A group of Rancho Cucamonga residents, functioning under the rubric of the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society, filed suit on February 23 against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, challenging the city council’s January 21, 2025 approval of a residential development project to be completed by developer Jimmy Previti in that area of the city referred to as Etiwanda Heights which will consist of 6,300 dwelling units.
The suit contends that the residential development project, which city officials in 2018 stated in an ironclad commitment would consist of 2,700-3,000 single-family homes and zero multi-family units, was radically changed during the city’s approval process and that in giving that approval the city engaged in a violation of a host of the provisions contained in the California Environmental Quality Act.
In the lawsuit, filed by attorney’s Everett DeLano and Ezgi Kuyumcu of the Escondido-based law firm of DeLano and DeLano in the form of a petition for a writ of mandate, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is named as the respondent along with Does 1 through 5, inclusive, while Previti’s company, the Previti Group, and Does 6 through 10, are named as the real parties-in-interest. According to DeLano and Kuyumcu, the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society has taken as its charter to “preserve, protect, and promote the historical, architectural, and cultural heritage of Rancho Cucamonga,” as well as to “advocate for the preservation of historically significant sites, structures, and landscapes.” Those participating in the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society “have been injured as a result of respondent’s actions.”
Central to the underlying circumstance, the lawsuit and the lawsuit’s contentions is the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which was formulated consequent to a proposal that the city annex 4,085 acres or 6.38 square miles which at that time were outside the city limits, north of the city as it was then constituted on its eastern side. Beginning in 2015 discussions involving city officials, city staff and city residents relating to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Those discussions continued throughout 2016, 2017 and into 2018. The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan was adopted by the city council on November 6, 2019.
The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan was applicable to and represented as being binding upon a total of 4,393 acres along the northeastern edge of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, west of State Route 15, north of State Route 210, and south of the San Gabriel Mountains. Those 4,393 acres included the 4,085 acres to be annexed and another 308 acres already within the city. A consensus among city officials, city staff and city residents was reached, in large measure because city residents participating in the process were satisfied that the stated limitations with regard to the residential development that was to occur as a consequence of the plan’s adoption and the annexation of the property which would give the city unfettered land use authority of it would prevent the property’s overdevelopment and untoward impacts on the quality of life of those in the city. In both written documents and in verbal assurances provided by city officials, commitments to abide by the development standards contained in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan were made.
The city’s annexation application with the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission was pretexted upon the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan and the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission’s approval of the city’s annexation of the 4,085 acres utilized the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan as one of the bases for granting the annexation.
According to the lawsuit, “The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan sought to preserve the northerly 3,565 acres as ‘Resource/Conservation Area’ and provide development standards for the southerly 828 acres as the ‘Neighborhood Area.’ The City also prepared and adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report (“2019 EIR”) associated with adoption of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The 2019 EIR noted that, at that time, the ‘land is currently regulated by the county’s general plan and zoning,’ which would allow substantial residential and commercial development under the county’s standards. City leadership recognized that development on the county’s land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the county in order to better control the scale and intensity of development. For this reason, in 2015 the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiated long-range planning efforts for the 4,393-acre Plan Area, including the 4,088 acres located outside the city, but within the city’s sphere of influence. The 2019 EIR explained that over the next few years, the city engaged extensively in community outreach and analysis to determine an appropriate plan for the area. And out of this extensive effort came the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.”
The lawsuit maintains that the environmental impact report adopted for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan identified ten objectives, including intending to “provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities; enhance fire safety through the plan area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods; and in the neighborhood area, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities – including equestrian-oriented housing-that are compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhoods.”
Further, according to the lawsuit, the environmental impact report adopted for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation specified that “the neighborhood area of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan was designated to allow for a maximum of 3,000 dwelling units and 180,000 square feet of commercial uses.”
Under the tentative plans laid out for the development within the property to be annexed, 2,700 dwelling units, all of which were supposed to be upper-scale single family homes, were envisioned.
According to the lawsuit, “The 2019 EIR did not address, or consider, impacts associated with a potential for additional development, beyond what was identified in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. It specifically provided: ‘If development rights are transferred from the Resource/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area through the Transfer Development Rights program, the total amount of residential units in the [Neighborhood Area] may reach 3,000 homes if no homes are developed in the Resource Conservation Area.”
The lawsuit continues, “In 2024, real party in interest the Previti Group purchased from the County of San Bernardino most of the developable land within the Neighborhood Area of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, as well as some additional land within the RCA. It subsequently filed applications with the city for an amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, as well as for approval of two tract maps in order to develop two areas within the Neighborhood Area. Claiming its proposed amendment would ‘align the development capacity of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan with the [city’s] general plan,” the amendment sought to increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Neighborhood Area to approximately twice what is allowed by the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. It also sought approval to subdivide Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Planning Area 1 of 27. 73 acres into 177 dwelling units and subdivide Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Planning Area 2 of 39.22 acres into 233 dwelling units. In considering the project, the city prepared an addendum to the 2019 EIR. The addendum asserted that the 2019 EIR for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan “adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed amendment and none of the conditions described in California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
The lawsuit thereafter references the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission’s December 10, 2025 consideration of and hearing for the project. After hearing from the public, the commission, based in large measure on city staff’s recommendation that it recommend that the city council approve the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Community Plan and approval of Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 to implement the eventual construction of the 6,300 residential units. Thew lawsuit notes, “Several speakers spoke in opposition to the project and the addendum.”
That opposition, according to the laswsuit, included residents’ “concerns about wildfire risk, traffic, schools, water supplies, crime, sidewalks, high density development, safety, strain on fire stations and broken promises to the community,” according to the lawsuit. “Despite these concerns, the planning commission recommended approval of the project with a few modifications.”
The lawsuit moves on to state, “On January 21, 2026, the city council considered the project. Again, speakers… spoke in opposition to the project and the addendum. Commenters expressed concerns that the project would result in increased density, new building types, and increases in building height beyond the adopted Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Commenters raised concerns about the lack of facilities and infrastructure in the community. They noted inadequate evacuation routes and increased wildfire risk, including the very high fire severity zone/wildland-urban interface area. Commenters noted that the addendum failed to analyze or mitigate the impacts of the project. Commenters expressed concern about changes in traffic circulation, including inadequate analysis of vehicle miles traveled. Commenters noted the infeasibility of adequate fire safety. They also noted problems associated with steep slopes and hillsides and the potential for erosion and flooding. Commenters also identified impacts on school capacity as the project could generate thousands of additional students and that no funding exists for required new facilities that would accommodate the density the project proposed. Commenters asserted that the project did not identify the required funding, land acquisition strategies, or binding commitments to provide the necessary public facilities such as parks, fire stations, schools, libraries, and instead relies on speculative future funding mechanisms. Commenters expressed concern about the lack of adequate water resources and hydrology impacts. They also expressed concern about impacts to biological resources, and about potential exposures to toxins in the area.”
The lawsuit further contends that the vast majority of the city residents in attendance at the January 21 meeting were in opposition to the project and that some of those “noted that the project was outside the scope of the 2019 EIR. Commenters also observed that the city could not lawfully rely on an addendum to the 2019 Environmental Impact Report because the project introduces substantial new density, new significant impacts, and increases the severity of previously identified impacts, including those related to wildfire risk, parks, schools, emergency services, and evacuation constraints. Commenters contended that the city failed to provide adequate notice associated with the project, and failed to provide for adequate opportunity and time for public input. Commenters also noted that the city had failed to ensure appropriate environmental analysis. Commenters noted that an environmental impact report was required for the project.”
According to the lawsuit, “Despite these concerns, the city council voted to approve an amendment to the Etiwanda Height Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, approve Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854, and approve an addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR, adopting Ordinance No. 1055 and Resolutions Nos. 2026-001 and 2026-002.”
The suit makes note of the notice of determination filed by the city in conjunction with the city council’s project approval which stated that preparing an addendum to the 2019 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Report constituted adequate environmental review because “a) Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; b) There are no substantial changes proposed by the project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted enivornmental impact report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted environmental impact report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d) There is no 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 initial study/enviromental impact report was adopted…”
DeLano and Kuyumcu contend that the city, in making the transition from the standards contained in the theoretical or projected Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan and the 2019 Environmental Impact Report that accompanied it to the approval of the Previti Group’s project in the form of Tentative Tract Maps 20853 and 20854, engaged in a substantial alteration of the development that was to take place and in so doing necessitated, contrary to what the city had maintained, major if not complete revisions of the environmental impact report as well as intensive increases in mitigations for what will prove to be far more severe effects of that development.
According to DeLano and Kyumcu, members of the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society both before and after the city council’s action made clear to the city that they believed the city assessment that the changes to the Previti Group’s plans were substantially more significant than the city was maintaining and therefore required a revamped environmental impact report or one initiated from scratch, requested that the city rescind approval of the project and reconsider its action and reinitiate the environmental review process before reconsidering the project and warned the city that if it proceeded the Preservation Society and its members would take legal action.
“Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies, and objections to the project have been presented orally and in writing to the city, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21177. These include, but are not limited to, letters and oral comments presented during public hearings,” the lawsuit states. “Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21167.5 by mailing a written notice of commencement of this action to the city. Petitioner has advised the city that petitioner has elected to prepare the record of proceedings relevant to the approval of the project.”
According to DeLano and Kyumcu, the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society sought the intercession of the California Attorney General, as well.
On the basis of the city’s disregard for the input of the general public, residents of Rancho Cucamonga and the members of the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society and its facilitation of the Previti Group’s project, DeLano and Kyumcu filed suit. They justified the lawsuit by citing that “The City failed to prepare an initial study to determine what environmental analysis was necessary, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The city failed to consult with all responsible agencies and trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The city failed to prepare further environmental analysis consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 21093, 21094, and 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15168.”
According to DeLano and Kyumcu, “The project is substantially different from, and includes several impacts not addressed by, prior environmental analysis adopted by the city. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the analysis. There is new information of substantial importance that requires a new environmental impact report.”
The city cut corners in other ways, as well, according to DeLano and Kyumcu. “The city illegally segmented the project, piecemealing or otherwise avoiding reasonably foreseeable impacts, and separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole,” the petition for a writ of mandate states. “The city failed to adopt feasible alternatives, including but not limited to, alternatives requiring less impacts that meet some or all of the project objectives. The city failed to adopt feasible mitgation measures, failed to mitigate for each environmental effect, illegally deferred mitigation and failed to provide for effective and enforceable mitigation. The project is not the same as within the scope of projects discussed in prior environmental analysis adopted by the city.”
City officials maintain there is no substance whatsoever to the petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The city has merely seized upon an opportunity to work with Jimmy Previti, a fourth-generation construction industry profession who in 2002 launched Frontier Homes, achieving by 2004 a place on the prestigious Builder 100 list, they say. Previti’s company, they point out, is at the forefront of homebuilding in the Inland Empire, and has generated over $5 billion in home building revenue, having now expanded into Arizona, Texas, and Georgia with closings in excess of 8,000 homes. Those seeking to interrupt the city’s relationship with the Previti Group are backward looking bottom dwellers who are futilely resisting the inevitability of the future.
A status hearing on the petition before Judge Kory Mathewson is scheduled for 9 a.m. on April 8 in Department R-12 at the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court Courthouse/West Valley Justice Center.County