City Council upholds Planning Commission approval of Eden mixed‑use project over neighborhood appeal

The Chino City Council voted 4–1 on July 8 to deny an appeal of the Eden Mixed Use Development and uphold the Planning Commission’s May 21 approval of a mixed‑use project that combines residential units, retail and a self‑storage building.

The decision came after more than two hours of public comment and legal briefing. The project as modified includes 264 apartment units across the full site, 18,600 square feet of multi‑tenant retail, and a 132,438‑square‑foot self‑storage facility; the Planning Commission approved the project 6–0 in May after the applicant reduced unit counts and scaled down building massing.

Council members and staff framed the legal limits on local discretion under California housing law as central to the decision. Senior planner Kim Lee and the city attorney told the council that because the project qualifies as a “housing development project” — more than two‑thirds of the project’s floor area is residential — the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) restricts the city’s ability to deny the proposal unless it creates specific, unmitigable public health or safety impacts. City staff concluded the project meets the city’s objective development standards and environmental review requirements; the council majority accepted that analysis.

Appellant Robert Nigg argued the project violates local code in several ways, raising objections that included parking calculations, building separation, the proposed self‑storage component and unit counts for lower‑income units. Nigg also submitted a 25‑page letter the day of the council meeting. He told the council: “If you subdivide the property, it creates a different thing — you need a written agreement that’s going to go on for the duration of the use and be recorded in the county.”

Developer representatives and the applicant’s attorney responded that the application was reviewed as a single, horizontal mixed‑use development and that shared‑parking, reciprocal‑access and maintenance agreements are standard elements to be recorded with the final map. Applicant representative John Shardlow said the team had worked with staff for more than two years and made multiple design concessions after public input.

Mayor Eunice Emileau and three council members voted to deny the appeal; Mayor Pro Tem Burton cast the lone no vote. The roll call was: Lucio — yes; Flores — yes; Comstock — yes; Burton — no; Eunice Emileau — yes. The council’s action upholds Planning Commission Resolution PC‑2025‑59 and the associated site approvals and tentative tract map.

The council and several residents raised traffic and parking as ongoing community concerns. Staff noted that some parking and reciprocal access requirements are enforced through conditions of approval and through recorded agreements required at the map‑recording stage. The council majority also stressed that recent state legislation (including provisions of the Housing Accountability Act and recent CEQA changes discussed during the meeting) constrains local authority in ways that make an outright denial legally risky and could produce a less favorable outcome on remand.

The decision does not change the Planning Commission’s conditions; the approved permits and required mitigation and recorded agreements remain in place. The council directed staff to continue monitoring implementation items tied to the project approvals.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission (PL‑22‑0074, PL‑22‑0075, PL‑24‑0080, PL‑24‑0081): mover — Councilmember Don Lucio; second — Councilmember Comstock; vote — Lucio yes, Flores yes, Comstock yes, Burton no, Mayor Eunice Emileau yes; outcome — motion approved 4–1.

The project’s approvals and the council’s written resolution will be posted on the city website and incorporated in the planning record; appeals of the council decision would be limited to the procedures and timelines established by state law.