Housing density

Thirteen housing decisions since 2017, from the City's own minutes, and two the Planning Commission has yet to decide, one of them set for a hearing on Oct. 14. The numbers first, then the count, RNU's grades and the map; then each decision — what residents said, what the City said tied its hands, any money Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns reported from its applicant or its people, what RNU thinks it could have done — every line linked to its document.

11 of 11

housing projects and plans approved, 2017–2026

≈4,300

homes in those approvals — counting Etiwanda Heights at its 2019 cap of 3,000*

5 of 5

council hearings where residents objected to homes ended in a yes

votes against homes in ten years of council minutes RNU has read (2016–Aug. 2026)

Four things a council can do before it votes — the law allows all four

Write the safety rules first. Evacuation time, emergency access, water and sewer capacity — as measurable rules on the books before a builder applies, because state law judges a project by the rules in force the day it applies. (One thing a city cannot do since 2018: simply lower the number of homes a piece of land may hold, unless it raises the number somewhere else the same night — SB 330. Safety rules are a different thing.)
Ask for the studies before saying yes. When a builder asks the City to change its own plan, the council writes the change — and nothing in state law makes it vote before the traffic and evacuation work is done.
Read the water letter. Any subdivision over 500 homes needs the water company's written proof of a 20-year supply, dry years included (Gov. Code §66473.7). The council can insist on seeing it.
Use the Fire District's own rule. Its Standard 49-1 calls for an evacuation assessment and lets the District turn down a project with "a demonstrably adverse impact on evacuation."

RNU read the minutes of all thirteen decisions below. None records the council asking for any of these before it voted. (Traffic alone does not count: under a 2013 state law, "the roads will be jammed" is by itself no longer an environmental impact — Pub. Res. Code §21099 — so it will not hold up against a rule-following project; evacuation and emergency access will, with evidence.)

The count

Where	When	Homes	Who decided	Vote	Residents against
Haven & Arrow	2022	248	Planning Commission; no call-up	5–0	none spoke
19th & Hamilton ("Paseo")	2025	19	Planning Commission; no call-up	3–0–2	a school board member
Banyan & Golden Lock	pending	60 proposed	Planning Commission; hearing not yet set	—	you can still speak on it
Etiwanda & Candlewood	pending	100 proposed	Planning Commission; hearing Oct. 14, 2026	—	you can speak on Oct. 14
Condos by Red Hill	2017	175	Council (a General Plan change; appeal denied)	4–1	11
Etiwanda Heights plan	2019	up to 3,000	Council	5–0	11 (8 for)
Etiwanda Heights, the change	2026	cap removed*	Council (a plan amendment)	5–0, twice	25 at the commission; 16 of 17 at the council
The General Plan	2021	citywide	Council	5–0	1 written concern (7 spoke for)
Spruce & Red Oak	2024	176	Council (a Master Plan amendment)	5–0	none spoke
Wilson Avenue rezoning	2025	354	Council (the 2004 map)	5–0, twice	2 at the commission; none at the council
Foothill & Haven	2023	311	Council; appeal denied	5–0	none (a shopping plaza appealed)
Camellia Court	2025	8	Council; appeal denied	5–0	7
Wilson Avenue, the homes	2025–26	the 354 above	Council; appeals denied	4–0–1 and 5–0	2; a petition of 144
A 7-Eleven gas station	2021	0 denied	Council, after calling it up	4–1	1 letter
A car wash	2021	0 denied	Council (a General Plan change refused)	4–1	4 (2 for)
Homes in the eleven approvals, counting Etiwanda Heights at its 2019 cap*		≈4,300	248 + 19 + 175 + 3,000 + 176 + 354 + 311 + 8 = 4,291; the General Plan sets densities, not a count

* 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 of Jan. 21, 2026, pp. 232–233). Speaker counts are the people the minutes list at that hearing.

The short version

Since 2017, eleven housing projects and plans came through the City. All eleven were approved — nine by the City Council, two by the Planning Commission alone, with no council member calling them up. Residents came to object at five of those nine council hearings; the council voted yes at all five. The only two times the council said no to anything, it was a gas station and a car wash. Kennedy and Scott voted yes on every housing decision they sat for.

RNU's view: that is a council that says yes to the builders and asks the neighbors to live with it.

RNU's grades

Our opinion of the record on this page — not a court's, not an agency's. One test for every decision: did the council use the room the law gave it for the residents who objected?

Asaid no, or called the decision up for its own hearing Bsaid yes on its own terms — a cap, conditions, the studies first Csaid yes where the law left one narrow door, and did not try it Dsaid yes as asked, with plain room unused — a call-up, a study, a plan change it could refuse Fchanged its own rules at a developer's request, over residents' objections, with the room unused —not graded: the number of homes was settled years before, or no resident asked

Decision	Grade	Why
Condos by Red Hill, 2017	F	A General Plan change at a developer's request that no state law required; eleven residents against, none for; approved 4–1 as asked.
Etiwanda Heights plan, 2019	B	Yes, on the council's own terms: a cap of 3,000 homes, most of the land kept open, a fire-risk assessment and an evacuation plan required before any tract map — with 11 residents against and 8 for.
The General Plan, 2021	D	Its own plan, its own numbers: the foothills labeled at up to 8 homes an acre — the figure the 2026 change was written to match, by the City's own account — two years after the 3,000-home plan; one written concern about density on the record.
A 7-Eleven gas station and a car wash, 2021	A	The council called the gas station up to its own hearing and denied it; it refused the car wash's General Plan change. Both 4–1. The power it never used for homes, used twice in one year.
Haven & Arrow, 2022	D	248 apartments decided by the Planning Commission alone; no council member called it up, though a majority could have, at a special meeting inside the ten days — no fee, no reason needed.
Foothill & Haven, 2023	—	No resident asked the council for anything; the appeal was a parking dispute between businesses.
Spruce & Red Oak, 2024	D	A Master Plan amendment the council could refuse or condition; it discussed "density and size of the project, State mandates, local control" and approved all three resolutions as asked, 5–0.
19th & Hamilton ("Paseo"), 2025	D	A school board member raised student safety; the commission waived the City's standards the same night, with no study to point to; no council member called it up to ask for one.
Wilson Avenue rezoning, 2025	—	The homes were approved in 2004 by an earlier council; the 2025 vote matched the zoning to the recorded map.
Camellia Court, 2025	—	Eight lots recorded in 1991; the 2025 question was the design of eight houses — the cul-de-sac and the fire zone were settled with the 1991 map.
Wilson Avenue, the homes, 2025–26	—	The number was settled in 2004 and the maps are recorded; what was left was the design of the houses.
Etiwanda Heights, the change, 2026	F	A plan amendment the council could refuse or delay, removing the 3,000-home cap; 16 of 17 speakers against; its own traffic reviewer had asked in July 2025 for the intersection analysis, and nobody on the dais asked to see it first; approved 5–0, twice.

The council, overall. On homes it never said no, never called a commission approval up and never made a health-and-safety finding; twice it changed its own rules at a developer's request over residents' objections. The 2019 cap and the two no's — a gas station and a car wash — keep it off an F.

Lynne Kennedy. On the council for all thirteen decisions. Yes on every housing vote she sat for; neither commission approval called up; she moved or seconded on four of the housing decisions on this page, among them the 2017 condos and the 2019 foothills plan. Her record is the council's.

Kristine Scott. On the council since December 2018, for twelve of the thirteen. Yes on every housing vote she sat for; neither commission approval called up; she moved or seconded on six of the housing decisions on this page — on the 2026 Etiwanda Heights change, both votes. Her record is the council's.

The grades are RNU's opinion of the minutes cited on this page, on the one test above; a reader with a different test will grade differently. They are not an average and not a finding of any court or agency. Both members are on the ballot on Nov. 3, 2026.

Where, and how big

Each circle is one decision, sized by the homes in it; the hollow circles are the only two the council refused — a gas station and a car wash; the two dashed ones are proposed, not yet decided. In the foothills, the gold is the 790 acres the Etiwanda Heights plan sets aside for homes — capped at 3,000 in 2019; the cap was removed in 2026*. The ring around it is the City's “theoretical maximum” under the new limit, about 5,780 homes, drawn at the same scale as the circles; the City says the actual number will be lower. The roads, the four council districts and the city limits are the City's own map data. On a phone, swipe the map sideways.

Sorted by what the council did

How to read each one: what residents said, what the Planning Commission did, what the council did, and — in the gold box — what the City said tied its hands. "Kennedy yes" means a unanimous vote with her present. Under each, in gray, any money Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns reported from its applicant or its people.

About the money lines. Under each decision: what Kennedy's and Scott's campaigns reported receiving from that project's applicant or its people, with the date, from the City Clerk's campaign-finance portal (public.netfile.com — electronic filings, all years, searched by the names in the City's records on Oct. 9, 2026). "None found" means that search found nothing.

Contributions are legal and must be reported. A contribution listed here is not a claim that it caused any vote or decision, or that anyone acted improperly; RNU makes no such claim and suggests none. Contributions do not establish that money caused a vote.

Never reached the council 2

1Haven & Arrow, 2022 248 apartments

No member of the public spoke. The Planning Commission approved it 5–0 on June 22, 2022. No one filed an appeal, and no council member called it up. No council meeting fell in the ten-day window: the July 6 meeting was cancelled, and the council next met July 20. Kennedy and Scott were on the council.

The City's rule: anyone may appeal within ten days, for a fee. A majority of the council may call a decision up for its own hearing, with no reason or fee needed (Municipal Code §17.14.070). Nobody did.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: 8500 Haven, LLC).

RNU's view — what could have been done

DRNU's grade for the council: said yes as asked, with plain room unused — a call-up, a study, a plan change it could refuse. How we grade

The council: a majority could have called the approval up for its own hearing — no fee, no reason needed (Municipal Code §17.14.070) — by holding a special meeting inside the ten days, since the July 6 meeting was cancelled. None was called. Longer term, the council can change its own code so that a project of 248 homes is decided by the council, not by the commission alone.

The City Attorney: could have told the council the ten-day clock was running and how to stop it.

Documents: Planning Commission minutes, June 22, 2022 · staff report · agenda · council minutes, June 15 and July 20, 2022 · the July 6 cancellation notice · read the story

What was approved — the applicant's drawings, from the City's packet

Satellite view of the one-acre site between 19th Street and Hamilton Street, outlined — 19 homes on 1.02 acres between 19th Street and Hamilton Street, next to Deer Canyon Elementary.

219th & Hamilton ("Paseo"), 2025 19 homes

A school board member raised traffic and student safety. The Planning Commission approved it 3–0–2 on July 23, 2025, with waivers of the City's standards under the State Density Bonus Law. No appeal, no call-up.

What the City said tied its hands: under the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915), a city can refuse a waiver only if it would cause a "specific, adverse impact" on health or safety that cannot be fixed. The Assistant City Attorney stated that standard at the hearing.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: Hamilton Land Development; the builder: Monte Vista Homes).

RNU's view — what could have been done

DRNU's grade for the council: said yes as asked, with plain room unused — a call-up, a study, a plan change it could refuse. How we grade

The council: the law leaves one door: written findings, backed by evidence, that a waiver would cause a specific, measurable harm to health or safety that cannot be fixed — and the City carries the burden of proof (§65915(d)(4), (e)(1)). The commission asked whether it had grounds, was told the standard, and voted the same night; nobody had a study of the school-traffic question to point to. A council majority could have called it up (§17.14.070) and asked for that study first. None did. If such a finding fails in court the City pays the builder's lawyers; the Density Bonus Law carries no per-home fine.

The City Attorney: the Assistant City Attorney stated the standard correctly. The other half of the advice — what evidence would meet it, and that the City could ask for it before voting — is not in the minutes.

Documents: Planning Commission minutes, July 23, 2025 · staff report · agenda

What was approved — the applicant's drawing, from the City's staff report

The applicant's site plan: 19 house lots in two rows facing a private drive between Hamilton Street and 19th Street, with a small open-space lot — 19 two-story homes on 1.02 acres, about 19 an acre, where the zone allows 8 to 14; the State Density Bonus Law allows more. Hamilton Street is on the left, 19th Street on the right. The applicant's drawing; Figure 2 of the City's staff report for July 23, 2025.

Pending 2

Satellite view of the vacant parcel at Banyan Street and Golden Lock Place, outlined — 60 homes proposed on 5.45 acres zoned Very Low Residential, at 13361 Banyan Street.

3Banyan & Golden Lock, 2026 60 homes proposed

Monte Vista Homes wants to split a 5.45-acre parcel into 60 lots under the State Density Bonus Law. The City's agenda says the project is exempt from environmental review under a 2025 state law (AB 130). The builder mailed neighbors a meeting notice in May 2026. The Planning Commission hearing of July 22, 2026 was continued and has not been re-set. You can still speak on this one.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (Monte Vista Homes).

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded yet: the council has not decided it. How we grade

The council: this is the one where the advice can still come first: ask now for the traffic-safety and evacuation work, ask the Fire District for its evacuation assessment, require the neighborhood meeting the City's new ordinance calls for, and call the commission's decision up when it comes.

The City Attorney: can tell the commission in advance what a health-and-safety finding needs, so the evidence is in the record before the vote, not after.

Documents: staff report (the continuance) · agenda, July 22, 2026

Satellite view of the two parcels at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street, beside the 15 freeway, outlined — 100 townhomes proposed on 4.8 acres at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street, beside the 15 freeway.

4Etiwanda & Candlewood, 2026 100 townhomes proposed

Marc Homes applied for a condominium map for 100 townhomes in 18 three-story buildings, about 21 homes an acre, on two parcels: one vacant, one with two commercial buildings to be torn down. It also asks for a variance along Etiwanda Avenue: buildings 41 to 45 feet from the street where the City's code requires 55, and the landscaping and wall an average of 31 feet back where it requires an average of 55. The City says the project is exempt from environmental review as infill. Four residents came to the builder's neighborhood meeting on Sept. 8, 2026; two raised traffic. The City mailed the hearing notice to 172 property owners within 660 feet on Sept. 30. The Planning Commission hears it on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2026, at 6 p.m. You can speak on this one.

The City's rule: the commission's decision is final unless someone appeals within ten days, for a fee; a majority of the council may call it up for its own hearing, with no reason or fee needed (Municipal Code §17.14.070). The staff report: holding to the full setbacks "could further reduce the number of residential units that can be permitted on the site by up to 13 units."

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: Sept. 21, 2026: Lynne Kennedy for Mayor 2026 reported $2,674.33 from Marc Homes' land development director (Form 497).

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded yet: the council has not decided it. How we grade

The commission: the variance is its choice to make. The City's own report puts the cost of the full setbacks at up to 13 of the 100 homes; the commission can keep the 55-foot setbacks along Etiwanda Avenue rather than grant the exception.

The council: if the commission approves, a majority can call the decision up for its own hearing inside the ten days — no fee, no reason needed.

Neighbors: write to planning@cityofrc.us before Oct. 14, or speak at the hearing; the City's notice says a later court challenge may be limited to the issues raised at or before it.

Documents: staff report · project plans · traffic analysis · agenda, Oct. 14, 2026 · the City's hearing notice, mailed Sept. 30, 2026

The proposal — the applicant's drawings, from the City's staff report

The applicant's proposed site plan, color-coded: rows of attached three-story townhome buildings fill the lot, with Etiwanda Avenue on the left, Candlewood Street and the existing homes across it at the top, the 15 freeway along the diagonal edge, and a tot lot and dog park at the south end — The site plan: 100 townhomes in 18 three-story buildings on 4.8 acres, about 21 homes an acre. Etiwanda Avenue is on the left, Candlewood Street at the top, the 15 freeway along the diagonal.

The applicant's drawings of one proposed building from four sides: a three-story row of attached townhomes with a tile roof, gables and board-and-batten siding; the back shows a row of garage doors on the ground floor — One of the eight building types, from the front, back and sides: three stories, each home with a two-car garage on the ground floor. The buildings are up to 43 feet 8 inches tall.

Drawings submitted by the applicant, Marc Homes, as printed in the City's staff report for the Oct. 14, 2026 hearing (Figures 2 and 3), shown so neighbors can see the plan before it is decided. Tap a drawing to enlarge it.

The council's own decision 6

Satellite view of the condominium tract north of Foothill Boulevard by Red Hill Country Club Drive, outlined — 175 condominiums on 24 acres north of Foothill Boulevard, between Red Hill Country Club Drive and the Pacific Electric Trail.

5Condos by Red Hill, 2017 175 condominiums

Eleven residents spoke against, none for. The council approved the General Plan change and denied the appeal 4–1 on Oct. 4, 2017. Spagnolo moved, Kennedy seconded.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: Pacific Summit Foothill, LLC).

RNU's view — what could have been done

FRNU's grade for the council: changed its own rules at a developer's request, over residents' objections, with the room unused. How we grade

The council: a General Plan change is the council's own choice; no state law required this one in 2017. One member, Bill Alexander, voted no; two more would have stopped it.

The City Attorney: nothing to add — the minutes record no claim that the law required it.

Documents: council minutes, Oct. 4, 2017 · read the story

Satellite view of the foothills with the Etiwanda Heights plan area outlined — The Etiwanda Heights plan area, 4,393 acres of foothills; the homes go in its southern Neighborhood Area.

6Etiwanda Heights plan, 2019 — and the cap removed, 2026 up to 3,000 homes, then 8 per gross acre*

2019: 11 against, 8 for, 1 with concerns. Adopted 5–0 on Oct. 2, 2019; Kennedy seconded; Scott present. 2025–26: 25 residents against at the Planning Commission on Dec. 10, 2025 (none for; the commission recommended 4–0 with the transfer cap cut from 29 to 20 an acre); 16 of 17 speakers against at the council. Adopted 5–0 twice, Jan. 21 and Feb. 4, 2026. Scott seconded, then moved; Kennedy yes.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: Oct. 6, 2020: Lynne Kennedy for City Council 2020 reported $2,000 from James Previti (as filed: "Frontier Communities, President"). His company, The Previti Group, applied for the 2026 change. None found to Scott's campaigns.

RNU's view — what could have been done

BRNU's grade for the council, 2019: said yes on its own terms — a cap, conditions, the studies first.

FRNU's grade for the council, 2026: changed its own rules at a developer's request, over residents' objections, with the room unused. How we grade

The council: say no as asked. A plan amendment is the council's to grant or refuse, and the Housing Accountability Act does not force one: 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 City's own Planning Director called the request "an ask," not a mandate. Or wait: 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) — the council could have asked to see them first. Or lower 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."

Documents: council minutes, Oct. 2, 2019 · Planning Commission minutes, Dec. 10, 2025 · council minutes, Jan. 21 and Feb. 4, 2026 · the whole story: Etiwanda Heights · the short story · the outside money behind it

7The General Plan, 2021 citywide

Seven speakers for; one written concern about high-density effects. Adopted 5–0 on Dec. 15, 2021. Scott seconded; Kennedy yes. The corridor densities in the projects below come from it.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none — the City's own plan, with no applicant.

RNU's view — what could have been done

DRNU's grade for the council: said yes as asked, with plain room unused — a call-up, a study, a plan change it could refuse. How we grade

The council: could have given the foothills a label and density that matched the 3,000-home plan it had adopted with the neighbors two years earlier. It chose "Traditional Neighborhood," up to 8 homes a gross acre — the number the 2026 change was written to match, by the City's own account. Every "our hands were tied" sentence of 2026 runs through this vote.

The City Attorney: could have warned that labeling the land at 8 an acre would let a builder claim that density over the plan's cap under the Housing Accountability Act (§65589.5(j)(4)) — the very argument staff made four years later. RNU has found no such warning in the minutes of that night.

Documents: council minutes, Dec. 15, 2021

Satellite view of the 1.8-acre site at Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street, outlined — 176 apartments in seven stories on 1.8 acres — 98 homes an acre — at Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street.

8Spruce & Red Oak, 2024 176 apartments

No member of the public spoke; one letter for, one against. The council approved it 5–0 on Aug. 21, 2024. Scott moved; Kennedy yes. Not built; the Planning Commission heard a time extension in August 2026.

What the staff report said: the density fits the corridor the 2021 General Plan set; the project came to the council as a Master Plan amendment.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: Rancho Red Oak, LLC).

RNU's view — what could have been done

DRNU's grade for the council: said yes as asked, with plain room unused — a call-up, a study, a plan change it could refuse. How we grade

The council: a Master Plan amendment and a minor exception were the council's to grant or refuse, and the law lets a council apply its height and design standards so long as they fit the density the General Plan allows. The minutes show the council discussed "density and size of the project, State mandates, local control" — and approved the three resolutions, 5–0.

The City Attorney: addressed the environmental question; the minutes record no advice on what the council could still have required.

Documents: council minutes, Aug. 21, 2024 · staff report · the Aug. 26, 2026 agenda

What was approved — the applicant's rendering, from the City's staff report

The applicant's rendering of the building at Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street: apartments stepping up to seven stories with balconies, a rooftop deck and shops on the ground floor — A 4- to 7-story building wrapped around a 7-story parking garage: 176 apartments and 9,270 sq. ft. of commercial and live-work space on 1.8 acres. Not built. The applicant's rendering, looking southwest; Figure 4 of the City's staff report for Aug. 21, 2024.

Satellite view of the Wilson Avenue tract between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, outlined — 354 homes by two builders on the 150-acre tract north of Wilson Avenue, between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue (Tract 16072; 358 lots approved in 2004).

9Wilson Avenue rezoning, 2025 354 homes (the 2004 tract)

Two residents spoke at the Planning Commission (noise, traffic); no one spoke at the council. The council rezoned 150 acres to fit the 2004 map, 5–0 on Sept. 3 and Sept. 16, 2025. Scott moved the adoption; Kennedy yes.

What the City said tied its hands: the homes were approved in 2004 (Resolution 04-206, with an environmental report). The final maps in 2023 were a required step, not a choice: by state law a council "shall approve" a map that matches what was approved (Gov. Code §66458). The 2025 rezoning made the zoning match the map.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found from an applicant; the builders' line is under 12.

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded: the number of homes was settled in 2004. How we grade

The council: little. The 358 lots were approved in 2004 by an earlier council; the 2023 maps were a "shall approve" step; the 2025 rezoning matched the zoning to the map. RNU lists it because the homes are being built now.

The City Attorney: nothing on the number — the advice was right.

Documents: Planning Commission minutes, July 23, 2025 · staff report · council minutes, Sept. 3 and Sept. 16, 2025 · the 2023 final-map report

Appealed to the council — and upheld 3

Satellite view of the 7.9-acre site at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, outlined — 311 apartments on 7.9 acres at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.

10Foothill & Haven, 2023 311 apartments

The appeal came from a neighboring shopping plaza's lawyer, over parking. No residents spoke. The council denied the appeal 5–0 on Jan. 18, 2023. Kennedy moved.

What the City said: "limitations by state law," a member said from the dais.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: Island View Ventures, LLC).

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded: no resident asked the council for anything. How we grade

The council: little, on this record: the appeal was a parking dispute between businesses, and no resident asked the council for anything. The law's one door — a health-and-safety finding — needs evidence, and none was offered.

The City Attorney: when a member cited "limitations by state law," the attorney could have said in public what the one exception is (§65589.5(j)(1)), so residents know the door exists.

Documents: council minutes, Jan. 18, 2023

Satellite view of the eight lots at the end of Camellia Court, outlined — Eight homes on eight lots at the end of Camellia Court, in the hillside and equestrian overlays.

11Camellia Court, 2025 8 homes

Seven residents spoke against it: the length of the cul-de-sac, runoff, the fire-hazard zone, traffic, privacy. Two more wrote in, and the riding club asked for setbacks. The council denied the appeal 5–0 on Aug. 20, 2025. Stickler moved, Scott seconded.

What the City said tied its hands: the City Attorney — under the Housing Accountability Act "the City does not have the discretion to deny."

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant, the lots' owner).

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded: the eight lots were recorded in 1991. How we grade

The council: little on the number: the eight lots were recorded in 1991, and the 2025 question was the design of eight houses. The council discussed the cul-de-sac's length and emergency egress — 1991 questions, settled when the map was approved. The law's one door would have needed evidence that the house designs themselves created a specific, measurable harm to health or safety.

The City Attorney: give the sentence its other half: "no discretion to deny" a rule-following project — except on written findings of that kind (§65589.5(j)(1)). The minutes record the first half.

Documents: council minutes, Aug. 20, 2025

12Wilson Avenue, the homes themselves, 2025–26 the 354 above, by two builders

Lennar's 166 homes: one resident raised concerns at the Planning Commission, and two residents spoke against at the council. The council denied the appeal 4–0–1 on Dec. 3, 2025 (Hutchison moved, Scott seconded; Kennedy absent). Toll Brothers' 188 homes: neighbors brought a petition with 144 signatures. The council denied that appeal 5–0 on March 4, 2026 (Kennedy moved, Hutchison seconded).

What the City said tied its hands: the City Attorney — the matter "pertains solely to the design of the homes"; the number of homes was settled in 2004.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: Sept. 4, 2026: Lynne Kennedy for Mayor 2026 reported $1,070.05 from a Lennar employee (as filed: "Lennar, Builder"). None found from Toll Brothers.

RNU's view — what could have been done

—RNU's grade for the council: not graded: the number of homes was settled in 2004. How we grade

The council: little: the number was decided in 2004 and the final maps are recorded; design review is about objective standards. RNU lists it because 354 homes are being built now and neighbors came with a petition of 144 signatures.

The City Attorney: nothing on the number — the advice was right.

Documents: Planning Commission minutes, Oct. 22, 2025 and Jan. 14, 2026 · council minutes, Dec. 3, 2025 and March 4, 2026 · staff report, March 4, 2026

The council said no 2

Satellite view of the corner lot at 8768 Archibald Avenue, outlined — A 7-Eleven gas station and store proposed on 0.65 acre at 8768 Archibald Avenue.

13A 7-Eleven gas station, 2021 a gas station — denied

The Planning Commission approved it 3–2 on May 12, 2021. The council called it up 4–1 on May 19, held its own hearing July 7 (one letter against; two neighborhood meetings had been held) and denied it 4–1. Scott moved, Kennedy seconded.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (the applicant: Orbis Real Estate Partners).

RNU's view — what could have been done

ARNU's grade for the council: said no, or called the decision up for its own hearing. How we grade

The council: nothing to add — this is the council using its power: a call-up, its own hearing, a no. The page exists because it did that for a gas station and never for homes.

The City Attorney: nothing to add.

Documents: Planning Commission minutes, May 12, 2021 · council minutes, May 19, July 7 and Aug. 4, 2021 · staff report, July 7, 2021 · read the story

Satellite view of the lot on the north side of Arrow Route east of Archibald Avenue, outlined — A car wash proposed on the north side of Arrow Route, about 200 feet east of Archibald Avenue.

14A car wash, 2021 a car wash — denied

Four residents spoke against, two for. The council denied the General Plan and zoning changes 4–1 on Nov. 17, 2021. Scott moved.

Contributions to Kennedy's or Scott's campaigns from the applicant or its people: none found (Arbor Express Car Wash).

RNU's view — what could have been done

ARNU's grade for the council: said no, or called the decision up for its own hearing. How we grade

The council: nothing to add — a General Plan change refused, 4–1. The power to say no to a plan change is the same power the council held on the housing plans above; state law changes the cost of using it, not whether it exists.

The City Attorney: nothing to add.

Documents: council minutes, Nov. 17, 2021

What the council did about it

The City's own staff report tells what happened after the December 2025 hearing on the Etiwanda Heights amendment. Residents and the commission were "disappointed that the developer did not hold a neighborhood meeting." The City's policy was never written into the code, "and the developer chose not to hold one." So on Aug. 19, 2026 the council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 1059. It makes neighborhood meetings a rule citywide and ends the Design Review Committee. Nobody spoke; Kennedy moved; 4–0–1. The same report calls the City "a certified Prohousing community" — one that promised the State to hold no more than three hearings on a project. The appeal rule above did not change.

Documents: staff report, July 22, 2026 · council minutes, Aug. 19, 2026

RNU's view: we do not ask the City to break state law. Saying no to a rule-following project without the findings the law requires costs the City a court order and the builder's legal bills, and defying a court costs at least $10,000 a home. The question is narrower, and the record answers it: in eleven housing decisions over ten years, the council never once used the room the law gives it — not a health-and-safety finding, not a call-up, not a no to a developer's request to change the rules. The one call-up in these files was for a gas station.

Thirteen decisions, and two pending before the Planning Commission (3, its hearing not yet re-set; 4, set for Oct. 14, 2026); the two 2023 consent votes on the Wilson Avenue final maps (a required step, not a choice) are not counted. Speaker counts are the people the minutes list at that hearing, not a claim about a neighborhood. "Kennedy yes" means a unanimous vote with her present. The ten-year count covers the council minutes RNU has read, 2016 through August 2026. Private residents are counted, never named. The money lines: the City Clerk's campaign-finance portal, electronic filings, all years, searched Oct. 9, 2026; contributions are legal and reported, and do not establish that money caused a vote. The green boxes are RNU's opinion of what public law allowed, on the record cited — general information, not legal advice; the statutes and the 2023 case were read on Oct. 9, 2026. Read the documents and decide for yourself.

Check any City record yourself. Council and Planning Commission minutes: the City Clerk's archive at rcdocs.cityofrc.us. Agendas and staff reports: ranchocucamonga.primegov.com. Four of these decisions, told in depth: Housing density — four stories from the City's own files. The money behind the biggest one: Outside money.