THEIR TRUTH

The truth

The density transfer idea was Previti's: it offered somewhat lower density next to existing homes in its first two planning areas, while asking to move the unbuilt homes elsewhere in the project AR 9239. But the limits on where that density could go, the part that actually protects existing neighborhoods, came from the City, over the developer's objection.

Previti's position was that a neighborhood could be built as densely as a three-story walkup, which the City said can reach 30 to 35 homes per acre, with no further limit. The City Manager refused:

"We aren't willing to concede to Matt's prior point as we know from experience that is a recipe for disaster (30+ DU next to 6-8 DU). No one in a 1-2 story home on 10,000 SF wants to look up at a 3 story building that completely blocks the sunlight and looms over their backyard."

AR 9263

Previti's attorneys countered with a flat cap of 29 homes per acre, and asked that the neighbor-compatibility protection apply only where properties share a property line, not across a street AR 9287.

Previti proposed moving density around. The City required that it step down gently next to existing homes. Previti's representative then presented the result to the Planning Commission as the developer's own idea.

The truth

In its first weeks, Previti asked the City to strip out limits on housing types:

"We want to look at and remove any language in the current SP that limits the product type in each PA… which will allow for maximum flexibility in all planning areas."

AR 7986

Previti's attorney wrote that the alternative was to abandon the Specific Plan and revert to base zoning, and acknowledged that it was the City that "would prefer to maintain the Specific Plan" AR 8030. The same memo asked to remove the express requirement to dedicate the 375-acre Etiwanda Heights Preserve and the 196-acre Deer Canyon Preserve, and to relocate and reduce parks AR 8031.

When Previti later asked for less detailed design standards, the City Manager refused, warning that vague standards had caused problems in the past AR 8142.

At the Planning Commission, a commissioner asked why Previti didn't simply build the 2019 plan it knew about when it bought the land. Previti's representative said the 2019 plan "just doesn't pencil" AR 2282, and explained:

"We knew there was a 2021 general plan which allowed additional density. We knew with that additional density we'd be able to blend and make things work."

AR 2283

Keeping the Specific Plan was the City's preference. Previti bought the land planning to build well beyond it, and said so in public.

The truth

Previti did not pursue a density bonus. But it did rely on state housing law. Its attorneys repeatedly asked the City to approve the first two planning areas using state housing law before the plan amendment was even adopted:

"If we could prioritize anything in the interim, it would be to move PA1 and PA2 forward using the housing laws and existing GP designation while we are processing the SPA."

AR 9089

Previti's representative said the same thing at the Planning Commission: "using the housing law, there's an opportunity to obviously hit the general plan" AR 2279.

In December 2025, Previti's attorneys formally invoked SB 330, a state housing law, for its applications AR 9329. SB 330 locks in the rules that applied when an application was filed.

Previti used state housing law when it helped. It just didn't use every tool available.

The truth

The 2021 General Plan went through public review. The 2025 amendment's details did not. The building types, density transfer rules, park obligations, and the 5,780-home figure were negotiated privately among City staff, the City Attorney, Previti, and Previti's lawyers.

Previti's attorneys drafted revisions to the plan text themselves and sent them to the City "for review," to be "finalized between the City and Previti" AR 8145 AR 8248. They also drafted the project description used for the environmental review AR 9296.

When a resident asked why there was no community meeting, the Planning Director answered:

"I can't think of a project in the 20 years I have been here where they haven't done it when staff has suggested it. However, a neighborhood meeting [is] not required by the Development Code and they opted not to do it, even after we recommended it."

AR 9332

Residents first saw the negotiated plan when it arrived at the Planning Commission.

The truth

Previti said it would build only the legal minimum of improved parkland unless it could transfer housing density out of the Edison power-line corridor AR 8164. Its proposal was about 20 acres of improved parks, plus about 45 acres of the unimproved power-line corridor counted as parkland AR 9048.

By the City's own estimate, this many homes would call for roughly 86 to 90-plus acres of parks AR 8033 AR 8116. The City Manager complained repeatedly that Previti was slow to respond on parks:

"Still waiting to hear back from Team Previti on parks… I am concerned at the delay as this should be a simple one."

AR 8200

The developer pushed for the minimum. The City pushed for more.

The truth

Rancho Cucamonga requires that at least 25% of new detached homes be single-story. Previti asked to be exempted for its smaller, denser home types, which it said could not fit a single-story layout AR 9296.

The day before the City Council hearing, Previti's attorney asked staff to delete language limiting homes to two stories of living space:

"We would like to remove or revise the following reference: … livable space is limited to 2 stories."

AR 9356

Most existing homes near the site are one or two stories. The developer sought exceptions to both limits.

The truth

The 8-homes-per-acre figure did come from the City's 2021 General Plan. But the plan amendment Previti applied for is what brought that density to Etiwanda Heights. Here is how Previti's own representative described the change to the Planning Commission:

"The existing specific plan was designed for essentially four dwelling units to the acre… When you take that to eight, you need additional denser product types."

AR 2286

The total number of homes nearly doubled too. The representative confirmed the 2019 plan "did cap it at 3,000" AR 2279. The amended plan allows up to 5,780.

That number was not fixed in advance. Previti first chose 5,500 AR 7987, then its attorney calculated 5,704 AR 8029, and the City later described 5,780 as a "theoretical maximum" AR 9252.

The added homes have consequences. In July 2025, the City Manager told Previti about a preliminary fire evacuation study:

"At the 5,800 unit number there may be a delay that reaches a level fire has concerns with."

AR 9012

At the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner told Previti that it had discussed fire-resistant buildings but not how residents would get out AR 2281. The representative pointed to a future Wilson Avenue connection that depends partly on another developer's project AR 2284. The preliminary evacuation finding does not appear in that exchange.

By Previti's own description, its amendment took the plan from about 4 homes per acre to 8, and the evacuation question still deserves a public answer.