July 1, 2026
Mayor Eunice Ulloa Mayor Pro Tem Curtis Burton Council Member Karen Comstock Council Member Christopher Flores Council Member Marc Lucio Chino City Council 13220 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91710 Re: Unlawful Constructive Denial of the Housing Development Project at 6210 Riverside Drive
—
Urging
Approval
and
Notice
of
Complaint
to
HCD
Dear Mayor Ulloa and Honorable Councilmembers:
The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) writes to urge you to approve the 210-home project at 6210 Riverside
Drive
when
it
reaches
Council.
At
its
June
17,
2026
hearing,
the
Planning
Commission
failed
to
carry
any
motion
on
the
project
—
neither
approving
it
nor
denying
it
—
after
repeated
deadlocked
votes.
That
failure
to
act
is
a
constructive
denial
of
a
housing
project:
it
produces
the
legal
effect
of
a
denial,
but
was
reached
without
any
of
the
findings
state
law
requires
to
deny
a
project
and
without
any
of
the
findings
Chino's
own
code
requires
to
approve
one.
Either
way,
the
result
is
an
unlawful
denial
of
an
infill
project
that
is
consistent
with
Chino's
General
Plan,
zoning
code,
and
recently
adopted
Housing
Element,
and
that
includes
21 homes
affordable
to
lower-income
families.
If
that
outcome
is
allowed
to
stand,
it
will
expose
Chino's
taxpayers
to
substantial
financial
penalties,
as
well
as
potential
decertification
of
the
city's
Housing
Element
and
total
loss
of
local
zoning
control.
We
are
also
notifying
you
that
HAC
is
filing
a
complaint
with
the
California
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
(HCD),
and
you
should
expect
to
hear
from
the
state.
HAC is a member-supported nonprofit representing more than 175 organizations across California's
infill
housing
ecosystem
—
affordable
and
market-rate
builders,
architects,
engineers,
labor,
and
community
partners
—
united
by
the
conviction
that
California's
affordability
and
displacement
crisis
can
only
be
solved
by
building
more
homes
at
every
income
level.
We
engage
where
local
decisions
defy
established
state
housing
law.
This
is
one
of
those
cases.
The constructive denial violates multiple state housing laws The Planning Commission's failure to act runs headlong into at least three bodies of state law:
No findings, in violation of state law and Chino's own code. The Commission reached no outcome
supported
by
a
single
finding.
It
made
none
of
the
eight
findings
of
fact
that
Chino
Municipal Code § 20.23.090G requires before a project may be approved, and none of the specific,
written
health-and-safety
findings
the
HAA
requires
before
a
project
may
be
denied.
California
courts
have
required
since
Topanga
Assn.
for
a
Scenic
Community
v.
County
of
Los
Angeles
(1974)
11 Cal.3d
506
that
bodies
like
this
one
issue
findings
sufficient
to
bridge
the
gap
between
the
evidence
and
the
decision.
By
letting
the
project
fail
on
deadlocked
votes
with
no
findings
either
way,
the
Commission
produced
the
effect
of
a
denial
while
sidestepping
every
safeguard
the
law
attaches
to
one.
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Government Code § 65589.5 bars a local government
from
denying
—
including
by
declining
to
approve
—
a
housing
project
that
complies
with
objective
general
plan,
zoning,
and
design-review
standards,
unless
it
makes
a
specific,
written
finding
that
the
project
would
create
an
unmitigable
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety.
By
the
applicant's
account
—
and
consistent
with
the
staff
analysis
—
this
is
a
zoning-
and
General
Plan-consistent
infill
project
requiring
only
site
plan
approval.
No
qualifying
health-and-safety
finding
was
made,
because
none
could
be.
Generalized
invocations
of
“character,”
“traffic,”
“parking,”
and
“density”
are
precisely
the
subjective
objections
the
HAA
was
enacted
to
foreclose.
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). Because the project provides affordable units, Government Code
§
65915
entitles
the
applicant
to
the
requested
density
bonus,
incentive,
and
waivers,
and
prohibits
the
City
from
treating
those
entitlements
as
a
basis
for
finding
the
project
inconsistent.
The
Commission
left
the
project
and
its
single
requested
incentive
—
relief
from
undergrounding
one
utility
pole
—
without
acting,
and
without
making
any
of
the
findings
the
statute
requires
to
deny
an
incentive
or
carrying
the
City's
burden
of
proof.
Notably,
HCD
has
already
advised
the
City
that
the
asserted
safety
concern
over
that
pole
can
be
mitigated,
including
through
bollards.
The
applicant
has
offered
that
and
several
additional
mitigations.
Refusing to reverse course carries serious consequences for Chino This is not an abstract risk. The HAA and SDBL attach real penalties when a city unlawfully denies
housing,
including
by
failing
to
act
on
it:
1. Statutory fines of at least $10,000 per unit. For a 210-home project, that is a minimum exposure
of
$2.1
million
—
paid
by
Chino's
taxpayers.
2. A fivefold multiplier for bad faith. Where a court finds a denial frivolous, pretextual, or without
merit,
it
may
increase
the
fine
by
a
factor
of
five
—
pushing
potential
exposure
above
$10
million,
plus
the
applicant's
attorneys'
fees.
3. A court order to approve the project outright. In TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC v. City of Calabasas
(2023),
the
court
found
bad
faith
and
ordered
the
city
to
approve
the
project
—
after
the
city
had
spent
public
funds
litigating
a
loss.
Chino
will
likely
arrive
at
the
same
destination,
only
poorer
and
later.
4. State enforcement and loss of Housing Element compliance. HCD's Housing Accountability
Unit
can
find
a
violation,
request
corrective
action,
refer
the
matter
to
the
Attorney
General,
and
move
to
revoke
the
City's
Housing
Element
certification
—
which
jeopardizes
Chino's
eligibility
for
state
funding
and
its
protection
from
the
“builder's
remedy.”
The need for these homes is acute — and Chino is far behind on its commitments Beyond the legal exposure, it is deeply troubling to watch desperately needed homes turned away
in
the
middle
of
a
housing
crisis.
Chino's
Regional
Housing
Needs
Allocation
for
this
cycle
is
6,978
homes.
To
date
the
City
has
permitted
only
about
19 percent
of
that
total
—
and
fewer
than
1 percent
of
its
lower-income
obligation,
just
ten
of
1,284
required
lower-income
homes.
This
single
project
would
more
than
triple
the
lower-income
housing
Chino
has
permitted
this
entire
cycle.
Denying
it
does
not
protect
the
community;
it
deepens
the
shortage
that
prices
Chino's
own
residents,
workers,
and
children
out
of
the
city
they
call
home.
The objections raised at the Planning Commission — that the project is “too dense,” that it would
bring
“traffic,”
that
it
does
not
fit
the
“character”
of
the
neighborhood
—
are
neither
morally
nor
legally
compelling.
The
Legislature
has
heard
those
arguments
for
decades
and
rejected
them
as
a
lawful
basis
to
deny
housing.
Chino
should
too.
Notice of complaint to HCD HAC is filing a complaint with HCD's Housing Accountability Unit regarding the City's actions on this
project.
We
understand
the
applicant
previously
sought
technical
assistance
on
the
incentive
denial,
and
that
HCD
has
already
weighed
in.
We
are
adding
our
voice
in
light
of
this
latest
escalation
on
the
part
of
the
Planning
Commission.
You
should
expect
to
hear
from
the
state.
The bottom line We respectfully urge the City Council to grant the appeal and approve the project — including the
requested
density
bonus,
incentive,
and
waivers
—
and
bring
this
matter
to
a
lawful
resolution
at
the
earliest
possible
hearing.
Doing
so
is
not
only
what
the
law
requires;
it
is
the
right
thing
to
do
for
the
families
who
need
these
homes
and
for
the
taxpayers
who
would
otherwise
foot
the
bill
for
an
indefensible
fight.
We are glad to serve as a resource and to provide testimony at the appeal hearing. Please don't hesitate
to
contact
me.
Sincerely,
Jesse Zwick
Southern
California
Director
|
Housing
Action
Coalition
811 West 7th Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA, 90017 Cell: (213) 537-3689 | Office: (415) 300-0967 cc: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Accountability Unit