Exh F Appeal Letter to CC Riv.Mtn — Chino City Council, September 1, 2026

Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”) represents BCT Dev Acquisition Co, LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with the proposed 210 dwelling unit project (the “Project”), in which 21 units (ten percent) would be affordable to Low Income households on the approximately 8.0-acre site located at 6210 Riverside Drive (the “Property”) in Chino (the “City”), California. Pursuant to Chino Municipal Code (“CMC”) § 20.23.150B the Applicant appeals in the entirety the Planning Commission’s June 17th, 2026 unlawful denial of the Project.

I. Lack of Findings Violates State Law and the CMC
The Planning Commission’s denial of the Project did not make even one finding to support its decision. This is a clear violation of California law. “We conclude that variance boards like the ones involved in the present case must render findings to support their ultimate rulings.” Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 509-510. “We hold that regardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the variance board set forth findings, [FN Omt’d] that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action.” Id. at 513-514.

The Planning Commission here did not render findings to enable to the Applicant or the public to understand the basis for the Planning Commission’s actions. In failing to provide even one finding, City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 2 ends

#540257952_v3
the Planning Commission failed “… to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” Id. at 515.

The lack of findings is also a clear violation of CMC § 20.23.090G as the Planning Commission made no adverse findings to deny the Project. In specific, the CMC requires the Planning Commission to “consider and clearly establish the following findings of fact, giving specific reasons as to how each of the findings has been met:

1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the city's adopted general plan and/or applicable specific plan(s);

2. The proposed project is permitted within the zoning district in which it is proposed and complies with all applicable provisions of the city's zoning code;

3. The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access and availability of utilities, for the type and intensity of development proposed;

4. The subject site relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed project;

5. The proposed project is compatible with those on abutting properties and in the surrounding neighborhood;

6. The proposed location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare;

7. The proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and

8. The minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project.” The Planning Commission abrogated its responsibility to consider and establish the above- mentioned findings, and failed to give any specific reason as to how each finding has or has not been met. This is a clear violation of California law and the CMC.

II. Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) Violations
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.’” Cal. Renters Legal Advoc. & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 831 (“Cal. Renters”); see also id. at 835-836 (“the Legislature enacted in 1982 the HAA, City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 3 ends

#540257952_v3
colloquially known as the ‘Anti-NIMBY’ (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) law, and it has amended the statute repeatedly in an increasing effort to compel local governments to approve more housing.”).

The HAA provides that local governments may not disapprove any housing project that “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete,” unless the local government can make rarely-occurring health and safety findings. Id. at 836. Here, the HAA compels the City to approve this objectively zoning-compliant housing Project. See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5(h)(9).1
Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1) prohibits the denial of a housing development project unless it makes a finding that there is a specific adverse health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated any other way. Even if the Planning Commissioners were able to articulate potentially legally sustainable findings to deny the Project, the HAA’s express language recognizes that alleged “specific, adverse impacts” to public health or safety “arise infrequently.” 2 There was no such finding, nor was there any finding for that matter – not even conclusory findings that would have been unlawful in any event.3 There is nothing in the record that would show that the infill Project’s 210 dwelling units would cause a specific adverse health and safety impact. The Planning Commission’s actions constitute a clear violation of the law as there was an absence of evidence to support any finding for denial of the Project.

The HAA (1) provides that local governments may not disapprove zoning-consistent housing projects unless rarely-occurring health and safety findings are made; (2) adopts a deferential “reasonable person” standard by which “borderline” projects are “deemed consistent”; (3) limits municipalities to only citing “objective” standards as grounds for disapproval; and (4) requires local governments to timely identify any basis for inconsistency. See Cal. Renters, 68 Cal.App.5th at 854 (“The HAA is today strong medicine precisely because the Legislature has diagnosed a sick patient.”). Recognizing that “the HAA has changed the legal landscape for considering [] challenges to [] consistency findings,” the Court of Appeal has found that these limits on an agency’s discretion to disapprove housing are relevant where, as here, the Planning Commission denied the Project without making any written finding of a specific adverse health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated any other way except through denial of the Project. In fact, under the required reasonable person requirement applying to objective standards, there simply is no legal plausible way for the City to deny the Project even if the Planning Commission had bothered to make written findings.
1 Receipt of a density bonus, incentive, or waiver “… shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Government Code § 65589.5(j)(3).
2 Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3).
3 Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2022), 87 Cal. App. 5th 1116, 1130.

City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 4 ends

#540257952_v3
III. State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) Violation
By arbitrarily and capriciously denying the Project, the Planning Commission unlawfully denied the Project’s (1) density bonus, (2) incentive, and (3) waivers. Government Code § 65915(a)(1) mandates that the City comply with SDBL. Government Code § 65915(b)(1) further mandates that the City grant the requested density bonus, as well as the requested incentive and waivers; the Planning Commission violated the law by not approving any of these SDBL requests. The Planning Commission violated Government Code § 65915(d)(2) by not granting the Applicant’s requested incentive and further violated Government Code § 65915(d)(3) by not making any finding to deny the requested incentive. The Planning Commission additionally violated Government Code § 65915(d)(4) by not carrying its burden of proof to deny the requested incentive when it failed to make any finding to deny the requested incentive. The Planning Commission once again violated SDBL when it did not make any required finding to deny the requested waivers of development standards pursuant to Government Code § 65915(e).

While the Applicant appeals in the entirety the Planning Commission’s unsubstantiated denial, the Staff Report for the Project recommended denial of the requested incentive to avoid undergrounding a single utility pole; all other utilities would be undergrounded. Not undergrounding the single utility pole would save at least $500,000 and potentially much more given the existing utilities on the east side of Mountain Avenue that likely would need to also be undergrounded to accommodate undergrounding this one utility pole. The cost savings would provide for affordable housing costs, as the law requires.

Reduction of costs are especially important given the extensive and very costly public improvements that the City is requiring along Mountain Avenue and Riverside Drive, including widening each roadway; adding a southbound right turn lane on Mountain Avenue; adding right- of-way for a future second southbound Mountain Avenue left turn lane to eastbound Riverside Drive; installing sidewalk and parkway improvements; and relocating of the existing gas regulation station, which is comprised of above ground piping and two subterranean vaults along the easterly Project frontage due to the roadway widening that City staff is requiring. These are extraordinarily costly improvements, including the unanticipated gas regulation station relocation.

Neither City staff at the public hearing nor the City Staff Report clearly and unambiguously described the significant and very costly public improvements that the Applicant would provide.

City has not made fair share funding for these improvements available, further increasing the financial burden on the Project. Considering the extensive public improvements necessary to accommodate City staff requests, it is critical that the City provide cost savings to reduce the cost of providing affordable housing.

While the Staff Report indicated that undergrounding is necessary for a specific adverse health and safety justification, the City has failed to carry its burden of proof to deny the incentive. Above ground utility poles in the City constitute an existing general City-wide condition, not a new or proposed condition proposed by the Project, completely undercutting any claim that the incentive for a single above ground utility pole causes a specific adverse health and safety impact. If it was City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 5 ends

#540257952_v3
a specific adverse health and safety impact, the City would expeditiously remove the risk that above ground poles cause throughout the City where there are existing utility poles near a right- of-way. There obviously is no specific adverse health and safety impact because the City has taken no proactive actions to remove existing above ground utility poles throughout the City close to a right-of-way. Further, even if the City were able to carry its burden of proof to show that this one above ground utility pole causes a specific adverse health and safety impact, it has proposed zero mitigation that the law requires.

The Applicant would setback the utility pole farther away from Riverside Drive’s current curbline, farther away from the current flow of traffic. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed moving the utility pole into the new parkway, where landscaping would act as a buffer; there is no current buffer. Throughout the City, there are highly visible reflectors on such poles to improve visibility and protect against errant motorists and placement of such reflectors on the replaced utility pole would mitigate the City’s asserted health and safety impact. Further, the California Department of Housing and Community Development informed the City last week that installation of bollards would be a type of mitigation. The Applicant agrees and if the City is unwilling to place bollards, a more flexible crash barrier, such as one filled with sand surrounding the base of the utility pole, a berm, or a localized guardrail along Riverside Drive can be installed to further protect the utility pole from crashes. Please note that traffic signal infrastructure would further mitigate any crash hazard, perhaps indicating why there have not been any utility pole crashes in the vicinity of the Project site despite the fact that this is an existing condition.

Given that when an above ground utility line terminates, guying needs to happen, and the guy support would similarly be above ground. Please also note that due to existing utility lines that would remain east of Mountain Avenue along Riverside Drive, even if there were undergrounding of utilities, there would need to be an above ground pole on the Project site to guy the utility lines to the east. As such, undergrounding the single utility pole would not reduce the purported crash hazard as a pole would still remain to guy even with undergrounding; would therefore not improve aesthetics; and would not save hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to provide for affordable housing. Simply put, there is no specific adverse health and safety impact that would occur due to replacing the one existing above ground pole, and even if there was, reasonable mitigation exists to attenuate the impact (assuming there is an impact, which there is not). Along with reversal of the denial of the Project, the City Council must also grant the incentive requested.

IV. Severe Penalties for Violating the Law
The HAA states: “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” See Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(B).

Accordingly, the legislature determined that “[i]t is the policy of the state that [HAA] be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing…”
City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 6 ends

#540257952_v3
Instead of furthering housing, including much needed affordable housing at this zoning compliant and General Plan compliant site in full conformity with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element and Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, the Planning Commission went rogue. Without providing a single written finding to support its denial, the Planning Commission’s actions would further make attainment of City housing goals out of reach. The need for housing in the City is acute and well documented. The City has a 6,978 dwelling unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) requirement. To date, during this 6th Cycle RHNA, the City has attained only 19.4 percent of its total RHNA, and not even one percent of its low income RHNA requirement.4
In addition to violating the SDBL, the City’s unlawful denial under the HAA will subject the City to claims for attorney’s fees, penalties and fines “in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit,” and other relief. 5 For a 210-unit project, this exposure alone represents a minimum of $2,100,000 in penalties.

The Planning Commission’s actions also constitute bad faith. Bad faith “includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit.”6 After Applicant’s counsel informed the Planning Commission of its limited discretion to (a) deny the Project or (b) impermissibly lower density, Commissioner Alexandris thanked the Applicant’s counsel for informing the Commission about the law – but that he already knew the law’s boundaries. And despite being informed by the Applicant’s counsel and also the City Attorney, and by his own purported knowledge, Commissioner Alexandris did the opposite of complying with the law: he spearheaded the Commission’s opposition to the Project to deny the Project without making any of the legally required findings to potentially deny the Project. Commissioner Alexandris intentionally voted to violate the law even though he purported to know the law. Commissioner Vieira, another apparent Project opponent articulated a generalized concern about “traffic” and the need to conduct a traffic study, when in fact there was a thorough traffic study thoroughly vetted by the City included in the Planning Commission’s agenda packet. In any event, the generalized concern regarding traffic, is not a specific adverse health and safety impact caused by the Project. And there was no written finding whatsoever as required by the HAA for a denial. As for Vice Chair Lopez who only enforced a time limit on one speaker, i.e., the Applicant’s legal counsel, he did not verbalize any justification for denying the Project, even after at least five deadlock votes of 3-3.

The TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC v. City of Calabasas (2023) Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. 21STCP01819 (“TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC”) decision underscores the severe consequences that follow when a local agency fails to discharge required statutory obligations. There, the court 4 City has only permitted ten of 1,284 low income dwelling units during this RHNA compliance period. See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard accessed June 19, 2026. The Project would provide a more than 200 percent increase in the amount of low income housing already permitted during this compliance period.
5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B); see also Gov. Code § 65915(d)(3); Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)-(l). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(l).

City of Chino City Council
June 22, 2026

Page 7 ends

#540257952_v3
concluded that the City of Calabasas acted in “bad faith” and ordered the City to approve the project outright. 7 The court emphasized that the City Council’s reliance on “inapplicable municipal code sections and subjective General Plan policies” and its “speculation in dismissing the staff’s recommendations” demonstrated that the City’s “actions do not inspire confidence that they would attempt to comply with the HAA in good faith on remand.”8 The City should take heed of this precedent given the direct evidence of bad faith at Wednesday night’s hearing by the Planning Commission. When there is a finding of bad faith, a court may increase the fine by a factor of five, 9 potentially resulting in the City’s taxpayers paying fines in excess of $10,000,000 plus attorneys’ fees.

The Applicant reserves all rights and remedies under the SDBL, the HAA, and all other applicable laws. We urge the City Council to strictly comply with state housing law and permit the Project to move forward expeditiously and with approval of the requested density bonus component, including the requested incentive and waivers.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman
cc: Maria Staar
Fred Galante, Esq.

Tim Stanley
Karen Alves
Clarke Campion
California Department of Housing and Community Development California Housing Defense Fund
Californians for Homeownership
YIMBY Law
Housing Action Coalition
People for Housing
7 TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC at 17.
8 TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC at 17.
9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(l).

Chino City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Chino City Council
September 1, 2026