A 135-townhome project cleared the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission on Tuesday on the planning department’s recommendation.
That is the outcome state reforms are meant to produce: more housing, including affordable units. Warmington Residential Homes’ project includes seven for very-low-income households. Still, the meeting showed how these disputes now run. Before a decision, a pro-housing nonprofit reminds the city to follow the law, creating a record it can cite if officials ignore the warning.
In Rancho Cucamonga, the California Housing Defense Fund sent a three-page letter citing the Housing Accountability Act, the state Density Bonus Law and last year’s California Environmental Quality Act reform. Rejecting the project or cutting its size, it warned, would require written findings of a specific health or safety hazard.
The Rancho Cucamonga letter was one of at least five CalHDF sent that day, along with letters to Santa Clarita, Whittier, Escondido and Twentynine Palms. Four concerned projects of 17 to 146 units. One addressed an ADU ordinance.
Those letters are a fraction of the total. James Lloyd, the organization’s director of planning and investigations, told HousingWire the number reaches about 100 a year.
They serve as a first step toward making sure cities implement state housing reforms properly, according to the organization.
Broadly, the letters pair legal warnings with a pitch to local officials: new housing helps a city’s finances and existing residents while meeting the state’s need for more homes.
“While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction,” the organization writes.
Legislators speed up building
Lawmakers have spent years trying to speed housing construction to improve affordability. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 to reform CEQA and SB 131 in 2025, exempting qualifying infill housing from environmental review and narrowing review for projects that nearly qualify. Legislators also tightened the Housing Accountability Act, which limits when cities can deny or shrink projects that meet zoning.
Neighbor suits have not disappeared. They have shifted to different arguments. Attorneys at the legal publisher CEB expect litigation to focus on whether a project qualifies for a CEQA exemption at all, rather than on the adequacy of an environmental report.
Builders and advocates pose a growing risk for cities that resist state law. Cities frequently lose when they test the rules in court, and the losses can be costly. Under Senate Bill 1037, penalties can reach $50,000 per unit for willful Housing Accountability Act violations.
La Cañada Flintridge refused to process a builder’s remedy project. A judge ruled against the city in March 2024, and the city dropped its appeal a year later rather than post a $14 million bond. It paid CalHDF $1,262,500 in fees and costs last year.
A small project in Pacifica shows the stakes. Neighbors sued over an eight-townhome project, arguing it needed a full environmental impact report instead of the lighter review the city used.
A trial court sided with them, rescinded the approvals and awarded nearly $1.3 million in attorney’s fees. In December 2025, an appeals court vacated the fee award, saying the judge had wrongly discounted the project’s housing value. It sent the question back to the trial court.
Neighbors of the Rancho Cucamonga project voiced concerns at community meetings this summer, raising traffic, wall height and privacy. Staff added conditions on construction parking and frosted windows.
But when it came to a recommendation, staff tracked the laws CalHDF cited. They wrote in their staff report that the project qualified for waivers under the state density bonus law, which limits when a city can deny them. Staff also noted the project was exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines.
