TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SWATI MESHRAM, PHD, AICP, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT
title
Consider the Applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 17, 2026 action on the 210-unit rental housing project located at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue (6210 Riverside Drive), which received a 3-3 vote and, therefore, did not result in an approval or denial of the project. The Applicant is also appealing Public Works Condition of Approval No. 2.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines and denies the Applicant’s requested concession pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2026-057, granting the appeal in part by approving PL25-0022 (Site Approval), and denying the portion of the appeal requesting removal of Public Works Condition of Approval No. 2.2, which requires undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines located at the southeast corner of the project site.
body
FISCAL IMPACT
If the appeal is approved and the project proceeds with the required undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines, the City will receive one-time revenues associated with development activity, including permit and development-related fees. Upon completion of the project, ongoing property tax revenues and local sales tax revenues generated by future residents are also anticipated.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES
The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Responsible Long-Range Planning
• Public Safety
• Infrastructure Reliability
|
Revenue: |
Expenditure: |
|
Transfer In: |
Transfer Out: |
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on PL25-0022, a request for a Site Approval to construct a 210-unit residential rental community consisting of 25 two- and three-story residential buildings and a recreation building on approximately 7.9 adjusted gross acres of land at a density of 26.6 dwelling units per acre within the CO (Commercial Office) and RD4.5 (Residential 4.5 dwelling units per acre) zoning districts. The project site is one of the 91 Affordable Housing Overlay sites established through the City's Housing Element, adopted by the City Council in December 2024. Because the project provides 21 deed-restricted affordable units (10 percent of the total units) for lower-income households, it qualifies for a density bonus and one incentive or concession pursuant to Government Code section 65915 (State Density Bonus Law). The applicant requested that the City's requirement to underground the existing overhead utility lines along Riverside Drive be waived as the project's one concession under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). However, the Staff retained Public Works Condition of Approval No. 2.2 requiring undergrounding, finding that the requirement is necessary to protect public health and safety. The basis for this determination is detailed in Finding 2 in PC Resolution No. PC2026-005 and is discussed further in the Appeal section of this report.
Staff presented the project and recommended approval, finding the project consistent with the General Plan, Affordable Housing Overlay District, applicable objective development standards, and applicable State housing laws. The applicant accepted all recommended Conditions of Approval except Condition No. 2.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines. The applicant requested that this requirement be waived as its requested incentive or concession under the SDBL.
The Planning Commission received testimony from numerous residents regarding traffic, neighborhood compatibility, public safety, and parking. Many of the traffic and parking issues identified were associated with existing congestion and circulation issues related to the adjacent Cortez Elementary School. Concerns were raised regarding the pedestrian access at the northwest corner of the project, including whether the access could increase traffic and parking impacts for the existing homes directly to the north. The pedestrian access is intended to provide future residents with children attending Cortez Elementary School with a convenient and direct connection to the school, thereby reducing the need for vehicle trips to and from the school. The access was incorporated into the project specifically as a measure to encourage walking and reduce vehicle trips associated with school drop-off and pick-up and support the project’s overall circulation and traffic objectives.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared in compliance with the Chino TIA Guidelines was prepared and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Traffic impacts were identified, and mitigation measures were included as conditions of approval on the project including traffic signal and accessibility improvements at the intersection of Mountain Avenue and Riverside Drive including a dedicated southbound right-turn pocket and right-of-way dedication for a future dual eastbound left-turn pocket. Concerns were raised that the project’s TIA was completed and approved prior to the opening of Northgate Market and did not take into account traffic generated by the store. At the hearing, the Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission that the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330) limits a local agency's ability to impose new or more restrictive traffic-related development standards after a housing application has been deemed complete. The relevant SB 330 date for this project is September 18, 2025, which establishes the baseline for applicable development standards and predates the April 1, 2026 opening of Northgate Market; therefore, the City’s ability to impose new or more restrictive traffic-related standards based on conditions arising after September 18, 2025, including traffic generated by Northgate Market, is limited by SB 330.
Following public testimony and deliberation, the Commission considered several motions to approve the project. Each motion failed on a 3-3 vote. During the proceedings, the Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission that any action to deny the project would require findings supported by substantial evidence, including a determination that the project would result in a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, as required under applicable State housing law. Although the Commission considered amending the proposed resolution to include such a finding, no motion received the votes necessary for approval.
Because all motions failed on tie votes, the Planning Commission did not adopt Resolution No. PC2026-005, resulting neither approval nor denial of the Site Approval application. On June 22, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal requesting that the City Council approve the Site Approval application.
APPEAL
The applicant’s appeal raises four main issues, which are: The Planning Commission action resulted in a lack of findings which violates State Law and the Chino Municipal Code (CMC), Housing Accountability Act violations, State Density Bonus Law violation, and could result in severe penalties for violating the law. Each issue is discussed in further detail below followed by a staff response. The full appeal letter is attached to this staff report as Exhibit “F”.
Lack of Findings Violates State Law and the Chino Municipal Code
The appellant states in the appeal that the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project did not make one finding to support its decision, which is a violation of State Law. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission did not render findings to enable the applicant or the public to understand the basis for the Planning Commission’s actions. In failing to provide findings, the Planning Commission failed to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision. The applicant further states that the Planning Commission made no adverse findings to deny the project, for which the CMC requires the Planning Commission to consider and clearly establish the findings of fact set forth in the CMC.
Staff response
At the June 17, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, staff provided a written and oral staff report to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval, clearly establishing the findings of fact set forth in the CMC. After deliberation, the Planning Commission entertained three separate motions to approve the project. Each motion was followed by a second and subsequent vote. All three motions failed to pass by a vote of 3-3 by the Planning Commission. While no findings were made, the project was not denied outright, instead the Planning Commission failed to pass a motion to approve the project. In staff’s review of the project, staff determined Site Approval PL25-0022 met all requirements of the CMC and that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, Affordable Housing Overlay District, and all applicable objective development standards and State housing laws. Therefore, specific findings to approve the project were outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-005.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Violations
The appellant states that the HAA restricts the ability of local governments to deny an application to build housing if the proposed project complies with General Plan, zoning, and design review standards that are “objective”. Further, the appellant states that the HAA prohibits the denial of a housing development project unless it makes a finding that there is a specific health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated any other way and that these findings arise infrequently. The appeal states that there was no such finding made nor was there anything in the record that would show that the project would cause a specific adverse health and safety impact resulting in the Planning Commission’s actions being a violation of the law.
Staff response
At the Planning Commission hearing, staff provided a written and oral staff report to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval, clearly establishing the findings of fact set forth in the CMC. As mentioned in the previous section of this staff report, the Planning Commission entertained three separate motions to approve the project. Each motion was followed by a second and subsequent vote. All three motions failed to pass by a vote of 3-3 by the Planning Commission. While no findings were made to deny the project, the project was not denied outright, instead the Planning Commission failed to pass a motion to approve the project. In staff’s review of the project, staff determined Site Approval PL25-0022 met all requirements of the CMC and that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, Affordable Housing Overlay District, and all applicable objective development standards and State housing laws and recommended approval. The specific findings were outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-005.
State Density Bonus Law Violation
In the appeal, the appellant states that the Planning Commission failed to comply with SDBL by unlawfully denying the project’s density bonus, incentive and waivers. The appellant notes that the Planning Commission carries the burden of proof to deny the requested incentive to eliminate the requirement to underground the existing utility line located at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue. The appellant argues that the Planning Commission and City further violated SDBL by not making any finding to deny the requested incentive. The incentive being requested by the applicant is relief from undergrounding the utility pole at the intersection Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue, all other utilities were proposed to be undergrounded with the project (Public Works Condition of Approval 2.2). The appellant states there would be a cost reduction of at least $500,000 by maintaining the utility pole, which could provide for further affordable housing costs. The appellant further states the importance in the cost reduction given the public improvements required for the Project along both street frontages. In the appeal, the appellant claims the applicant proposed to move the utility pole father away from Riverside Drive, which would result in a greater setback from the street as well as a landscape buffer between the traffic lanes and the utility pole. The appellant asserts that following meetings with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), HCD staff recommended bollards as a form of mitigation to project the utility pole, which the applicant agreed with.
As its requested concession, the applicant seeks to eliminate the requirement to underground the existing overhead utility line located near the intersection of Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue at the southeast corner of the project site.
Staff response
Purpose of Condition No. 2.2
Condition No. 2.2 requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines operating at 34.5 kV or less in accordance with Chapter 13.32 of the Chino Municipal Code. This condition has been consistently applied to comparable private development projects and applicable City capital improvement projects, where feasible and is required, to improve utility reliability, reduce exposure to hazards affecting overhead electrical infrastructure, and enhance long-term infrastructure resiliency to residential neighborhoods.
The City has consistently applied these undergrounding requirements to development projects where the applicable standards require such improvements. For example, the project located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue was conditioned to underground the existing overhead utility lines along its frontage. This provides a local example of the City’s consistent application of undergrounding requirements to development projects in the area and demonstrates that the requirement is not being imposed uniquely on the subject project.
The application of Condition No. 2.2 to the subject project is therefore consistent with the City’s treatment of comparable development projects and the applicable requirements of Chapter 13.32 of the Chino Municipal Code.
Public Safety Considerations
Overhead electrical infrastructure is inherently more vulnerable to outages caused by vehicle collisions, severe weather, high winds, equipment failures, and falling tree limbs. Such outages can interrupt power to homes and critical medical equipment, interrupt emergency communications, and affect lighting and other essential public safety systems. Underground utility systems generally provide greater reliability because they are less vulnerable to these external hazards. Although service interruptions can still occur, underground systems are significantly less susceptible to weather-related events, traffic collisions, and physical damage. Maintaining reliable electrical service is particularly important in residential developments where residents may depend upon electrically powered medical devices, refrigerated medications, mobility equipment charging, home oxygen systems, and other essential health-related equipment. Accordingly, staff concludes that requiring underground utility facilities directly advances important governmental interests in protecting public health and safety by improving system reliability and reducing the likelihood of service interruptions affecting future residents.
Protective Bollards
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff met representatives from HCD on June 3, 2026 to discuss the requested incentive. The role of HCD is to provide technical assistance and guidance to local government and review compliance issues. Following the meeting, HCD provided written correspondence dated June 16, 2026 (Exhibit G), encouraging the City and the applicant to continue working in good faith to evaluate potential mitigation measures that could address any specific adverse impacts associated with maintaining the existing overhead utility facilities. HCD suggested that the parties consider measures such as protective bollards or relocation of the utility pole. HCD did not state that Condition No. 2.2 is inconsistent with the State Density Bonus Law or the Housing Accountability Act, nor did HCD advise the City that the requested incentive or concession must be granted. Instead, HCD encouraged the parties to continue evaluating potential mitigation measures that could address any identified public health or safety concerns.
In the appeal letter dated June 22, 2026 (Exhibit F), the applicant has suggested that protective bollards could provide sufficient protection for the existing utility poles in lieu of undergrounding. Staff concludes that bollards are not an equivalent alternative because they address only one potential hazard, vehicle collisions, while leaving the overhead electrical system vulnerable to weather, equipment failure, pole deterioration, vegetation impacts, and other causes of outages. Unlike undergrounding, bollards do not improve system reliability or infrastructure resiliency. In addition, depending on the location and configuration, the placement of bollards may interfere with or obstruct required pedestrian paths of travel, potentially creating accessibility constraints and conflicts with applicable accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rigid barriers may create their own roadside hazards, while flexible barriers primarily serve as deterrents or visibility enhancements. For these reasons, staff finds that the proposed protective measures would provide some mitigation but would not satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impacts associated with retaining the overhead system. As a result, staff does not find that retaining the overhead system with these measures provides a satisfactory alternative to undergrounding.
State Density Bonus Law
The SDBL requires a local agency to grant a requested incentive unless it makes one of the statutory findings authorizing denial. Based on staff’s review of the administrative record, staff concludes that the denial of the requested incentive is supported by Finding No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-005 and the corresponding finding set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2026-057. Staff further concludes that retaining Condition No. 2.2 is necessary to advance substantial governmental interests related to public health, public safety, and the reliable operation of public infrastructure. These interests are supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record, including the evidence presented and considered as part of the project review.
Severe Penalties for Violation the Law
The appellant states that the Planning Commission’s denial of the 210-unit project may violate the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), particularly because the Commission did not adopt the written findings required to support denial. The letter emphasizes the City’s RHNA obligations and need for additional housing, including affordable housing, and states that the project would make a significant contribution toward the City’s low-income housing goals. The attorney further contends that an unlawful denial could expose the City to statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and other remedies, estimating a minimum penalty of $2.1 million based on the HAA’s statutory minimum fine of $10,000 per unit, with potentially greater penalties if a court were to find bad faith. The letter also alleges that certain Planning Commission actions reflected bad faith and cites a 2023 court decision involving the City of Calabasas as an example of the potential consequences of noncompliance with the HAA. The applicant therefore requests that the City Council comply with applicable state housing laws and approve the project, including the requested density bonus, incentive, and waivers, while reserving all rights and remedies.
Staff response
At the Planning Commission hearing, staff provided both a written and oral staff report recommending approval of the project and identifying the applicable findings and development standards supporting the recommendation. As noted previously, the Planning Commission considered three separate motions to approve the project, each of which received a second but subsequently failed on a 3-3 vote. Accordingly, the Planning Commission did not take affirmative action to deny the project and did not adopt findings of denial; rather, the motions to approve the project failed to obtain the required majority vote. In staff’s review, Site Approval PL25-0022 was determined to satisfy the applicable requirements of the Chino Municipal Code (CMC) and to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, Affordable Housing Overlay District, applicable objective development standards, and applicable State housing laws. Staff therefore recommended approval of the project, with the specific findings supporting that recommendation set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-005.
Public Notice
A 10-day notice was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. In addition, a notice was published in the Chino Champion on August 22, 2026. The notice meets legal noticing requirements. The comments or responses received in response to the public notice through the posting of the agenda are attached in Exhibit “H.” Separately, the City received a letter dated July 1, 2026 expressing support for the project The letter was submitted proactively and was not in response to the public notice and is included as Exhibit “I.”
CONCLUSION
The project is consistent with the General Plan, zoning, the Affordable Housing Overlay District, and applicable objective development standards, the City's discretion to deny the project is substantially limited under the Housing Accountability Act to findings of specific adverse impact on public health or safety; and, that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
Accordingly, staff recommends approval of PL25-0022 (Site Approval) based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval.
The remaining issue is whether the applicant's requested concession to eliminate the undergrounding requirement should be granted. Staff concludes that Condition No. 2.2 serves important public health and safety objectives by improving utility reliability, reducing the vulnerability of electrical infrastructure to external hazards, and enhancing service resiliency for future residents. Staff also concludes that protective bollards are not an equivalent alternative because they do not provide comparable reliability or protection from the full range of hazards affecting overhead utility facilities and create their own safety risks. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal for the limited purpose of approving PL25-0022, while affirming Condition of Approval No. 2.2 and thus denying the requested concession to eliminate the undergrounding requirement based on the findings in City Council Resolution No. 2026-057.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution No. 2026-057
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Planning Commission staff report and exhibits [LINKED]
Planning Commission 6-17-2026 File #: 26-300 <https://chino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8069882&GUID=5CE0B5F6-4E9D-4FD6-84A7-A6FD79DFB38A&Options=&Search=>
Exhibit D - Draft PC Resolution PC2026-005
Exhibit E - Appeal Application dated June 22, 2026
Exhibit F - Appeal Letter from the applicant dated June 22, 2026
Exhibit G - HCD email, dated June 16, 2026
Exhibit H - Comments received in response to public notice
Exhibit I - Letter from Housing Action Coalition in favor of approving the project