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