings and a survey, the City adopted a plan for these foothills. Homes on about 790 acres, capped at 3,000;† the rest kept as open land. In 2024 the County sold 1,252 acres of the foothills to a developer's company, with no auction. In 2025 that company asked the City to replace the cap with a limit of 8 homes per gross acre.* In December 2025, 25 people spoke against the change at the Planning Commission; nobody spoke for it. The minutes list "Broken promises" among their concerns. In January 2026, 16 of the 17 speakers at the City Council said no. The council voted yes, 5–0, twice. Kennedy and Scott voted yes both times, and Scott made the final motion.
The land
The 2019 plan splits the land in two. The lower part, about 790 acres next to the existing neighborhoods, is the Neighborhood Area — where the homes go. The hills above it are the Rural/Conservation Area, meant to stay mostly open. The whole area was county land until the City annexed it in 2020.
2017–2021: a plan made with the neighbors
- 2017
The City floats a concept of up to 3,800 homes. The public response is negative, and the City drops it.
Source: the plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 2019, §5.3.2 (on the City's project page).
- March 2018
The City's survey: of 514 local answers, 64% pick one of the smallest choices — keep all 4,300 acres open, or build on 1,200 acres and keep 3,100 open. 13% pick building on 2,000 acres.
Source: the City's FlashVote survey, March 16–19, 2018, question 3 (97 + 120 + 114 = 331 of 514; 69 chose 2,000 acres).
- May 16, 2018
Staff gives the council three options: drop the annexation, annex the land and keep it all as open space, or annex it with a "community-based plan." The council picks the plan, 5–0. Kennedy is present.
Source: council minutes, May 16, 2018, item K1, pp. 5–6 (the City Clerk's archive, rcdocs.cityofrc.us → Minutes → City Council → 2018).
- Oct. 2, 2019
The council adopts the plan: homes capped at 3,000† on about 790 acres, the rest open. At the hearing, 11 people speak against it, 8 for it, and 1 with concerns. Answering Kennedy's questions, the City's Deputy City Manager tells the council that "the City Council objectives were based on stakeholders and Public input received." The vote is 5–0 with all five members present. Spagnolo moves; Kennedy seconds. Kennedy and Scott both vote for the cap.
Source: council minutes, Oct. 2, 2019, pp. 8–13.
- Nov. 6, 2019
The final vote, which makes the plan law: its four ordinances pass 5–0. Kennedy moves.
Source: council minutes, Nov. 6, 2019, p. 7.
- 2020
The land becomes part of the city.
Source: the annexation's Notice of Determination, Aug. 13, 2020 (LAFCO 3241).
- Dec. 15, 2021
The council adopts a new citywide General Plan, "PlanRC 2040," 5–0. Spagnolo moves; Scott seconds; Kennedy is present. The new plan calls the Neighborhood Area "Traditional Neighborhood" and allows up to 8 homes per gross acre there — on about 790 acres, far more than the 3,000-home cap. Why it matters: four years later, the City pointed to this 2021 label as a reason the cap had to go. The 2026 staff report says the label "permits a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre," and that state laws passed since 2019 "allow for development at the General Plan's density, regardless of the existing limits in the Specific Plan."
Sources: council minutes, Dec. 15, 2021, pp. 5–6 · the staff report of Jan. 21, 2026 (agenda packet, p. 231).
2024: the land changes hands
On Dec. 3, 2024, the County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Flood Control District, sold 1,252 acres of the foothills to Rancho Etiwanda, LLC, a company of developer James Previti. The price: up to $93 million. It was a direct sale, with no auction, approved on the consent calendar, 5–0. The purchase agreement works out to $127,233 a developable acre (730.94 developable acres).
Source: San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Dec. 3, 2024, item 58 (File 11258), Resolution 2024-171 and Contract 24-1171, on the County's Legistar archive. The county sold the land; the city approved the plan. They are different governments.
2025–2026: the cap removed
In 2025 the company applied to change the plan (application DRC2025-00022). Instead of a cap of 3,000 homes, the plan would set density by the acre — up to 8 homes per gross acre. The request also added nine new building types and a way to move density from one part of the area to another.
What the change means — in the City's own words
"Currently the Plan caps the number of units at 3,000. Using a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre, the theoretical maximum number of units based on overall land area under the developer's control, less the land zoned for shops and restaurants, is approximately 5,780 units. The actual number of developed units will be lower, as this calculation does not account for streets, parks, schools, existing utility easements and other infrastructure to be developed."
The City's staff report to the council, Jan. 21, 2026 — agenda packet, p. 232. The report adds that the 3,000 figure was counted after streets, parks and school sites were taken out, so "the numbers alone do not represent an equal comparison" (p. 233). That is why this page says the cap was removed, not how many homes will be built.
- Feb. 3, 2025
The park land. After a meeting with Previti, the City Manager writes to his staff: Previti "is estimating that land in EHNCP is $2M - $3M per acre," counts the park land the City wants at about 120 acres — "$250M – 350M total" — and asks "where were we going to get those kind of resources to purchase the land." Two months earlier the County had agreed to sell his company the land at $127,233 a developable acre.
Source: the City Manager's e-mail of Feb. 3, 2025 (AR 08190), in City records released under the California Public Records Act (RNU's copy; write to contact@ranchoneighborsunited.com for one).
- July 2–3, 2025
The company's attorney sends a park proposal: about 20 acres of built parks plus a 45-acre Edison power-line corridor, sized to the City's citywide fee study — "NOT the more onerous Specific Plan requirements." It counts each acre of park land at the fee study's $1,333,000 (about ten times the County's price to the company) and each acre of built park at $2,322,000 — so about 20 acres of built parks would cancel all $45.4 million in park fees. The math assumes 5,780 homes, half single-family, half multi-family. The next day the City Manager replies that those "numbers in terms of SF and MF" (single-family and multi-family homes) "are hypothetical at best, if not simply random," and "it does not represent an actual proposal we could agree to."
Sources: the company's "Park Acreage" memo, July 2, 2025 (AR 08645–08646), and the City Manager's reply, July 3, 2025 (AR 08689), in City records released under the California Public Records Act (RNU's copy; write to contact@ranchoneighborsunited.com for one); the City's November 2024 fee study ($1,333,000 ÷ $127,233 = 10.5).
- Dec. 10, 2025
Planning Commission. 25 people speak against the change. Nobody speaks for it. The minutes list their concerns: "High fire risks · Traffic congestion · School impact · Water supply · Crime · Sidewalks · High density · Children safety · Broken promises · Strain on Fire Stations · Environmental concerns." The commission recommends approval, 4–0, with three changes: cut the density-transfer program's maximum from 29 to 20 homes an acre, drop the "walk-up" building type, and shorten the transfer bank's life from 10 years to 8. No neighborhood meeting came first: the City's code did not require one, and "the developer chose not to hold one," a City staff report said in July 2026.
Sources: Planning Commission minutes, Dec. 10, 2025 · staff report, July 22, 2026 ("the developer chose not to hold one").
- Jan. 21, 2026
City Council, first vote. 16 speakers against; 1 for (the Chamber of Commerce's past president); 4 e-mails against. The minutes sum up the objections: "high-density housing, the placement of affordable housing within a high fire-risk zone and its incompatibility with elevated insurance premiums, inadequate public notification about the amendment, and potential traffic congestion that could compromise public safety during emergency evacuations." The council writes eight changes of its own from the dais — a 20-homes-an-acre limit for transfers, no walk-ups or 12-plexes in Planning Area 4, a neighborhood meeting before any future application, a height limit of 2.5 stories, and more. Each one is checked with the developer's representative; "some revisions were amended at the Applicant's request." The council recesses at 11:10 p.m., reconvenes at 11:34 p.m., and approves the change, 5–0, with all five members present. Hutchison moves; Scott seconds. Kennedy votes to approve.
Source: council minutes, Jan. 21, 2026, pp. 5–8.
- Feb. 4, 2026
City Council, final vote — the one that makes the change law. A city ordinance takes two votes: one to introduce it (Jan. 21) and one to adopt it. Ordinance 1055 is adopted 5–0 on the consent calendar — routine items passed together in one vote, without discussion. Scott makes the motion; Hutchison seconds. Kennedy votes yes.
Source: council minutes, Feb. 4, 2026, p. 4.
- Oct. 2026
Eight months after the vote, the City's own Etiwanda Heights web page still describes the 2019 plan: "2,700–3,000 single-family homes, no large-scale apartment buildings." The 3,000 cap it describes is gone.
Source: cityofrc.us/etiwandaheights, as read on Oct. 9, 2026.
What the City said tied its hands: the staff report says a 2019 state law, SB 330, "restricts cities from establishing any regulation that acts as a cap on the number of housing units," so the 3,000 cap "may no longer be enforceable," and the plan's density should match the General Plan's 8 homes per acre — the label the council itself put on this land in 2021 (agenda packet, pp. 231–232). At the Planning Commission, the Planning Director said the density-transfer program "is not mandated, it is an ask" (minutes, Dec. 10, 2025).
RNU's view — what could have been done
The council: state law may have forced the City to drop a hard cap. It did not force nine building types and a density-transfer bank — those were the company's asks — and it did not force a plan amendment at all. A plan amendment is the council's to grant or refuse: a Los Angeles council that refused a rezoning in a very high fire hazard zone, citing wildfire and evacuation, was upheld in 2023 (Snowball West v. City of Los Angeles). The council could have said no as asked. It could have waited: the plan itself calls for a fire-risk assessment and an evacuation plan before tract maps, and the City's own traffic reviewer had asked in July 2025 for "the quantitative analysis of key intersections" (the City's certified record, AR 08824). It could have lowered the General Plan density it set itself in 2021, adding the same capacity elsewhere the same night, as SB 330 allows (§66300(h)). Nobody on the dais proposed any of it.
The City Attorney: could have told the council in public what the Planning Director told the commission — "not mandated, it is an ask" — and that whether a 2019 cap is a "cap" under SB 330 is a question for a court, not for a staff report's "may." The green box is RNU's opinion of what public law allowed, on the record cited — general information, not legal advice.
The outside money
Three facts, in order, from the campaign-finance filings and the council minutes.
Sources: the City's campaign-finance portal (public.netfile.com) and the County's filings, as read through Sept. 29, 2026. Contributions are legal and must be reported. RNU does not claim that any of them caused a vote or that anyone acted improperly — contributions do not establish that money caused a vote. The full page: Outside money.
The lawsuit
On Feb. 23, 2026 a petition was filed in San Bernardino Superior Court against the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — case no. CIVRS2601692, with The Previti Group named as the real party in interest. It asks one kind of question: was the City's environmental review of the 2026 change enough? The City used an "addendum" to the 2019 environmental report. The petition says the change needed a new or supplemental report. It lists the impacts it says were not studied: traffic and safety, wildfire risk and evacuation, water supply and sewer capacity, and the loss of open space and wildlife corridors, among others.
The developer asked the court to throw the case out. On Aug. 19, 2026 the court declined: the objection (a "demurrer") was "overruled in its entirety," and the case goes on to a hearing on the merits, set for January 2027. That ruling decided only that the case may proceed. It decided nothing about who is right.
RNU is not a party to the case and has no part in it. The court file is public: the County's Court Access Portal, cap.sb-court.org, case CIVRS2601692 (minute order of Aug. 19, 2026).
What you can do
Read the documents yourself; the links are above. Then take the pledge: no to Kennedy for Mayor, no to Scott in District 2. This is one of thirteen housing decisions on the council's track record; the four told in depth are on the stories page.
† 3,000 includes up to 300 units transferred from the Rural/Conservation Area. * In 2026 the 3,000-home cap was replaced by a limit of 8 homes per gross acre, averaged across the neighborhood. The City's staff report puts the "theoretical maximum" under that limit at about 5,780 homes, says the actual number will be lower, and says "the numbers alone do not represent an equal comparison" (packet pp. 232–233). Speaker counts are the people the minutes list at that hearing. "Kennedy votes to approve" means a 5–0 vote with her present; the minutes print the tally, not each name. Private residents are counted, never named. Council members are named only for what the minutes record: moved, seconded, present.
Check any record yourself. Council and Planning Commission minutes: the City Clerk's archive at rcdocs.cityofrc.us. Agendas and staff reports: ranchocucamonga.primegov.com. The plan and its environmental reports: cityofrc.us/etiwandaheights. The County's sale: sanbernardino.legistar.com, Dec. 3, 2024. The money: Outside money. The pattern: Housing density.