Agenda packet — Chino City Council, April 15, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

4. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood 106238

CHINO ZONING CODE

5. Accessibility.
a. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway.
b. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room.

6. Recreational facilities requirements. In high density multi-family or mixed use development with a minimum of 25 dwelling units per gross adjusted acre, essential recreational facilities, as prescribed below, may be proposed in lieu of the requirements of major and minor facilities in Section 20.17.050 (C) which require more land than may be available in a high density project.

These essential recreational facilities may include: 1) a gym or fitness room, 2) space for yoga, dance, or other instruction, 3) enclosed or outdoor space for playing courts or games, 4) children's play area, 5) picnic and barbeque area, or 6) children’s daycare space. At least 250 square feet per unit shall be provided for these recreational facilities, and there shall be a minimum of 2 of these facilities in projects with 10-50 units, 3 of these facilities in projects with 51-100 units, and 4 or more of these facilities in projects with more than 100 units. No essential recreational facilities are required in a small project, with less than 10 dwelling units. The space allocated for recreational facilities shall count toward the requirement for common open space, and this space may be within buildings.

I. Minimum affordable housing requirement.

1. Requirement. Residential development projects in an AHO and an MUO district with 10 or more dwelling units shall provide the following minimum numbers of affordable housing units:
a. Rental projects: 9 percent of the total units affordable to low income households at an affordable rent.
b. For-sale projects: 3 percent of the total units in a Common Interest Development for moderate income households at an affordable sales price, provided that all of the units are offered to the public for purchase.
c. Projects with both rental units and for sale units: The minimum numbers shall be calculated separately for each type of housing.

2. Calculations. All calculations of the number of affordable units required to be built on-site in a project that result in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

3. Common owners and control. An applicant for development within an AHO or MUO district shall not avoid the requirements of this section by submitting piecemeal planning applications.

At the time of the first application for residential development, the applicant shall identify all contiguous property under common ownership and control. The applicant shall not be required to construct housing on contiguous property but must include such property in a comprehensive affordable housing plan.
107239

CHINO ZONING CODE

5. Location, size, design, and distribution of affordable units. Affordable units shall have the same bedroom and bathroom count ratio as the market rate units in a project, be equally distributed within the project, and have the same type or quality of appliances, fixtures, and finishes. The affordable housing units shall be integrated with other housing units in the housing development with regard to siting and placement within buildings and shall not differ in exterior appearance from the other housing units. The location of the affordable housing units may or may not be on contiguous parcels within the site. In no event shall the affordable housing units be located in only one portion of the housing development or situated in one building of a multi-building development.

6. Timing of Construction. All required affordable units shall be made available for occupancy prior to, or concurrently with, the market-rate units. The affordable units may be constructed in phases if the market-rate units are constructed in phases, provided that the percentage of affordable units developed in each phase shall be equivalent to or greater than the total percentage of affordable units to be developed as part of the residential development until such time that all the affordable units have been built.

J. Alternatives. In lieu of providing the affordable units in the housing development project required by Section 20.09.090 (D) and (I), the requirements of those subsections may be satisfied through one or more of the alternatives set forth below.

1. In-Lieu Fee.
a. For housing development projects proposing up to 20 units, the developer may, by right, pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units on site. b. For housing development projects proposing more than 20 units, the developer shall only be allowed to pay in-lieu fees if the Planning Commission makes a finding that providing affordable units on-site would result in an extreme financial hardship to the developer and make the proposed project financially infeasible. The developer shall submit a request to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units on site as part of the project application.

Such request shall include sufficient documentation and financial analysis to allow the Planning Commission to make the required findings. At the City’s discretion, the City may contract with a third-party financial consultant to evaluate the documentation and analysis submitted by the applicant and make a recommendation to the City regarding the issues of extreme financial hardship and financial infeasibility. The developer shall be required to reimburse the City for all costs related to hiring any such third-party consultant, which shall be in addition to any other required application fees. The demonstration of financial hardship and infeasibility may be based on, among other things, such factors as project size, site constraints, and/or excessively large affordability gaps, or upon a demonstration that in the absence of allowing for payment of in-lieu fees, the imposition of the affordable housing production requirements in this Section would violate the California and/or 108240

CHINO ZONING CODE

2. Land Dedication. In lieu of providing affordable units on-site, a developer may request City Council approval to dedicate land to the City or to a City-approved affordable housing developer that the Director of Development Services determines is suitable for the construction of the required number of affordable units and is within one mile of the project site. To accept a land dedication in lieu of on-site affordable units, the City Council must determine the fair market value of the dedicated land is equivalent to or greater than the amount of in-lieu fees that would have been needed to satisfy the housing development project's affordable housing obligation and that the required number of units for very low income residents will be built on this land based on a proposed conceptual site plan and proforma financial analysis demonstrating project feasibility with available funding. a. The developer must submit evidence that the land proposed to be dedicated is under the developer’s control, will be conveyed at no cost to the City or a City-approved affordable housing developer with experience building rental housing for very low income households, is free of any liens, all property taxes and special taxes have been paid, does not contain any hazardous materials, has the appropriate General Plan designation and zoning to allow construction of the required number of units, and has the necessary infrastructure and public improvements to support the required number of affordable units. Only sites within an AHO or MUO district that are within one mile of the project site can be considered for land dedication.
b. The developer must disclose whether any hazardous materials were previously contained on the site; and hazardous materials were previously remediated, the developer must provide evidence that the cleanup was performed in accordance with applicable law. c. The land proposed for dedication cannot have been improved with any residential use for at least five years prior to the submission of a land dedication proposal. d. The affordable units to be constructed on the dedicated land shall be at least 20 percent of the total number of units in the project, and these units must be rental units affordable to very low income households.
109241

CHINO ZONING CODE

K. Review Procedures.

1. Preliminary Review. A developer requesting additional density above 26 units per adjusted gross acre for a rental project under Section 20.09.090(D) shall submit an application for preliminary review, accompanied by the required application fee, for feedback prior to the submittal of any formal requests for approval of additional density. The purpose of the preliminary review is to determine whether the proposed development is in substantial compliance with applicable planning regulations and to establish the basis and procedures for granting the additional density. The following information is required to be submitted for preliminary review in the form of a proposed affordable housing plan in addition to information required by the Department’s preliminary review checklist:
a. Evidence that the project includes the qualifying percentages of affordable units set forth in Section 20.09.090(D) to justify the additional density requested; b. Calculations showing the maximum base density and the density with the additional units; c. Number and percentage of total units that are proposed to meet affordability criteria and the income level to which the units will be restricted; and d. A description of any proposed waivers or reductions of development standards or other zoning requirements, consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 95915 (k).

2. Site approval required. All residential development or mixed use development with residential units in an AHO or MUO district shall require approval of a Site Approval application as outlined under Section 20.23.090. For residential development and mixed use development with residential units, design review by the Planning Commission shall be undertaken only to determine compliance with the City’s objective design standards using the Site Approval process.

3. Additional findings for approval. The Planning Commission shall grant a Site Approval if it makes the findings required by Section 20.23.090 and the following additional findings:
a. The proposed development meets the affordability criteria for the requested density in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D) and (I); and 110242

CHINO ZONING CODE

4. Conditions of approval. The Planning Commission has the authority to impose reasonable conditions that are related and proportionate to what is being requested by the applicant, as deemed necessary and appropriate to ensure that the provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan adopted by the City Council, and this Title are met, including requirements for needed off-site public improvements. The Commission may require reasonable guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being, or will be, met.

5. Special procedures for projects with at least 20 percent affordable units. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 20.09.090, owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential developments in either an AHO or MUO district that are located on a site that is included in Appendix B (Candidate Sites Analysis) of the city’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029), meet the objective development standards and density requirements in this section, and in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households shall be a use by right.

For purposes of this subsection (K)(5), “use by right” shall have the meaning given in Government Code section 65583.2(i), as may be amended. Developments that qualify under this subsection (K)(5) shall be subject to the review procedures in this subsection (K), except that neither the design review nor the site approval shall be considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

L. Required affordable housing agreement for continued affordability. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential development project with affordable housing units in an AHO or MUO district, the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City ensuring the continued affordability of the affordable dwelling units for a period of not less than 75 years or as long as the property is in residential use, whichever is greater, for rental units and 45 years for for-sale units. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the developer and shall be recorded in the main office of the San Bernardino County Assessor-Recorder- Clerk. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and include provisions for the following:

1. The number and proportion of housing units affordable to moderate-income, low-income, and very-low income households by type, their location, and the number of bedrooms in each one;

2. Standards for maximum qualifying household incomes and maximum rents or sale prices;

3. Minimum home buyer payments and sources of funds for them;

4. The party responsible for certifying rents and sales prices of affordable housing units and reporting this information to the City;

5. The process that will be used to certify incomes of tenants or purchasers of the affordable housing units;

6. The manner in which vacancies will be marketed and filled, including the screening and qualifying of prospective renters and purchasers of the affordable units; 111243

CHINO ZONING CODE

8. Enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the affordable rental units are continuously occupied by eligible households and are not rented, leased, sublet, assigned, or otherwise transferred to non-eligible households, with reasonable allowances for inherited units and units initially occupied by very low income individuals who incomes may increase to a low income level;

9. Provisions allowing moderate income homebuyers to resell the unit at fair market value in return for the City receiving payment equal to the original Affordability Gap plus a defined share of the equity appreciation achieved on sale, which shall be deposited in the City’s Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund and used within three years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership; and

10. Project phasing, including the timing of completions, and rental or sale of the affordable housing units, in relation to the timing of the market-rate units.

M. Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund. There is a separate fund of the City known as the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund, and all in-lieu fees or other funds collected under this section shall be deposited into the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund. Additional funds from other sources also may be deposited in the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund.

1. Money deposited in the Overlay District Affordable Housing Fund may be used to pay for the direct costs associated with administration and enforcement of the affordable housing program established for the AHO and MUO districts.

2. After payment of expenses, at least 70 percent of the remaining money shall be expended to provide housing affordable to low income and very low income housing holds; the remaining money may be expended to provide housing affordable to moderate-income households.

3. The fund shall be administered by the Director of Development Services.

4. A developer receiving funding from the fund shall implement a local preference in their resident selection criteria.

112244

CHINO ZONING CODE

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

TABLE LU-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION ACREAGES (CONTINUED)
LU-9

Land Use

Acres in City
Limits
Acres in
SOI
Total
Acres
Airport Related 170 – 170
Overlays
Affordable Housing Overlay 114* – 114*
Mixed Use Overlay 119* – 119*
Total 16,680 1,395 18,075
Note: du/ac= dwelling units per acre.
*Overlay acreage not added to total.

For each land use de signation, the uses allowed and the standards of density or intensity are spec ified. Densities and intensities in all cases are based on adjusted gross acres. The adjusted gross acreage of a lot excludes all land within the ultimate right-of-way for Expressways, Major Arterials, Primary Arterials, Secondary Arterials, and Collector streets, as shown in the Tran sportation Element. The number of residential units permitted for a parcel is determined by multiplying the residential density factor by the adjusted gross acres of the parcel. For non- residential uses, inclu ding commercial, office , and industrial uses, intensity is expressed as an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR is calculated as the total square footage of buildings on a site, divided by the total square footage underlying the site. The city -wide land use designations are described below, followed by the land use designations for the Specific Plans.

1. Residential Land Use Designations
The residential designations include seven distinct designations of varying density.

They permit certain non -residential uses including places of worship, day care centers, schools, libraries, and recreational facilities.

a. RD1
This is a large -lot rural residential designation allowing 1 dwelling unit per adjusted gross acre (1.25 with provision of affordable housing). The pu rpose of this land use designation is to provide for very large lot residential deve lopment in a rural environment. These areas should be typified by rural uses, including horse-keeping and other small-scale agricultural uses consistent with residential areas.

123255

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT
LU-12

e. RD12
This designation allows for a variety of residential land uses, from attached dwellings to townhouses. It allows 8 to 12 dwelling units per a djusted gross acre (15 with the provision of affordable housing). The purpose of this land use designation is to encourage a wide range of residential land uses.

f. RD14
This land use designation allows for a variety of residential uses, including attached dwelling units and town houses. It allows 12 to 14 dwelling units per adjusted acre (17.5 with the provision of affordable housing) . The pu rpose of this land use designation is to allow slightly more dense multi-family development.

g. RD20
This high density residential development tends to be located near major commercial areas, neighborhood shopping centers, and freeway access . It allows 14 to 20 dwelling units per adjusted gross acre (25 with provision of affordable housing). The purpose of this land use designation is to provide for a relatively high density residential environment typified by four -plex developments and garden apartments.

2. Mixed-Use Designations
The city-wide mixed-use designations are only found in the SOI and on the Focused Growth Map . For areas with this designation on the F ocused Growth Map, the mixed -use designation would only be applicable if projects are a pproved by city-wide vote consistent with the Focused Growth Plan. The Focused Growth Plan is discussed in Section E, below.

a. MU20
This designation allows buildings combining mixes of uses including co mmercial and residential. Typically located along major corridors, this designation is intended to provide housing and retail in close proximity. Typical uses will include housing over small-scale retail. Maximum allowed reside ntial density is 20 dwelling units per adjusted acre and the FAR is 1.25.

b. MU30
This designation allows for higher density mixed -use developments and is reserved only for key central locations. There will be similar uses to the mixed -use medium 124256

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

LU-13

density designation, but additional residential density is allowed. Maximum residential density will be 30 dwelling units per gross acre and FAR is 1.5.

3. Commercial Land Use Designations
Four solely commercial designations are contained on the Land Use Map. The commercial designations are diverse and provide locations for an array of local- and regional-serving commercial establishments in Chino.

a. Regional Commercial
This designation is intended for the development of regional shopping ce nters and accompanying uses. Such uses include department stores, home furnish ings and appliance stores, apparel stores, specialty retail stores, and restaurants. The FAR is

0.6. b. General Commercial
This designation is to provide commercial uses for Chino residents’ daily and occasional needs. It is applied only in existing major commercial areas. Ge neral commercial areas include a wid e variety of commercial, office, and re staurant uses oriented to retail trade. There is a 2-acre minimum lot size. The FAR is 1.0.

c. Neighborhood Commercial
This designation is for shopping centers for daily shopping needs with a se rvice radius of approximately 1 mile. Typical uses include superma rkets, drug stores and a variety of smaller shops. These neighborhood amenities should be provided throughout the City, generally on lots no greater than 5 acres. The FAR is 0.3.

d. Office Commercial
While office uses are allowed in all commercial designations , the office co mmercial designation applies to areas to be used predominantly for offices. The FAR is 1.0.

4. Industrial Land Use Designations
Chino has f our categories of industrial land uses to plan for the large indu strial economy in the City.

a. General Industrial
This designation is for heavy industrial or manu facturing uses, many of which may generate heavy traffic , noises, or odors. There is a 1-acre min imum lot size and generally only single-tenant uses are permitted. The FAR is 0.6.

125257

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

LU-19

9. Overlay Designations
a. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)
This designation is intended to promote the development of affordable housing for low, very low, and moderate income households in specific areas identified in Figure LU -2 where high density residential uses would not otherwise be allowed.

The AHO is intended for standalone affordable and mixed income housing projects at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

b. Mixed Use Overlay (MUO)
This designation is intended to promote the development of affordable housing for low, very low, and moderate income households in specific areas identified in Figure LU -2 where high density residential uses would not otherwise be allowed.

The MUO provides for mixed use development with affordable housing either on upper floors or in separate buildings at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

E. Measure M and the Focused Growth Plan
Measure M is a group of General Plan policies and a section of the City’s M unicipal Code that limits the expansion of multiple family housing develo pments by requiring a vote of the people prior to rezoning any parcel to allow for an increase in allowed residen tial density. This section provides general background on Measure M , and explains how some parcels might be deve loped with alternative uses under this General Plan after a Measure M vote.

1. Measure M Background
In 1988 the citizens of Chino adopted Measure M as part of the General Plan and municipal code. Its purpose is to limit the expansion of multiple family housing developments by preventing the rezoning of non-residential land to res idential use.

Measure M prevents the change of any land zoned non-residential to residential use and the rezoning of any land zoned reside ntial for higher density residential use .

Any such changes must be made through another ba llot initiative. The ordinance applies to the zoning map as it was on November 8, 1988. The following text constitutes the General Plan policies enacted by the Measure M ordinance:
♦ Section 1: To insure the quality of the residential environment and the qua lity of life in the City of Chino, the People of the City of Chino hereby declare their intent to establish maximum densities for residential lands and to prevent the increase of land designated for residential uses within the City of Chino. 126258
1 SUBMISSSION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD:

APPEAL OF A WRITTEN DECISION BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRETOR

RELATED TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HOW FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ENFORCED FOR PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICTS. File No. 25-018

1. This appeal is based upon the vague, capricious and arbitrary interpretation of development standards for Floor Area Ratio as found in Section 20.09.090 and as further described in Table 20.09- 7 Note 1 of the Zoning Code. See Appellant Letter of Appeal dated December 13, 2024, as contained in February 19, 2025 Planning Commission’s Agenda Packet, pages 81-85 of packet page numbers.

2. The relevant question before the Planning Commission is how Floor Area Ratio is used to control the scale of development in the City of Chino and how to ensure that new construction is compatible with the community. The purpose of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is to help determine if a building's scale and mass are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

FAR is a measurement that controls the intensity of building coverage by comparing the total floor area of a building to the size of the lot it's located on.

3. The underlining question of this appeal is if our city government is going to allow developers to dictate our development standards and destroy our neighborhoods or is the city going to listen to the voice of its citizens. It is my opinion that the Zoning Code, under Section

20.09.090 for mixed use overlay developments was ill -conceived and poorly written. It is allowing unscrupulous developers to manipulate the zoning code to enhance their profits to the determent of the citizens of Chino. These high density developments will destroy our residential neighborhoods and the small-town feel of our city. It also appears that the City Planning Staff is no more than a rubber stamp for the demands of the developers.

4. I hope this Planning Commission hears the objections on how ill -advised and the poorly written zoning codes are adversely affecting its citizens. It is my opinion that the Planning Division appears to only be listening to the developers and crafting zoning standards that benefit the developers profits to the disadvantage of the citizens who need to live in the surrounding neighborhoods. This must stop.

5. The issue is if the development standards of 20.09.090 and Table 20.09- 7, including Note 1, are consistent and in compliance with the General Plan of Chino, and California state standards under various laws and regulations and to the city’s intent when passing and adopting the affordable housing standards of Measure Y .

6. A full and diligent review of the facts will disclose that the interpretation by the Director of Development Service (“Director”) is inconsistent with the General Plan, including its Housing Element, the visions for the city contained in the General Plan, and the stated purpose of Measure Y . Highly dense projects, buildings of extreme height, and the atrocious scale and mass of developments that ar e unjustly being allowed under mixed-use overlay standards are not compatible to the small-town feel and rural heritage of our city.

7. The City Planner’s narrative (pages 72- 75 of the agenda packet) has numerous misrepresentations concerning my appeal.

259
2 8. The City Planner on page 73 of the agenda packet proclaims without any factual basis that Section 20.09.090 is “ explicit” in applying a FAR limitation to only non- residential uses.

This is not an accurate assertion. A thoughtful and rigorous review will find it vague, ambiguous and contradictory. Table 20.09-7 does state that the “Maximum Floor Area Ratio (non-residential space), However, “Note 1” in addition states “ Additional FAR is allowed up to 1.25 in mixed use development with affordable rental units .” Thus, the foundation that FAR increases when the mixed use development includes residential rental units is based upon the inclusion of residential housing units . Note 1 does not define that the FAR to only include non-residential use buildings when increasing the allowable FAR . R ather the increase in FAR i s based on residential uses being included in the development.

9. The use of the density bonus related to residential rental units in Note 1 is undefined and ambiguous. This lack of clarity results in a vague and unclear methodology to calculate FAR and the allowable density. Contrary to the arguments made by the planning staff, that i ts interpretation of FAR for mixed use overlay developments is consistent with HCD approval of the Housing Element is a mischaracterization of HCD approval. HCD did not state an opinion concerning the methodology of using FAR when certifying the Housing Element. . The Housing Element, which is a component of the General Plan that was certified by the HCD, contained the following definition of FAR:

Site Coverage and FAR Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined in the City of Chino Municipal Code as the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a site, excluding structured parking areas, divided by the total site area. FAR is regulated to maintain and limit the massing of buildings in relation to the property.

10. The use of FAR in mixed use projects is an acceptable method to control the density, scale and mass of affordable housing projects. See attached HCD Letter s dated October 8, 2019 and August 31, 2022 (Attachments 1 and 2) . Of great significance Is the HCD stated in the October 8, 2019 letter that “In fact, 2019 legislation encourages use of a density bonus in the context of a FAR density for certain affordable projects associated with commercial development near transit. (See Gov. Code § 65915.7; see also Gov. Code § 65917.2).”

11. It is dubious that although § 65917.2 was explicitly cited in my December 14, 2024 appeal letter to the Planning Commission, but city staff choose to ignore and disregard this important state law. This law provides for the use of FAR in an eligible housing development. It would be illogical and disingenuous for city staff to argue that developments under 20.09.090 are not housing developments that can be subject to FAR. Also, Section 65917.2(b)(2) provides for an FAR for up to a 20- percent increase in maximum allowable floor area ratio for the inclusion of affordable housing projects.

12. Using the planning staff’s interpretation of FAR does not express any common sense or have a rational basis . As example, if the FAR was increased to 1.25 on a ten acre parcel , this would require 544,500 square feet of gross floor area (43,560 x 10 x 1.25) . By excluding the residential rental units in the FAR calculation, there could be 544,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site. What becomes illogical, based upon state law ( see Gov. Code, Section 65583.2(h)) is that 50% of the gross floor area shall be reserved for residential use ( also see revised Section 20.09.090(D) as required by HCD in Ordinance 2024-003). If FAR was deemed for only non -residential use, then an additional 544,500 gross floor space of residential use 260
3 would be required. This would result in a gross floor area of 1,089,000 square feet being required be built on the 10 acre parcel. This amount of scale and mass is absurd and is not compatible in any neighborhood in Chino with surrounding residential use.

13. Additionally, it should be noted that in the Chino Zoning Code for residential developments, a maximum FAR is used in combination with DU/AC. See Zoning Code Tables

20.04-3, 20.05-2 and 20.09- 3. It is contradictory for city staff to argue that residential use cannot be included in the FAR calculation, when it is a common practice in the city to do so .

City staff’s assertion that page LU9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is controlling is deceptive. It is implicit that the description of FAR was created prior to the mixed use overlay (“MUO”) districts being implemented after the passage of Measure Y . The reference LU9 also states that “ FAR is calculated as the total square footage of buildings on a site, divided by the total square footage underlying the site. Thus in a mixed use overlay, when both residential and non-residential are combined on the site, the total of buildings is to be included in the FAR calculation.

14. The MUO on page LU -19 (which is different than and has not been updated on the General Plan available on the City’s webpage) does not even include a reference to FAR for the non-residential use. Additionally, the FAR maximum specified in Table 20.05- 3 for MU30 designations can include both residential and non-residential uses in the FAR calculations. This would be in conflict and is logically outside the explanation cited by city staff referencing page LU-9 that only non-residential uses are included in FAR calculations for Mixed-Use Designations (see LU -12 thru LU -13 per staff’s submission ). Furthermore, a capricious and arbitrary interpretation would need to be made to determine how FAR is to be calculated for a vertical building containing both residential and non-residential uses. It should also be noted that Table

20.09-7 for MUO developments does not even contain a reference to the units per acre (DU/AC) designation for residential uses.

15. Contradictions can also be found in Zoning Code Sections 20.09.090(B), (F) and (G), which allows for only non- residential uses or no housing use in overlay d evelopments. These provisions would be in conflict with state law that require residential development be built in the proposed affordable housing overlays. The HCD necessitated that the city have a minimum of 26 units per acre in order for the City’s Housing Element to be certified. Furthermore, Section

20.09.090(F) is vague and uncertain as it only states “Non-residential development shall comply with the standards of the base zoning district with which the MUO district is combined and the commercial design standards in Section 20.17.070
.” A reading of Section (G), finds that it does
not require “only non -residential uses” or “no housing” use to be considered. Thus a literal reading of 20.09.090(G) would require any “non- residential development ” on a site to be developed under different standards and not the FAR standards for the MUO district.

16. The lack of concise language in the development standards has resulted in confusing and conflicting zoning standards. Not only did the language on Section 20.09.090 for overlays districts have conflict with state laws, requiring the revisions to Ordinance 23- 008 mandated by HCD, there are numerous confusing, vague and contradictory provisions in the code that has resulted in capricious and arbitrary interpretations. It is asserted that the planning staff failed to do their due diligence in making the recommendations to the Planning Commission for the adoption of Ordinances 23-008 and 24-003 for Section 20.09.090 of the zoning code..

261
4 17. One of the most significant contradictions occurred on April 6 , 2023, when the then Director Development Services, Nicholas Liguori went before the City Council to recommend the adoption of Ordinance 23- 008 which contained Section 20.09.090 of the Zoning Code.

Included in Ordinance 23- 008 was the insertion of Section 20.09.090(E)(4), which provided for the inclusion of storage facilities in MUO districts. During Mr. Liguori presentation to the City Council, he discussed how the use of the Floor Area Ratio related to the maximum floor area in the development containing a storage facility. At approximately one hour and 21 minutes into the video recording of the council meeting Mr. Liguori stated “that the storage [facility] have a maximum floor area ratio of 25% of all the residential/non- residential uses on the site” . (emphasis added, also see Attachment 3 for screenshot of the PowerPoint presentation at the April 6, 2023 council meeting). Thus when Ordinance 23- 008 was adopted, it was based upon the interpretation and statement by the then Director Development Services that the FAR for MUO sites could include both residential and non- residential uses in the development , particularly when the project included a storage facility. It is asserted that the Planning Commission must apply this interpretation, since that was the explanation presented to the City Council in approving and adopting Ordinance 23- 008 and the language and standards of

20.09.090.

18. The Planning Commission should also take into account that the vagueness and lack of clarity in the MUO standards would allow for unscrupulous developers to manipulate the zoning code that creates unintended, objectionable and unwanted high density developments. As example, using a 10 acre parcel, a n unprincipled developer could subdivide the parcel into five individual lots. One lot being 5 acres, another lot being 1.5 acres, and the other 3 lots being of different sizes totally 3.5 acres. Upon subdividing the 10 acres, the developer could claim the entire 10 acres at 26 housing units per acre totaling 260 units. The developer could then build all 260 units on only the one subdivided lot of 5 acres, resulting in a density of 52 units per acre.

The passage of Measure Y never provided for affordable housing to be over 50 units per acre, wherein the public was only informed the density would be up to 30 units per acre. The City of Chino and its Planning Commission should never allow for a DU/AC of over 50 units per acre in a residential single family neighborhood having an estimated FAR of over 2.25. The same devious developer could also build a 4 story monstruous storage facility on the subdivided 1.5 acre lot with a FAR of over 2.1. avoiding any reasonable FAR restrictions. It is re quested that the Planning Commission in issuing its decision of fact for this appeal, explain and resolve the inequities in the lack of clarification in the allowable densities and FAR within Section 20.09.090 for MUO developments , particularly when a developer chooses to subdivide the parcel into 5 individual lots. When analyzing the Zoning Code, including Table 20.09- 7, the site standards are based upon the lot. It should be noted that in California a "parcel" refers to any defined area of land with a legal ownership, often used for tax purposes, while a "lot" is a specific parcel that has been officially subdivided and is considered ready for development, meaning it has a legal description and is recognized as a building site within a planned subdivision. The Planning Commission in defining the FAR methodology should provide the factual basis for the determination of how floor area for all buildings on a lot is used to determine the FAR. .

19. In reaching its decision on this appeal, the Planning Commission should address and issue its decisions to include all required findings of fact . The primary purpose of FAR is to limit high density developments that exceed the scale and mass of surrounding neighborhoods.

Based upon the vague and unclear language of Section 20.09.090 and the planning staff’s history of its submissive and consenting rubber stamping of developers demands, the Planning 262
5 Commission is deemed to have obligation is to ensure the intent of the passage in Measure Y is being fulfilled. A finding of fact should also be issued on how FAR is to be determined when addressing each of the articulated inconsistencies and contradictions as cited in this submission.

Sincerely,

Robert Nigg, appellant
263
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

October
8, 2021

Mathew D. Francois
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
455 Market Street, Suite 1870
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mathew D. Francois:

RE: Mountain View State Density Bonus Law Ordinance – Letter of Technical Assistance

The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance on the application of State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). (Gov. Code, § 65915.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the recently updated density bonus ordinance adopted by the City of Mountain View (City) to evaluate the request for technical assistance set out in your letter dated June 21, 2021. HCD did not attempt a comprehensive review of the City’s ordinance, including its compliance with recent changes to SDBL made in AB 2345 (Chapter 197, Statutes of 2021, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2021), and thus this letter ought not be interpreted as an endorsement of the ordinance in its entirety.

Your letter raises concerns about two specific provisions in the ordinance that you believe to be inconsistent with SDBL. You have requested that HCD review the ordinance and provide technical assistance. After reviewing your letter and the City’s ordinance, HCD finds that the two provisions in the City’s ordinance identified in your letter are not inconsistent with the SDBL. HCD’s rationale and conclusions are described below.

Issue 1: Density Expressed Only in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

In your letter, you assert that state law prohibits a local agency from regulating density purely via FAR. Rather, you state that local agencies must express density only in terms of dwelling units per acre. HCD disagrees with this interpretation for the following reasons.

First, this interpretation would unduly hamstring planning efforts by local agencies. FAR is a tool used by planning agencies to increase flexibility for applicants. HCD cannot 264
Mathew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP

Page 2 ends

state categorically that FAR is not permitted as a measurement of density as well as intensity, so long as a city’s regulatory scheme makes adequate explanation for each.

Used appropriately, FAR offers flexibility in some cases, and actually fosters the development of certain kinds of housing, such as more, smaller units on a property, as opposed to a standard of dwelling units per acre.

Second, SDBL nowhere uses the phrase dwelling units per acre. It does speak of allowing a density bonus over the maximum allowable gross residential density. (Gov.

Code, § 65915, subd. (f).) As you know, “Maximum allowable residential density” means:

the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.

(Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(4).) Often residential density is expressed in dwelling units per acre, and in other areas, such as commercial areas, FAR is utilized. There is nothing in law that mandates that a city adopt one or the other. In fact, 2019 legislation encourages use of a density bonus in the context of a FAR density for certain affordable projects associated with commercial development near transit. (See Gov. Code, § 65915.7; see also Gov. Code, § 65917.2.)

Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 664 does not appear to be contrary or even relevant. The court there did note that Government Code section 65302 requires that a general plan’s land use element “shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.” Notably; however, these terms are not contained in density bonus law. Further, there is nothing that precludes a city from adopting either dwelling units per acre or FAR-based zoning and complying with section 65302.
1 1 The general plan at issue there was so very spare that it provided no statement of population density for most of the areas, rendering it impossible for the county to properly plan for services. In some areas dwelling units per acre were provided, in other areas merely categories of land use provided. The court found this to be inadequate. The court concluded that the term population density and building density were not synonymous, but the court also held that the terms population density and dwelling units per acre were also not synonymous. The point of “population density” in this context was not so much a measure of land use control as a measure of people who might utilize an area of the city to allow appropriate planning. Dwelling units per acre might suffice if a “basis for correlation between the measure of dwelling units per acre and numbers of people is set forth explicitly in the plan” ( Twain Harte Associates, supra, at pp. 698–699), but then FAR might suffice in the same circumstances. (See also San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 511 (same, clarifying that the population density requirement in section 65302 is descriptive, not prescriptive or regulatory as might be utilized to control land use). 265
Mathew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP

Page 3 ends

HCD considers that a local agency can utilize FAR or dwelling units per acre as a base measurement for setting out the maximum allowable gross residential density. Neither measure; however, can be utilized to avoid compliance with SDBL.

Issue 2: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Waiver in the Context of the City’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus

In your letter you assert that—because SDBL explicitly includes FAR within the definition of the term “development standard” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(1))—a project must remain eligible for a FAR waiver even when an applicant is pursuing a FAR density bonus. HCD disagrees with this interpretation for the following reasons.

First, Mountain View’s Density Bonus Law ordinance provides procedures for applying the SDBL in zones in which density is expressed in dwelling units per acre and in zones in which density is expressed only in FAR. The processes are nearly identical in each, except regarding the calculation of base density (Mount. View Mun. Code, § 36.48.75.j) and the consideration of FAR as a development standard. Per the local definition of development standard, FAR is considered a development standard “except in zones where floor area ratio defines the maximum allowable residential density….” (Id., §

36.48.70.d.) By defining the development standard in this way, the City is eliminating the potential for an applicant to obtain a development standard waiver for FAR in a zone where density is expressed only in terms of FAR. Were the City to allow FAR waivers in these zones (i.e., within the San Antonio, El Camino Real, North Bayshore, or East Whisman Precise Plan Areas), the City would in effect be allowing unlimited FAR.

Additionally, interpreting the law as you propose would result in FAR being both used as the measure of underlying density, a yardstick for determining how many affordable units and bonus units would be required, and a standard that is waived, resulting in confusion and absurdity. (Gov. Code, §§ 65915, 65917.) The City’s approach is not inconsistent with SDBL in defining development standards this way for the purpose of a FAR bonus.

Second, while the SDLB does not address this potential scenario directly, the legislative intent of the original law and subsequent amendments do not express an intent to permit unlimited FARs in all zones in which density is expressed solely in terms of FAR.

Development standard waivers (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)) are intended to facilitate the development of housing by waiving development standards that would preclude the construction of the development. They are intended to allow just enough relief from development standards to facilitate a development inclusive of the bonus units (regardless of the underlying expression of density in du/ac or FAR) but no more.

Where the density of a site, as well as bonuses, are expressed in FAR, there is no need to waive FAR to get to the permitted density. In other words, even if FAR were a development standard in such as case, FAR by definition in such a case could not impede a development with bonus.
266
Mathew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP

Page 4 ends

Fin
ally, the base density formula described in Mountain View’s Municipal Code provides a formula for calculating a density bonus in zones in which density is expressed in FAR.

To perform the calculation, your client would need to submit a desired project floor area and desired number of residential units. From this, a base density can be established, and eligibility determined for up to a 50% density bonus pursuant to Government Code section 65915 subdivision (f). Alternatively, and pursuant to the same subdivision, your client may choose not to pursue a density bonus and instead request incentives/concessions and development standard waivers (excluding an FAR waiver) based on the percentage of affordable units to be included in the development.

If
you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].

Si
ncerely,
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
cc: Sandr
a Lee, City of Mountain View
Aarti Shrivastra, City of Mountain View
Shannan West
267
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

Augus
t 31, 2022
David Martin
Community Development Director
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dear
David Martin:

RE: 1101 Wilshire Boulevard – Letter of Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the City of Santa M onica (City) regarding the mixed-used infill project to be located at 1101 Wilshire Boulevard.

The proposed project would result in the construction of a six-story, 93-unit mixed-use building containing ground floor restaurant/retail space and upper story market-rate and affordable housing units. The project would provide 11 units that would be affordable to very low-income (VLI) households and 82 market-rate units. The proposed project utilizes the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915) to achieve a density bonus.

The City requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the interpretation of the SDBL in the context of the proposed project. Specifically, the City seeks guidance on how to appropriately do the following:
• Calculate a density bonus for a project located in an area for which there is no associated residential density expressed in dwelling units per acre (du/ac). • Consider a SDBL incentive/concession or development standard waiver that would increase a project’s allowable floor area ratio (FAR) if the density bonus itself was granted in the form of additional FAR.

The project site is zoned Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB), a zone which does not prescribe a density standard in terms of du/ac. Instead, development is regulated only through development standards – including, notably, FAR. This approach is commonly employed in downtown and mixed-used areas throughout the state where the community’s primary concern is the height, bulk, and design of buildings rather than the absolute number of homes allowed on a given site.

The SDBL; however, only contemplates density bonus calculations in situations where the density standard is expressed in du/ac. This creates an implementation challenge 268
David Martin, Community Development Department

Page 2 ends

for local agencies that must devise a method for calculating a density bonus without detailed statutory guidance. Further complicating matters, downstream issues relating to incentives/concessions and waivers often arise depending on the method of calculation employed by the local agency.

The c
hallenge of granting a density bonus in zones that do not express density in du/ac is particularly pressing because, as noted in the case of Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1166 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 284, 288], the SDBL “imposes a clear and unambiguous duty on municipalities to award a density bonus when a developer agrees to dedicate a certain percentage of the overall units in a development to affordable housing.” HCD hopes that the content of this letter will help the City and other local agencies make informed decisions when carrying out their obligations under the SDBL.

Calculating Base Density for the Purposes of Granting a Density Bonus The c
ore of the SDBL intends for calculations to be made based on units, as evidenced by the numerous references to units throughout this section. Specifically, Government Code section 65915, subdivisions (b) and (f), rely on units to establish eligibility for a density bonus and in determining the density bonus owed. Therefore, regardless of the method used to calculate a project’s base density, it should ultimately result in an exact number of base density units. This approach results in the most minor departure possible from the typical implementation of the SDBL.

The SDBL is currently silent on what methodology a local agency should use to establish base density absent a du/ac-based density standard. One approach observed by HCD involves the local agency utilizing a hypothetical base project, prepared by the applicant, that meets all objective development standards to determine the base density (i.e., the precise number of units). Once the base density is established, the density bonus (in units) can be determined as it normally would. Correspondingly, the local agency’s consideration of incentives/concessions and development standard waivers can occur as normal. Note that applications made pursuant to Government Code section 65917.2, which provide for a FAR bonus in lieu of a density bonus, are discussed below.

Incentives/Concessions and Development Standard Waivers to Increase FAR in Circumstances where Density Bonus is Granted in the Form of Additional FAR A common occurrence when a local agency grants a “density bonus” in the form of increased FAR is that the applicant will then request an incentive/concession or development standard waiver to further increase the project’s FAR. The complication that this creates is one of the fundamental reasons why HCD recommends that local agencies avoid this practice. By utilizing du/acre-based density bonuses instead of FAR-based “density bonuses”, a local agency can avoid the “unlimited FAR” conundrum 269
David Martin, Community Development Department

Page 3 ends

examined in HCD’s October 2021 letter to Mountain View.1 This approach renders moot the question of whether a project is eligible for a concession or waiver to increase FAR because using du/ac instead of FAR for density bonuses limits the role of FAR solely to that of a development standard. Regarding the pending subject project, HCD recommends that the local agency carefully evaluate and accommodate the request for additional FAR, as an incentive/concession or waiver, if doing so would facilitate the successful development of the project.

FAR Bonus in Lieu of Density Bonus (Gov. Code, § 65917.2) Government Code section 65917.2 allows a local agency to grant a FAR bonus in lieu of a density bonus awarded on the basis of du/ac.2 This action is legally distinct from the granting of a density bonus pursuant to Government Code section 65915. The contents of this letter pertain only to projects proposed under Government Code section 65915.

Often confused, these two sections have fundamentally different purposes and functions. First, whereas section 65915 applies in all jurisdictions (regardless of whether the local agency has adopted an implementing ordinance), section 65917.2 applies only in jurisdictions where the local agency has chosen to adopt an implementing ordinance.

Second, section 65917.2 contains unique eligibility and other requirements that are not found in section 65915. Finally, the application of section 65915 results in additional units whereas the application of section 65917.2 results in additional floor area (which may or may not be used to construct more units). It should be noted that HCD is not aware of any local agencies that have adopted an ordinance to implement section 65917.2, though local community benefit zoning strategies that allow a project to receive increased FAR in exchange for public amenities are relatively common.

Santa Monica Housing Element Site Inventory
While the City continues to process the proposed project application, HCD reminds the City that the 93-unit proposed project appears in the City’s draft 6 th Cycle Housing
Element (adopted October 12, 2021) in the “Approved and Pending Housing Projects” table
3, which states that the project contains 82 market-rate units and 11 VLI units.

1 HCD’s October 2021 letter to Mountain View addressed two specific issues:

1. Whether state law prohibits a local agency from regulating density purely via FAR. (It does not.

In this letter to the City of Santa Monica, HCD’s technical assistance is more specifically about how to calculate a density bonus in such a zone.)

2. An FAR waiver in the context of the City of Mountain View’s FAR Bonus.

The letter is available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/sclmountainview-TA-100821.pdf.
2 Section 65917.2 provides a formula to calculate an FAR bonus, but it requires as an input a du/ac figure (Gov. Code, § 65917.2, subd. (b)(2)).
3 Page F-36 of Appendix F
270
David Martin, Community Development Department

Page 4 ends

The project is also listed in the “FAR and Size of Sites for Past and Current Housing Projects” table
4, where the project is described as a six-story 93-unit project. This suggests that the City is prepared to permit the project as proposed.

Conc
lusion
HCD respects the challenges inherent in infill development and applauds the construction of a mixed-income development on a site currently without any residential uses. Regarding other currently pending SDBL projects, HCD advises that the contents of this letter not be used to delay or otherwise unnecessarily complicate a project currently moving through the entitlement process. Local agencies should be pragmatic in their considerations of SDBL applications that provide much needed affordable and market-rate housing throughout California. “Although application of the statute can be complicated, its aim is fairly simple: When a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units… for low or very low-income households… the city or county must grant the developer [concessions and a bonus].”
5 If
you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].

Si
ncerely,

Shan
nan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief

4 Page F-38 of Appendix F
5 Friends of Lagoon Valley v. Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 824 [65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251, 264]. 271
272

CHINO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGUL

AR MEETING - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
13220 CENTRAL AVENUE
CHINO, CA 91710
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025

MINUTES
_________________________________________________________________________________

FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lewis.

ROL
L CALL
PRESENT Com missioner Brandon Blanchard, Commissioner Kevin Cisneroz, Commissioner Lissa Fraga, Commissioner Jimmy Alexandris, Commissioner Steve Lewis, Commissioner Lawrence Vieira, and Commissioner Vincent Lopez ABSENT NONE.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

PUB

LIC COMMUNICATIONS
Linda Zeigler, Mike Gutierrez, James Lopez, Sandi Cervantes, Jessie Katel, Alex Elias, Greg Dun
can, Maria Torres, Juan Llamas, and Julie Galindo spoke in opposition of the Schaefer/Euclid Project and had concerns regarding traffic, parking, safety, and vandalism.

Fred Galante, City Attorney, reminded everyone that the Schaefer/Euclid Project is not on the agenda and the Commissioners cannot respond to questions. Likewise, staff cannot speak to the project until it comes to a noticed public hearing. Due to the Brown Act, the Planning Commissioners cannot respond or make comments on items not on the agenda before them.

The time to do so is when there is a properly noticed public hearing.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2024 (Absent: Commissioner Steve Lewis)

2. Modification of Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. Mo dification of Planning Commission Rules and Procedures - CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 20, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

Motion by Commissioner Cisneroz, seconded by Vice Chair Fraga, to approve 1) the Min
utes of the December 18, 2024 Regular Meeting and 2) the Modification of the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. The motion carried by the following vote:
273

CHINO PLANNING COMMISSION
FE
BRUARY 19, 2025 2
AYES: COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER CISNEROZ,

COMMISSIONER FRAGA, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDRIS,

COMMISSIONER VIEIRA, AND COMMISSIONER LOPEZ
NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER LEWIS

PUBLIC HEARING

3. PL24-0025 (Site Approval). A request to modify the existing Site Approval (PL13-0629) to e
xpand the existing CNG parking lot and time fill fueling for Waste Management located within the General Industrial (M2) zoning district at 13821 Redwood Avenue (APN 1021-142-15).

Staff Report By: Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-00 1, approving PL24-0025 (Site Approval), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval.

Chairman Alexandris opened the public hearing.

Ch
ris Cortez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission.

Mark Schene of AT Design Build, applicant, addressed the Commission, and accepted all the Conditions of Approval for this agenda item.

There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Cisneroz, seconded by Commissioner Blanchard, to Adopt Pl
anning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-001, approving PL24-0025 (Site Approval), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval. The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: CO MMISSIONER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER CISNEROZ,

COMMISSIONER FRAGA, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDRIS,

COMMISSIONER LEWIS, COMMISSIONER VIEIRA, AND COMMISSIONER LOPEZ
NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS

4. Appeal of a written decision by the Development Services Director related to the interpretation of
how Floor Area Ratio is enforced for projects located within the Mixed Use Overlay Districts Appeal of a written decision by the Development Services Director related to the interpretation of how Floor Area Ratio is enforced for projects located within the Mixed Use Overlay Districts.

Staff Report By: Michael Hitz, Principal Planner
Ch
airman Alexandris opened the public hearing.
274

CHINO PLANNING COMMISSION
FE
BRUARY 19, 2025 3
Mike Hitz, Principal Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission.

Fre
d Galante, City Attorney, informed the Commission that a letter was received from the appellant today. The letter was reviewed and staff does not change their recommendation. No further analysis is required.

Robert Nigg, appellant, addressed the Commission.

There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Cisneroz asked staff to address Mr. Nigg's comments regarding state regulations regarding the use of FAR for the entire project.

Fred Galante, City Attorney, clarified what is and is not part of this appeal. The appellant gave an opinion on what the policy should be, a suggestion. What other cities have in their code is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is what our code says and our Housing Element. The City does not apply FAR for residential projects as it is not in our Zoning and not in the housing overlay as applied to housing. What we look at is density and HCD has approved that concept.

The Housing Accountability Act has made it very clear to cities that you cannot easily deny residential developments applications. That is a state mandate. You want to foster low income development.

Chairman Alexandris re-opened the public hearing.

Mr. Nigg stated that the General Plan says FAR is to be used for all buildings and that there is nothing in the state that says they cannot have a FAR calculation.

Chairman Alexandris closed public hearing.

Mr. Hitz clarified that the FAR for residential is for single family, not multi-family residential.

Commissioner Blanchard stated that there was a memo from Warren Morelion, the Director of Development Services, from December 2024 where it states that the MUO is intentionaly structured to exclude FAR for residential developments within the overlay and asked if we are still within that. Andrea Gilbert, City Planner, responded yes.

Motion by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Blanchard, to deny the ap
peal and uphold the written interpretation of the Zoning Code made by the Director of Development Services regarding calculation and enforcement of Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") in the Mixed Use Overlay ("MUO") Districts. The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: CO MMISSIONER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER CISNEROZ,

COMMISSIONER FRAGA, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDRIS, AND

COMMISSIONER LEWIS
NOES: COMMISSIONER VIEIRA
ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER LOPEZ
275
276
277
278
This appeal is being made under City of Chino, Zoning Code Section 20.23.150(B)

1. The specifics of this appeal to the City Council concern the appeal of Robert J. Nigg (“appellant”) heard as agenda item No. 4 before the Planning Commission on February 19, 2025 under File No.25- 018. The original appeal was submitted on December 13, 2025 to the planning commission, via the planning division. The original appeal under File 25- 018 related to a decision and interpretation by the Director of Development Services for the calculation and enforcement of Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) in the Mixed Use Overlay District (“MUO”).

2. There will be two separate appeals concerning the decision by the planning commission of February 19, 2025 to uphold the recom mendation by the City Planner to deny the appeal by the appellant.

3. This first appeal is being made regarding the failure of the p lanning commission to include all findings of fact as required under Zoning Code 20.23.150(A)(4). This sections states:

Within thirty days following the conclusion of the hearing, the planning commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The planning commission may deny the appeal, or may grant the appeal in whole or in part. The decision shall include all required findings of fact. (emphasis added)

4. Wherein, appellant submitted a five page narrative to the p lanning commission on February 19, 2025, prior to the scheduled meeting, the planning commission, in its quasi-judicial capacity, took a vote to deny appellant’s appeal without making or stating any findings of fact.

The appellant’s narrative included numerous questions of fac t. The p lanning commission provided no written or verbal explanations of why —legally and factually —the planning commission made it decision. 1 The appellant specifically requested that the five page narrative be included in the official record. Included on pages 4 -5 of the narrative, paragraph 19, it was specifically requested:

“In reaching its decision on this appeal, the Planning Commission should address and issue its decisions to include all required findings of fact.. A finding of fact should also be issued on how FAR is to be determined when addressing each of the articulated inconsistencies and contradictions as cited in this submission.”

5. The failure to issue findings of fact is a violation of the Zoning Code, Section

20.23.150(A)(4). Not issuing finding of facts is also inconsistent and contradictory to California guidelines and procedures. As example, “Planning commission decisions must be based on a rational decision- making process. Often, the commission must adopt written “findings” explaining the factual reasons for its decision. A finding is a statement of fact relating the information that the commission has considered to the decision that it has made

2. 1 Findings are written explanations of why—legally and factually—the planning commission made a particular decision. They map how the commission applied the evidence presented to reach its final conclusion. See Leage of California Cities, The Planning Commissioner Handbook, Section 2, Meetings and Procedures, page 22. 2 See THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S BOOK, issued by the State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Part Two, The Legal Side of Planning, page 8.

279

6. The city council should render the decision made by the planning commission on February 19, 2025 for agenda item #4 under File No. 25- 018 as null and void until such time as the planning commission issues findings of facts explaining the factual reasons for its decision.

Should the city council choose not to instruct the planning commission to administer its duties in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.23.150(A)(4), the appellant requests upon receipt of this appeal request, the city council shall set the matter for hearing. The hearing shall be held within sixty days following the filing of the appeal request or the next regularly scheduled city council meeting thereafter per Section 20.23.150(B)(4).

7. A second appeal request will be submitted separately to the city council. The separate request will be submitted to avoid any possible conflict with the 10 day limit to file an appeal as set forth in Section 20.23.105(B)(1). Appellant deems the two issues to be distinct from each other. The failure to state findings of fact under Section 20.23.150(B)(4) is an administrative and procedural violation that is not founded on the actual questions of fact. The second and separate appeal will be to resolve the questions of fact and the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Development Services Director issued his decision concerning FAR calculations.

Without the benefit of knowing what the factual basis and underlying rationale for the decision of the planning commission, appellant is at a great disadvantage to appeal its decision without knowing what factual evidence was used by the planning commission it issuing its decision. The lack of transparency in the decision making process is why the citizens view our city leaders as being out of touch with the concerns of its voters.

Sincerely,

Robert Nigg, appellant

280
281
282
APPEAL No. 2 - Decision of Planning Commission on February 19, 2025

This appeal being made under City of Chino, Zoning Code Section 20.23.150(B)

1. The specifics of this appeal to the City Council concern the appeal of Robert J.

Nigg (“appellant”) heard as agenda item No. 4 before the Planning Commission on February 19, 2025 under File No.25- 018. An appeal was submitted on December 13, 2025 to the planning commission. The appeal under File 25- 018 relates to a decision and interpretation by the Director of Development Services for the calculation and enforcement of Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) in the Mixed Use Overlay Districts (“MUO”).

2. This is the second appeal to the city council concerning the decision made on February 19, 2025 by the planning commission. Appeal No. 1 concerned what is deemed to be a procedural error when the planning commission did not articulate findings of fact. This second appeal involves substantive deficiencies concerning relevant questions of fact in the decision made by the planning commission.

3. Lacking the planning commission explaining the factual reasons for its decision, the appellant can only speculate on what facts, if any , were used by the planning commission in issuing its decision. It appears many of the commissioners may not have fully read or spoke to the factual concerns raised in my February 19, 2025 submission of a 5 page narrative letter (“narrative”) citing additional specific grounds on why the appeal should be upheld. Appellant explicitly requested that the February 19, 2025 narrative be made part of the official record.

4. The relevant question that was before the p lanning commission is how Floor Area Ratio is used to control the scale of development in the City of Chino and how to ensure that new construction is compatible with the community. The purpose of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is to help determine if a building's scale and mass are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. FAR is a measurement that controls the intensity of building coverage by comparing the total floor area of a building to the size of the lot it's located on.

5. The underlining question of this appeal is if our city government is going to allow developers to dictate our development standards and destroy our neighborhoods or is the city going to listen to the voice of its citizens. It is appellant’s opinion that the Zoning Code, under Section 20.09.090 for mixed use overlay developments was ill -conceived and poorly written and is thus subject to arbitrary and capricious interpretations . It is allowing unscrupulous developers to manipulate the zoning code to enhance their profits to the determent of the citizens of Chino. These extremely high density developments will destroy our residential neighborhoods and the small -town feel of our city. It also appears that the planning division is no more than a rubber stamp for the demands of the developers.
283

6. Appellant disputes and c hallenges the decision made by the planning division by referencing the specific questions of fact and arguments as cited in the February 19, 2025 narrative and appellant’s original letter appeal dated December 13, 2024. Both letters are still intended to part o f the official record and to be used by the city council in issuing its findings of fact and decision for this appeal. To assist in clarifying the grounds for this appeal, appellant will r eference by P aragraph Number from the February 19 narrative to facilitate a better understanding of the dispute and reasons for the appeal.

7. Paragraph No. 8 – City staff proclaims without any factual basis that Section

20.09.090 is “ explicit” in applying a FAR limitation to only non- residential uses. This was not an accurate assertion. A thoughtful and rigorous review will find it vague, ambiguous and contradictory. Appellant acknowledges that Table 20.09-7 of the zoning code does state that the “ Maximum Floor Area Ratio (non- residential space). However, “Note 1” also states “ Additional FAR is allowed up to 1.25 in mixed use development with affordable rental units .” Thus, the foundation that FAR increases when the mixed use development includes residential rental units is based upon the inclusion of the residential housing units. Note 1 does not define that FAR is to only include non- residential use buildings when increasing the allowable FAR. Rather the increase in FAR is based on residential uses being included in the development. The decision by the planning commission did not resolve or explain how an increase in FAR based upon a density bonus for residential usage (affordable rental units) is not subject to FAR. It would be an arbitrary and capricious decision as to why an increase in FAR resulting the inclusion of residential units would not include the floor area of the residential apartment units, which are incorporated in all the buildings on the lot.

8. Paragraph No. 9 - The use of the density bonus related to residential rental units in Note 1 is undefined and ambiguous. This lack of clarity results in a vague and unclear methodology to calculate FAR and the allowable density. Contrary to the arguments made by the planning staff, that its interpretation of FAR for mixed use overlay developments is consistent with HCD approval of the Housing Element is a mischaracterization of HCD approval . This assertion is not supported by any documented evidence that HCD in approving the Housing Element made any reference to residential usage being included or excluded from FAR calculations. The city attorney did appear to make an inaccurate statement advocating to the planning commission that HCD had approved the Housing Element therefore inferring the FAR methodology was approved by HCD. The Housing Element certified by the HCD contained the following definition of FAR:

Site Coverage and FAR Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined in the City of Chino Municipal Code as the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a site, 284
excluding structured parking areas, divided by the total site area. FAR is regulated to maintain and limit the massing of buildings in relation to the property.

Appellant again asserts no factual foundation was presented to the planning commission that HCD certified anything other than FAR was to include the total floor area of all buildings on a site . The city staff provided no evidence and the planning commission provided no findings of fact as to the validity of the planning divisions unsupported ascertains . This question of fact remained unresolved, however strong factual evidence supports Appellant’s argument that all buildings on a site should be included in the FAR calculations as defined in the certified HCD Housing Element.

9. Paragraph No. 10
- The appellant argued “The use of FAR in mixed use projects is an acceptable method to control the density, scale and mass of affordable housing projects. See attached HCD Letters dated October 8, 2019 and August 31, 2022 (Attachments 1 and 2). Of great significance i s the HCD stated in the October 8, 2019 letter that “In fact, 2019 legislation encourages use of a density bonus in the context of a FAR density for certain affordable projects associated with commercial development near transit. (See Gov. Code § 65915.7; see also Gov.

Code § 65917.2).” The planning commission in reaching its decision failed to address this important and critical issue of fact. Again, contrary to the arguments made by the planning division and the conjecture made by the city attorney, appellant has provided verifiable evidence that HCD supports the use of FAR in mixed use projects that includes both residential and non- residential buildings. The city council must issue a decision based upon findings of fact. The appellant asserts the factual evidence supports the foundation that the appeal should be upheld and not denied.

10. Paragraph No. 11
– Appellant explicitly cited Government Code § 65917.2 in support of his appeal . T he planning commission w hen issuing its decision failed to speak to and had ignored this important and critical issue. California law undeniably provides for the use of FAR in an eligible housing development with commercial development. It would be illogical and disingenuous for city staff to argue that developments under 20.09.090 are not housing developments that can be subject to FAR. Also, Section 65917.2(b)(2) provides for an FAR for up to a 20-percent increase in maximum allowable floor area ratio for the inclusion of affordable housing projects .

This important factual evidence and cited state law undermines the validity of the planning division’s assertion that HCD validated the Director of Development Services interpretation that calculations for residences uses could not be included in the FAR for mixed use developments. No findings of fact was made by the planning commission regarding this evidence. The city council in reaching a decision on this appeal is mandated under zoning code Section 20.23.150(B)(5) that its decision shall include all findings of fact.

285

11. Paragraph No. 12 - Using the planning staff’s interpretation of FAR does not express any common sense or have a rational basis. As example, if the FAR was increased to 1.25 on a ten acre parcel, this would require 544,500 square feet of gross floor area (43,560 x 10 x 1.25). By excluding the residential rental units in the FAR calculation, there could be 544,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site. What becomes illogical, based upon state law (see Gov. Code, Section 65583.2(h)) is that 50% of the gross floor area shall be reserved for residential use (also see revised Section 20.09.090(D) as required by HCD in Ordinance 2024-003). If FAR was deemed for only non- residential use, then an additional 544,500 gross floor space of residential use would be required. This would result in a gross floor area of 1,089,000 square feet being required be built on the 10 acre parcel. This amount of scale and mass is absurd and is not compatible in any neighborhood in Chino with surrounding residential use. In deciding this appeal, the city council must decide on a factual basis if the meaning of Note 1 of Table 20.23- 7 was adopted by the city council with the deliberate and willful intent to allow the floor area of buildings on a lot that would result in FAR of 2.50 density level for all buildings on a lot. No where in the residential neighborhoods of the city has such massive and highly dense development ever been allowed. No record o f any public notices issued by the city in advocating the passage of Measure Y did our city council inform the public the passage of Measure Y would create such extremes in density.

12. Paragraph No. 13 - Ad
ditionally, it should be noted that in the Chino Zoning Code for residential developments, a maximum FAR is used in combination with DU/AC. See Zoning Code Tables 20.04- 3, 20.05-2 and 20.09- 3. It is contradictory for city staff to argue that residential use cannot be included in the FAR calculation, when it is a common practice in the city to do so. [See Attachment 3 for FAR inclusion for site standards in residential zoning.] T he assertion made by the planning commission (and the city attorney during the appeal hearing) that the zoning code did not provide for FAR calculations for residential use is in direct conflict with the documental evidence provided by the appellant. The city council must determine as a question of fact if maximum FAR for residential use is included in the zoning code. Upon this finding of fact, the Director of Development Service’ s interpretation that FAR is not used for residential use should be determined to be erroneous and that a n arbitrary and capricious decision was made.

13. Paragraph No. 14 - Ad ditionally, the FAR maximum specified in Table 20.05-3 for MU30 designations can include both residential and non- residential uses in the FAR calculations. This would be in conflict and is logically outside the explanation cited by city staff referencing page LU -9 that only non- residential uses are included in FAR calculations for Mixed-Use Designations (see LU -12 thru LU-13 per staff’s submission).

Furthermore, a capricious and arbitrary interpretation would need to be made to determine how FAR is to be calculated for a vertical building containing both residential and non- residential uses. It should also be noted that Table 20.09- 7 for MUO 286
developments does not even contain a reference to the units per acre (DU/AC) designation for residential uses. The city council must determine as a finding of fact if under Table 20.03- 5 for mixed use (MU30) does contain a maximum FAR limitation which includes residential use. The city council must also determine as a finding of fact how mixed used FAR calculations are to be determined if a mixture of residential and non-residential is combined in constructed in the same vertical building in a MUO site.

Additionally, a finding of fact must be made if Table 20.09-7 Density, Maximum (DU/AC) and FAR as contained in Tables 20.04- 3, 20.05-2 and 20.09-3 , is how the density and FAR to be calculated on lots with residential use. Lacking a definitive clarification to these questions, appellant asserts that the zoning code allows for arbitrary and capricious interpretations of zoning code standards.

14. Paragraph No. 15 - Cont
radictions can also be found in Zoning Code Sections

20.09.090(B), (F) and (G), which allows for only non- residential uses or no housing use in overlay developments. These provisions would be in conflict with state law that require residential development be built in the proposed affordable housing overlays.

The HCD necessitated that the city have a minimum of 26 units per acre in order for the City’s Housing Element to be certified. Furthermore, Section 20.09.090( [G]) is vague and uncertain as it only states “Non -residential development shall comply with the standards of the base zoning district with which the MUO district is combined and the commercial design standards in Section 20.17.070 .” A reading of Section (G), finds that it does not require “only non- residential uses” or “no housing” use to be considered. Thus a literal reading of 20.09.090(G) would require any “non- residential development” on a site to be developed under different standards and not the FAR standards for the MUO district. As a finding of fact, the city council must determine the approved method to be used by the Director Development Service to determine when the standards of zoning code for FAR are to be used when only non- residential use is prohibited by amendments to the zoning code under Ordinance 24- 003. Per HCD, the city cannot allow only non- residential use in a AHO and MUO districts. The current zoning code is a hodgepodge of different standards that has resulted in conflicting standards and arbitrary and capricious interpretations of zoning code standards.

15. Paragraph No. 16 - It
is asserted that the planning staff failed to do their due diligence in making the recommendations to the p lanning commission and city council for the adoption of Ordinances 23- 008 and 24- 003 for Section 20.09.090 of the zoning code. A finding of fact should be determined by the city council if the current zoning code standards are not in conflict within different provisions of the code. Appellant asserts that conflicting standards resulting in confusion and uncertainty , causing the zoning code to be subject to different interpretation.

16. Paragraph No. 17 - On e of the most significant contradictions occurred on April 6, 2023, when the then Director Development Services, Nicholas Liguori went before the City Council to recommend the adoption of Ordinance 23- 008 which contained Section 287

20.09.090 of the Zoning Code. Included in Ordinance 23- 008 was the insertion of Section 20.09.090(E)(4), which provided for the inclusion of storage facilities in MUO districts. During Mr. Liguori presentation to the City Council, he discussed how the use of the Floor Area Ratio related to the maximum floor area in the development containing a storage facility. At approximately one hour and 21 minutes into the video recording of the council meeting Mr. Liguori stated “that the storage [facility] have a maximum floor area ratio of 25% of all the residential/non -residential uses on the site”. (emphasis added, also see Attachment [4] for screenshot of the PowerPoint presentation at the April 6, 2023 council meeting). Thus when Ordinance 23-008 was adopted, it was based upon the interpretation and statement by the then Director Development Services that the FAR for MUO sites could include both residential and non- residential uses in the development, particularly when the project included a storage facility. It is asserted that the Planning Commission must apply this interpretation, since that was the explanation presented to the City Council in approving and adopting Ordinance 23- 008 and the language and standards of 20.09.090. The city council must issue a finding of fact if the current Director Development Services is using a different interpretation than what was used by the prior Director of Development Services before the city council during the public meeting on April 6, 2023. There is substantial documented evidence that the city council voted for and adopted Section 20.09.090 with the perception and understanding that public/mini storage facilities would be included in the FAR calculation for all residential/non-residential uses onsite.

17. Paragraph No. 18 – It
was argued that “ The Planning Commission should also
take into account that the vagueness and lack of clarity in the MUO standards would allow for unscrupulous developers to manipulate the zoning code that creates unintended, objectionable and unwanted high density developments. As example, using a 10 acre parcel, an unprincipled developer could subdivide the parcel into five individual lots. One lot being 5 acres, another lot being 1.5 acres, and the other 3 lots being of different sizes totally 3.5 acres. Upon subdividing the 10 acres, the developer could claim the entire 10 acres at 26 housing units per acre totaling 260 units. The developer could then build all 260 units on only the one subdivided lot of 5 acres, resulting in a density of 52 units per acre. The passage of Measure Y never provided for affordable housing to be over 50 units per acre, wherein the public was only informed the density would be up to 30 units per acre. The City of Chino and its Planning Commission should never allow for a DU/AC of over 50 units per acre in a residential single family neighborhood having an estimated FAR of over 2.25. The same devious developer could also build a 4 story monstruous storage facility on the subdivided 1.5 acre lot with a FAR of over 2.1. avoiding any reasonable FAR restrictions. It is requested that the Planning Commission in issuing its decision of fact for this appeal, explain and resolve the inequities in the lack of clarification in the allowable densities and FAR within Section 20.09.090 for MUO developments, particularly when a developer chooses to subdivide the parcel into 5 individual lots.

When analyzing the Zoning Code, including Table 20.09-7, the site standards are based 288
upon the lot. It should be noted that in California a "parcel" refers to any defined area of land with a legal ownership, often used for tax purposes, while a "lot" is a specific parcel that has been officially subdivided and is considered ready for development, meaning it has a legal description and is recognized as a building site within a planned subdivision.

The Planning Commission in defining the FAR methodology should provide the factual basis for the determination of how floor area for all buildings on a lot is used to determine the FAR. The city council must issue a finding of fact how the calculation of FAR should be determined when a parcel is subdivided into smaller lots. There is an inconsistency since the zoning code standards explicitly uses the term “lot” (see Attachment 5) for the site requirements within a mixed use overlay district. The arbitrary interpretation being used by the Director Development Services creates random, subjective and illogically contradictions in how development is permitted MUO districts.

There MUO districts were created to allow for affordable housing and not extremely high density non-residential projects that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

18. The appellant has provided substantial factual evidence citing the inconsistencies in interpretation of the Director Development Services and to the February 19, 2025 decision by the planning commission. Appellant request s that in accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.23.150( B)(5), that the city council’s decision shall include all required findings of fact. Appellant has provided at least 11 questions of fact that should be used by the city council in reaching its decision. Appellant asserts any fair and logical decision of even one of the questions of fact should result in the planning commission’s decision being overturned. However, when considering in totality all questions of fact, appellant deems there is a preponderance of evidence that the interpretation of the Director Development Services on the methodology to determine FAR was flawed, illogical and inconsistent with the city’s advocating the passage of Measure Y.

Sincerely,
Robert Nigg, appellant.
289
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

October 8, 2021

M
athew D. Francois
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
455 Market Street, Suite 1870
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mathew D. Francois:

RE: Mountain View State Density Bonus Law Ordinance – Letter of Technical Assistance

Issue 1: Density Expressed Only in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Page 2 ends

state categorically that FAR is not permitted as a measurement of density as well as intensity, so long as a city’s regulatory scheme makes adequate explanation for each.

Second, SDBL nowhere uses the phrase dwelling units per acre. It does speak of allowing a density bonus over the maximum allowable gross residential density. (Gov.

Code, § 65915, subd. (f).) As you know, “Maximum allowable residential density” means:

Page 3 ends

Issue 2: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Waiver in the Context of the City’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus

Page 4 ends

Finally,
the base density formula described in Mountain View’s Municipal Code provides a formula for calculating a density bonus in zones in which density is expressed in FAR.

If you hav
e questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].

Sincerel
y,
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
cc: Sandra Lee, C
ity of Mountain View
Aarti Shrivastra, City of Mountain View
Shannan West
293
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

August 31, 20
22 David Martin
Community Development Director
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dear David
Martin:

RE: 1101 Wilshire Boulevard – Letter of Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the City of Santa Monica (C
ity) regarding the mixed-used infill project to be located at 1101 Wilshire Boulevard.

The SDBL; however, only contemplates density bonus calculations in situations where the density standard is expressed in du/ac. This creates an implementation challenge 294
David Martin, Community Development Department

Page 2 ends

The chall
enge of granting a density bonus in zones that do not express density in du/ac is particularly pressing because, as noted in the case of Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1166 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 284, 288], the SDBL “imposes a clear and unambiguous duty on municipalities to award a density bonus when a developer agrees to dedicate a certain percentage of the overall units in a development to affordable housing.” HCD hopes that the content of this letter will help the City and other local agencies make informed decisions when carrying out their obligations under the SDBL.

Calculating Base Density for the Purposes of Granting a Density Bonus The core
of the SDBL intends for calculations to be made based on units, as evidenced by the numerous references to units throughout this section. Specifically, Government Code section 65915, subdivisions (b) and (f), rely on units to establish eligibility for a density bonus and in determining the density bonus owed. Therefore, regardless of the method used to calculate a project’s base density, it should ultimately result in an exact number of base density units. This approach results in the most minor departure possible from the typical implementation of the SDBL.

Page 3 ends

1 HCD’s October 2021 letter to Mountain View addressed two specific issues:

1. Whether state law prohibits a local agency from regulating density purely via FAR. (It does not.

In this letter to the City of Santa Monica, HCD’s technical assistance is more specifically about how to calculate a density bonus in such a zone.)

2. An FAR waiver in the context of the City of Mountain View’s FAR Bonus.

Page 4 ends

Concl
usi
on
HCD respects the challenges inherent in infill development and applauds the construction of a mixed-income development on a site currently without any residential uses. Regarding other currently pending SDBL projects, HCD advises that the contents of this letter not be used to delay or otherwise unnecessarily complicate a project currently moving through the entitlement process. Local agencies should be pragmatic in their considerations of SDBL applications that provide much needed affordable and market-rate housing throughout California. “Although application of the statute can be complicated, its aim is fairly simple: When a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units… for low or very low-income households… the city or county must grant the developer [concessions and a bonus].”
5 If you hav
e questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].

Sincerel
y,

Shannan Wes
t
Housing Accountability Unit Chief

4 Page F-38 of Appendix F
5 Friends of Lagoon Valley v. Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 824 [65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251, 264]. 297
298
299
300
301
302
303

CHINO ZONING CODE

Sections:

20.09.010 – General Purpose

20.09.020 – Applicability

20.09.030 – Conflict Between Provisions

20.09.040 – Agricultural Overlay District

20.09.050 – Airport Overlay District

20.09.060 – Downtown Overlay District

20.09.070 – Central Avenue Specific Plan

20.09.080 – Industrial Planned Development Overlay District

20.09.090 – Overlay Districts for Affordable Housing

20.09.010 – General Purpose
The general purpose of overlay districts is to establish standards and regulations that apply to specified areas in addition to the provisions provided by the base zoning district. Overlay district address special characteristics and needs of specified areas, prevent potential hazards and land use conflicts and provide flexible development standards in a manner consistent with the City of Chino General Plan.

20.09.020 – Applicability
The requirements of Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts) apply to all land, uses and structures in addition to all applicable requirements of Part 2 (Zoning Districts), Chapter 20.21 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) and any other applicable provisions of this Code.

20.09.030 – Conflict Between Provisions
In the event of any conflict between Chapter 2 0.09 (Overlay Districts) and Part 2 (Zoning Districts) of this Code, the requirement specified in the overlay district shall apply. In the event that the overlay district is silent, the requirements of the base zoning district shall apply.

20.09.040 – Agricultural Overlay District
A. Purpose and Intent. In addition to the general purpose of overlay districts as provided in Section

20.09.010 of this Code, the specific purpose of the Agriculture ( AO) overlay district is to permit and support existing agricultural uses on properties that are or were under Williamson Act contracts at the time of annexation into the city. These properties are expected to remain in agricultural use until they transition to their underlying zoning designation, as shown on the zoning map. 304

CHINO ZONING CODE

20.09.050 – Airport Overlay District
A. Purpose and Intent. The planning boundaries of the airport overflight area have been establis hed by the Airport Comprehensive L and Use P lan (ACLUP), prepared for Chino Airport pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq. and generally shown on the Zoning Map. The provisions contained herein shall regulate the use and development of all property located within the airport overflight area. In addition to the general purpose of overlay districts as provided in Section

20.09.010 of this Code, the specific purpose of the Airport overlay district is to:

1. Implement the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, prepared for the Chino Airport pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.;

2. Identify areas of the city subject to high noise levels and crash impacts by the operation of the Chino Airport; and

3. Encourage the orderly use and development of the area around Chino Airport, which is compatible with continued airports operations.

B. Permitted Uses.

1. Within each aviation safety zone identified in the ACLUP prepared for the Chino Airport, permitted uses shall be only those allowed by both the base zoning district and the Airport Overlay as shown in Table 20.09-1.

2. An avigation easement shall be recorded against the property deed of all new development projects and use permits within a 10,000-foot radius of Chino Airport (Safety Zone I, II and III), advising current and future property owner(s) of potential impacts and stating that the property may be subject to overflight noise, vibration, and dust from aircraft. 305

CHINO ZONING CODE

I II III
Residential Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Lodging places Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Educational facilities Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Hospitals & nursing homes Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Assembly uses (auditoriums, stadiums,
concert halls, theaters, churches, etc.)
Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Sports arenas & outdoor spectator sports Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Parks, playgrounds, recreation centers,
fairgrounds & picnic grounds
Clearly Unacceptable Normally Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Libraries, museums & art galleries Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Golf courses, commercial riding stables &
water recreation
Normally Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Normally Acceptable Commercial office Clearly Unacceptable** Clearly Unacceptable** Normally Acceptable** Commercial retail Clearly Unacceptable** Clearly Unacceptable** Normally Acceptable Manufacturing & warehouse/distribution Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Normally Acceptable Public utilities Clearly Unacceptable Normally Acceptable Normally Acceptable Livestock, animal breeding & animal
keeping
Normally Unacceptable** Normally Acceptable** Clearly Acceptable Agriculture (commercial growing & field
crops)
Normally Acceptable Clearly Acceptable Clearly Acceptable Conservation areas & natural recreation
areas
Normally Acceptable Clearly Acceptable Clearly Acceptable Uses of a hazardous nature Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Maximum gross density (in persons per
acre)

0.5 25 No Limit
Maximum assembly recommended* 10 100 No Limit
Legend: Clearly Acceptable—No restrictions.

Normally Acceptable—Restricted development undertaken only after detailed analysis and satisfactory mitigation measures are initiated.

Normally Unacceptable—No new development shall be permitted.

Clearly Unacceptable —New construction or development should not be undertaken. Furthermore, an effort should be made to relocate existing uses.
* Assembly is the gathering together of persons for such purposes as deliberation, education, instruction, worship, entertainment, amusement, drinking or dining, or awaiting transportation, as defined in the California Building Code. ** Some specific uses in this group may be acceptable, provided the density criteria are met.

C. Noise Standards.

1. California Administrative Code Section 5000 et seq. establishes criteria for the regulation of noise in the vicinity of airports. In an effort to reduce and control the impact of noise generated from Chino Airport on the community, noise contours have been established by the ACLUP prepared for Chino Airport. Within each noise contour identified on the noise contour map contained within the ACLUP, land shall only be used and/or developed in accordance with Table 20.09-2. The table establishes the degree of acceptability of certain land use groups within each noise contour.
306

CHINO ZONING CODE

TABLE 20.09-2 C OMMUNITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
Land Use Group
Maximum
Interior/Exterior
Noise Levels
(dBA)
Noise Contour per ACLUP
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential 45/60

Lodging places 45/60

Educational facilities 45/65

Hospitals & nursing homes 45/65

Assembly uses (auditoriums, stadiums,
concert halls, theaters, churches, etc.) 45/no limit

Sports arenas & outdoor spectator
sports 45/no limit

Parks, playgrounds, recreation centers,
Fairgrounds & picnic grounds 50/65

Libraries, museums & art galleries 45/65

Golf courses, commercial riding stables
& water recreation 50/65

Commercial office 45/65

307

CHINO ZONING CODE

Manufacturing &
warehouse/distribution no limit/no limit

Public utilities no limit/no limit

Livestock, animal breeding & animal
Keeping no limit/no limit

Agriculture (commercial growing &
field crops) no limit/no limit

Conservation areas & natural
recreation areas 45/65

Legend: Normally Acceptable—Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable—New construction or development shall only be undertaken after a detailed acoustic analysis is prepared recommending measures to mitigate noise impacts to specified interior/exterior levels and mitigation measures are incorporated in the project design.

Normally Unacceptable —New construction or development is discouraged; however, if new construction or development does proceed, a detailed acoustic analysis shall be prepared recommending measures to mitigate noise impacts to specified interior/exterior levels and mitigation measures are incorporated in the project design.

Clearly Unacceptable—New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

06.040
308

CHINO ZONING CODE

20.09.060 – Downtown Overlay District
A. Purpose. The Downtown Overlay District is intended to:

1. Create pedestrian -friendly environments in Downtown Chino that balance the needs of automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

2. Promote high quality urban design in areas in high visibility areas of the city.

B. Residentially Zoned Properties.

1. Development Standards. Residentially zoned properties within the Downtown Overlay District shall comply with the development standards in Table 20.09-3.

2. General Regulations. The design and development of residentially zoned property shall comply with the requirements of Table 20.09 -3, Development Re gulations for Residentially Zoned Properties in Downtown Overlay District.

3. Siting and Orientation. New street curb cuts on lots with alley access are discouraged and require approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer.

4. Compatibility. New primary dwelling units and expansions of existing primary dwelling units shall be compatible with the neighborhood in size, footprint, height, bulk, scale, coverage, and addressing security concerns.

TABLE 20.09-3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES IN DOWNTOWN

OVERLAY DISTRICT
Feature Standard Additional Regulations
Site Requirements
Minimum Lot Area 4,500 sq.ft.

Minimum Lot Width 50 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth 90 ft.

Maximum Density (Dwelling Units Per
Adjusted Gross Acre) 8 DU/AC
Maximum Lot Coverage 45%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.55
Minimum Front Yard Landscape
Coverage 50% Chapter 20.19
309

CHINO ZONING CODE

Maximum Living Area, Accessory Dwelling
Unit Per Section 20.11.020
Maximum Building Height:

Primary Dwelling Unit 2-1/2 Stories or 35 ft.

Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Per Section 20.11.020
Accessory Structures (Other Than
Accessory Dwelling Unit) 1 Story or 14 ft.

Notes:
[1] Units constructed on or before May 20, 1965, without off -street parking shall provide one covered space at the time of any structural enlargement adding more than 5 percent to the gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. Two garage spaces shall be provided for the primary dwelling unit prior to issuance of building permits for a secondary dwelling unit and its required parking. [2] An additional 5 feet of setback shall be provided along primary and secondary arterial streets. [3] A building or structure with a nonconforming side yard setback, in existence on September 16, 1977, may be added to, extended or enlarged, provided that a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing side yard setback is provided. [4] A minimum 20 feet setback must be provided for garages and carports facing a street side yard, measured from the door/opening, to the property line.
[5] Open porches may be constructed in the front and street side setbacks to encroach no closer than 12 feet to the front property line and 5 feet to the street side property line.

5. Specific Requirements. Each use, activity and/or facility shall meet the following requirements:
a. Number of Dwelling Units. No more than two dwelling units shall be permitted on one lot.
b. Rental. Separate sale of the accessory dwelling unit shall not be permitted; however, the unit may be rented.
c. Architecture. The accessory dwelling unit shall match the primary dwelling unit with respect to architectural detail and detailing, roof material, and exterior color and finish materials.
310

CHINO ZONING CODE

6. Review and Approval.
a. Permitted by Right. Review and approval of Accessory Dwelling Units shall meet the provisions of Chapter 20.11.020 – Accessory Dwelling Units.

C. Non-Residentially Zoned Properties. Commercial and other non- residentially zoned properties within the Downtown Overlay District shall comply with the following regulations.

1. Setbacks.
a. Maximum front setback: 10 feet.
b. Building walls shall be built to the front property line for a minimum of 70 percent of the primary street frontage.
c. Setback areas along the primary street frontage may be used only for building entryways, street-facing courtyards, sidewalk, landscape or other similar features. d. The building wall at the street frontage built with a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor consisting of windows or storefronts with views into the building.

2. Building Entrances.
a. Principal building entries shall front upon the primary street. b. Building entries shall be accented with features such as moldings, lighting, overhangs or awnings.

3. Building Mass and Scale.
a. Buildings shall be articulated to reflect a human-scale street frontage rhythm, with building storefront widths of approximately 30 to 50 feet.
b. Minimum ground floor height for retail and office uses: 12 feet. c. Buildings shall have a clearly defined base and roof edge so that the façade has a distinct base, middle and top at a scale that relates to an individual person. 311

CHINO ZONING CODE

5. Pedestrian Orientation.
a. All development shall incorporate features as plazas, interior walkways, paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, plant materials, seating, fountains or other similar features to support attractive pedestrian spaces.
b. Outdoor pedestrian space shall be landscaped and shall include appropriate street furniture to encourage pedestrian activity.
c. Clearly-marked pedestrian connections shall be provided between parking areas and buildings.

6. Parking.
a. Parking areas are prohibited between the building and primary street edge. b. Multi-story parking structures shall be lined with commercial, retail or residential use at the ground floor at street frontages.
c. To the extent possible, all outdoor parking areas should be divided into smaller units to reduce visual impacts associated with large expanses of pavement and vehicles. d. Building siting and parking design shall maximize opportunities for shared parking, access entries and driveways in order to minimize the number of curb cuts and thus limit possible conflict between pedestrians and automobiles.
e. Whenever possible, vehicle access should be provided from side streets and alleys to limit the number of driveways along the main thoroughfares.

7. Landscaping.
a. Street trees shall be included along all street frontages of commercial development. Trees shall be selected from a list of City -approved trees and shall be approved by the director prior to installation.
b. Where pedestrian paths or walkways cross parking areas or driveways, the paths shall incorporate landscaping and decorative paving to define the pedestrian space. c. Where appropriate, landscape beds shall be provided along street curbs. Suitable landscaping beds include pots, planters and sustainable stormwater retention features. d. All landscaped areas shall have automatic irrigation systems installed to ensure that plant materials survive.
e. Landscaped areas, including trees and other planting, as well as paving, walls and fences shall be regularly maintained.
312

CHINO ZONING CODE

1. Due to the high number of small contiguous lots, sporadic existing development, the opportunity to develop the properties behind those fronting onto Central Avenue, the desire to develop the area in an aesthetic and functional manner, and the need to minimize and control traffic flow onto Central Avenue, the City Council has found and declared that the property within the Central Avenue Specific Plan presents unique problems for its development.

2. The Central Avenue Specific Plan is intended to:
a. Promote a positive image for the Central Avenue corridor by attracting quality development and by structuring land use, circulation and urban design in a manner that creates a coherent whole; and
b. Provide specific urban design guidelines to ensure that, as the plan is implemented, each project will contribute positively to the overall character and ambience of Central Avenue.

B. Applicability.

1. The Central Avenue Specific Plan is intended to supplement the provisions of this title. In the event of conflicts between the provisions of the specific plan document and the zoning ordinance of the city, the provisions of the Central Avenue Specific Plan shall apply, unless otherwise specified by this section.

2. In addition to the requirements of the Central Avenue specific plan, the planning commission may impose specific requirements which are reasonably necessary to overcome the problems recognized in subsection A.1 of this section. Upon request of a project applicant, the planning commission shall prepare findings supporting the relationship (nexus) between the standards set forth by this title and the requirements imposed upon a proposed development.

C. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted or conditionally permitted on property within the Central Avenue Specific Plan area shall be in accordance with the zoning district within which such property is located, as shown on the official zoning map and zoning maps distributed for general information to the public, except that, within Central Avenue Specific Plan District 5A and the Downtown/Civic Center Master Plan area, those uses listed within the specific plan shall apply.

D. Development Requirements. The development or alteration of any property, or the erection, installation, alteration or enlargement of any building or structure thereon, shall be subject to the standards and guidelines of the Central Avenue Specific Plan , and the following development requirements:

1. Property shall only be developed in such a manner as to overcome the problems of development recognized in subsection A.1 of this section.

2. The owner(s) of any property upon which a development project is proposed, or the erection, installation, alteration or enlargement of any building or structure thereon, shall convey any and 313

CHINO ZONING CODE

3. Existing residential development which is converted to commercial use shall have a minimum width of 96 feet, measured along the front lot line, except as permitted within District 4A, District 5A, and the Downtown/Civic Center Master Plan area (Phases 1 and 2) of the Central Avenue Specific Plan. Furthermore, the exterior of the structure to be converted may be required to be upgraded to conform to all codes and ordinances in effect at the time of conversion.

4. New commercial development may only occur on lots having a minimum width of 96 feet, measured along the front lot line, except as permitted within District 4A, District 5A, and the Downtown/Civic Center Master Plan area (Phases 1 and 2) of the Central Avenue Specific Plan.

5. Any item not covered by the Central Avenue Specific Plan, shall be governed by the provisions of this title.

20.09.080 – Industrial Planned Development Overlay District A. Purpose. The purpose of the Industrial Planned Development Overlay District is to achieve superior development, as compared to that which can be achieved through the strict application of the standards of a specific zoning district, by permitting greater flexibility in the design of industrial development, and promote a more efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and desirable use of land.

B. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted or conditionally permitted within the Industrial Planned Development Overlay District shall be in accordance with the base zoning district. However, in establishing an Industrial Planned Development Overlay District or approving a project within an Industrial Planned Development Overlay District, the Planning Commission and/or City Council may limit, or for mixed -use developments, add certain land uses, finding that such revisions are necessary to enhance the quality and character of the development and to ensure the compatibility between uses located within a planned development project and with existing or potential uses within the general area of the site. For the purpose of this section, a mixed -use development shall be considered a development that consists of a variety of complementary uses including, but not limited to:
residential, office, commercial retail and entertainment, that is planned and designed as a unified, comprehensive project area and that is visually integrated through architectural design, and functionally integrated through the use of shared vehicular and pedestrian access and parking areas.

C. Special Conditional Use Permit Required. An application for a Special Conditional Use Permit shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 20.23.080 of this Code for any modifications to an existing Industrial Planned Development Overlay District. An application for a Zone Change shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of 20.23.060 of this Code for the establishment of an Industrial Planned Development Overlay District, and shall set forth a master plan of development for property located within the Industrial Planned Development Overlay District.
314

CHINO ZONING CODE

OVERLAY DISTRICTS CHAPTER 20.09
Part 2 –Zoning Districts July 2010
Revised: July 2014 (Ordinance No. 2014-013) Revised: April 2016 (Ordinance No. 2016-005) Revised: August 2017 (Ordinance No. 2017-009) Revised: October 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-013) Revised: March 2020 (Ordinance No. 2020-006) Revised: April 2023 (Ordinance No. 2023-008 Revised: December 2024 (Ordinance No. 2024-003)
56 20.09.090 – Overlay Districts for Affordable Housing A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the overlay districts for affordable housing – the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district and the Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) district – is to promote the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households in specific areas identified in the General Plan at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre if affordability requirements established in this section are met. More specifically, the AHO and MUO allow residential uses where they would not otherwise be allowed and provide for additional density in return for projects providing more affordable housing. The AHO is intended for standalone affordable housing projects, while the MUO provides for mixed use development with affordable housing either on upper floors or in separate buildings. This section also provides the residential development community two alternatives for construction of affordable housing within market -rate development and offers a streamlined process for administrative review of qualifying projects with affordable housing using checklists and objective standards as required by State law.

B. Relation to Base Zoning. The AHO and MUO district regulations shall apply in the case of a conflict with the base zoning district regulations when a housing project is proposed. However, when an applicant proposes only non-residential uses, then only the base zoning district land use regulations and development standards apply. The AHO and MUO regulations and development standards only apply to proposed housing projects.

C. Permitted Uses. Table 20.09-4 identifies residential land uses permitted in the AHO and MUO districts in addition to the uses that are permitted within the existing base zoning district.

T
ABLE 20.09-4 ADDITIONAL LAND USES PERMITTED IN AHO AND MUO DISTRICTS Uses
District
Additional Regulations
AHO and MUO
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Units P Section 20.11.020
Multiple-Family Dwellings P
Senior Housing Projects P Section 20.21.340
Warehousing and Storage
Public Storage C-MUO only Sections 20.21.210 and 20.09.090(E)(4)

D. Required Density and Increased Density for Affordable Housing.

1. Minimum and maximum density.
a. Rental projects. The maximum density for residential development with rental units in the AHO and MUO districts shall be 26 units per adjusted gross acre unless a project qualifies for additional density by providing more affordable housing pursuant to subsection (2) 315

CHINO ZONING CODE

2. Additional density for affordable rental housing. An increase in the maximum density is allowed, as shown in Table 20.09 -5, for qualifying residential development with rental units if the percentage of low income units meets or exceeds the percentages shown, provided that the maximum density shall not exceed 30 units per adjusted gross acre.

TABLE 20.09-5 ADDITIONAL DENSITY FOR QUALIFYING AFFORDABLE RENTAL

HOUSING PROJECTS IN AHO AND MUO DISTRICTS
Maximum Allowable Density (Units per Adjusted Gross Acre) 26 27 28 29 30
Percent Affordable Units Required in Rental Projects:

Low Income Units 9 10 11 12 13

3. Additional density under state law. Applicants also may be eligible for a density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions under the State Density Bonus Law, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, and other applicable State laws.

E. Additional Land Use Regulations for MUO District.

1. Types of mixed use allowed. Both horizontal and vertical mixed use development shall be allowed in the MUO district.
a. Horizonal mixed use development allows a range of uses adjacent to one another, either in separate buildings or parcels. Individual buildings may share project components, such as parking, serving, loading, and utility areas.
b. Vertical mixed use allows for a mix of uses within a single building where non -residential uses occupy the ground floor and residential uses are on the upper levels. A vertical mixed use project may have surface parking, subterranean parking decks, and/or at grade and above grade parking decks.

2. Minimum amount of residential use required in a mixed -use project. In a mixed -use project, at least fifty percent of the gross floor area shall be reserved for residential use.

3. One hundred percent residential use allowed. Projects developed in the MUO district may be one hundred percent residential. No minimum percentage of non-residential use is required. 316

CHINO ZONING CODE

5. Public Storage Facilities. In addition to the requirements of Section 20.21.210, public storage shall comply with the following standards:
a. Minimum site size. Public storage facilities are only allowed within mixed use development on sites with of five acres or more.
b. Setbacks. Public storage facilities shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from front and street side property lines.
c. Maximum building height. If freestanding, the maximum building height for a public storage facility shall not exceed the building height of an adjacent residential only or mixed us building.
d. Maximum floor area. The maximum floor area for public storage facilities on a site shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area for all residential and non-residential uses. e. Exterior building materials. The exterior building materials, colors, and finishes of the public storage facility shall be the same as those used for residential and mixed use buildings on the project site to create a unified appearance f. Building articulation. The building facades of public storage facilities that face streets or residential and mixed use buildings in a project shall include building projections or recesses, doorways or window trim, and other details that provide architectural articulation and visual interest.
g. On-site management. On- site, 24-hour management shall be provided, and the Planning Commission may establish specific hours of operation as a condition of approval of a conditional use permit for a public storage facility.

F. Development Standards for the AHO District. All residential development in the AHO district shall comply with the development standards in Table 20.09 -6 and the supplemental design standards following the table; and with the Multiple-Family Residential Design Standards in Section 20.17.050 to the extent these are not superseded by the supplemental design standards following the table. If no housing is proposed, then non- residential development must comply only with the standards of the base zoning district with which the AHO district is combined and the Commercial Design Standards in Section 20.17.070.
317

CHINO ZONING CODE

DISTRICT
Feature Standards Additional Regulations
Site Requirements
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft.

Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 65%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (non-residential Space) 0.85 Note 1 Minimum Landscape Coverage 15% See Chapter 20.19
Refuse Storage and Recycling See Chapter 20.10.060
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height 40 feet Note 2
Minimum Setbacks:

Front 15 feet Notes 3, 4, and 5
Rear 10 feet; 15 feet if adjacent
to a Residential or
Industrial District See also Subsection (F)(1).

Interior Side 5 feet; 10 feet if adjacent to
a Residential District
Street Side 10 feet Chapter 20.18 and Notes 3, 4, and 5 Minimum Building Separations 15 feet
Other Requirements
Off-street parking and loading for non-residential uses See Chapter 20.18 (Parking) Street curb cuts Note 6
Notes:
[1] Additional FAR is allowed up to 1.25 for projects with affordable rental units. The amount of additional FAR shall be cal culated based on the increase in density allowed for qualifying projects meeting affordable housing criteria. For example, if a project receives a one unit per acre increase in density, then it receives a 0.125 increase in allowable FAR. [2] Additional height is allowed up to 45 feet for lots with at least 100 feet of primary street frontage to enable provision of sloped roofs and common open space for recreational facilities. The upper story above 40 feet shall be setback back an additional seven feet from the interior property line if the project is adjacent to a Residential zoning district. [3] The front setback may be reduced to 10 feet on the following streets: Riverside Drive and Central Avenue. [4] A minimum 20-foot setback must be provided for garages and carports facing a street. [5] Open or covered porches may be constructed in the front and street side setbacks to encroach no closer than 12 feet to th e front property line and 5 feet to the street side property line. [6] New street curb cuts are not allowed on lots with alley access unless approved by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer to accommodate affordable housing units.

1. Required side and rear yards for residential uses. In order to provide light and air for residential units and additional separation for rooms that contain areas that require additional privacy considerations, the following minimum setbacks shall apply to any building wall containing windows and facing an interior side or rear yard. The required setbacks apply to that portion of the building wall containing and extending 3 feet on either side of any window. a. For any wall containing living room or other primary room windows, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be provided.
b. For any wall containing sleeping room windows, a setback of at least 10 feet shall be provided.
c. For all other walls containing windows, a setback of at least 5 feet shall be provided. 318

CHINO ZONING CODE

3. Building entrances.
a. Principal building entries shall front upon the primary street or be in a visually -prominent location as determined by the Director of Development Services. b. Building entries shall be accented with features such as moldings, lighting, overhangs, or awnings.

4. Building mass and scale.
a. To reduce upper -story building mass, floorplates for the third story and above shall not exceed 80 percent of the ground -floor floorplate. The Director of Development Services may waive this requirement upon finding the architectural articulation of exterior walls and a sloped roof modulates the visual mass of the top of the building and avoids the appearance of a box-like structure.
b. Buildings that are more than 150 feet in length shall include a minimum 2 -foot vertical variation in height for at least 50 feet.

5. Pedestrian orientation and accessible pedestrian facilities on designated streets. a. Along Riverside Drive and Central Avenue south of Highway 60, all development on sites over two acres in size shall incorporate such features as plazas, interior walkways, canopies, arcades, paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, plant materials, seating, fountains, or other similar features, as appropriate, to support and enhance pedestrian spaces. b. Outdoor pedestrian space shall be landscaped and shall include appropriate street furniture to encourage pedestrian activity.
c. Clearly marked pedestrian connections shall be provided between parking areas and buildings.
d. All sidewalks, crosswalks, courts, plazas and residential buildings shall be designed to be safe, accessible, and convenient for individuals of all abilities, whether travelling by foot, wheelchair, or other mobility aid, consistent with the City’s adopted Policy on Accessible Pedestrian Facilities.
319

CHINO ZONING CODE

7. Landscaping.
a. Street trees shall be included along all street frontages with multi -family housing development. Trees shall be selected from a list of City -approved trees and shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to installation. b. Where pedestrian paths or walkways cross parking areas or driveways, the paths shall incorporate landscaping and decorative paving to define the pedestrian space.

G. Development standards for the MUO district. All residential-only buildings and mixed use development with residential units in the MUO district shall comply with the development standards in Table 20.09 -7 and the supplemental design standards following the table, and with the Multiple - Family Residential Design Standards in Section 20.17.050 and the Mixed Use Design Standards in Section 20.17.060 to the extent these are not superseded by the supplemental design standards following the table. Non-residential development shall comply with the standards of the base zoning district with which the MUO district is combined and the Commercial Design Standards in Section

20.17.070.

TABLE 20.09-7 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN

MUO DISTRICT
Feature Standard Additional Regulations
Site Requirements
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft.

Minimum Lot Width 100 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 80%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(non-residential space)

1.0 Note 1
Minimum Landscape Coverage 15% See Chapter 20.19
Refuse Storage and Recycling See Chapter 20.10.060
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height 50 feet Note 2
Minimum Setbacks (ft.):

Front 10 feet; 15 feet if ground floor is
residential
Notes 3 and 5
320

CHINO ZONING CODE

OVERLAY DISTRICTS CHAPTER 20.09
Part 2 –Zoning Districts July 2010
Revised: July 2014 (Ordinance No. 2014-013) Revised: April 2016 (Ordinance No. 2016-005) Revised: August 2017 (Ordinance No. 2017-009) Revised: October 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-013) Revised: March 2020 (Ordinance No. 2020-006) Revised: April 2023 (Ordinance No. 2023-008 Revised: December 2024 (Ordinance No. 2024-003)
62 Rear 10 feet; 15 feet adjacent to a
Residential District See also Subsection (G)(1). Interior Side 0 feet; 10 feet adjacent to a Residential District
Street Side 10 feet Notes 3, 4, and 5
Minimum Building Separations 15 feet
Other Requirements
Off-street parking and loading for
non-residential uses
See Chapter 20.18
Street curb cuts Note 6
Notes:
[1] Additional FAR is allowed up to 1.25 in mixed use development with affordable rental units. The amount of additional FAR shall be calculated based on the increase in density allowed for qualifying projects meeting affordable housing criteria. For example, if a project receives a one unit per acre increase in density, then it receives a 0.0625 increase in allowable FAR. [2] Additional height is allowed up to 55 feet for lots with 100 feet of street frontage to enable provision of sloped roofs and common open space for recreational facilities. The upper story above 40 feet shall be setback back an additional seven feet from the interior property line if the project is adjacent to a Residential zoning district. [3] A minimum 15 feet of front and street side setback shall be provided along primary and secondary arterial streets. A reduced front setback may be allowed on the following streets: Riverside, Central, and Euclid. [4] A minimum 20-foot setback must be provided for garages and carports facing a street. [5] Open or covered porches may be constructed in the front and street side setbacks to encroach no closer than 12 feet to the front property line and 5 feet to the street side property line. [6] New street curb cuts are not allowed on lots with alley access unless approved by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer to accommodate for affordable housing units.

a. For any wall containing living room or other primary room windows, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be provided
b. For any wall containing sleeping room windows, a setback of at least 10 feet shall be provided.
c. For all other walls containing windows, a setback of least 5 feet shall be provided.

2. Required building wall on designated streets. Along Riverside Drive and Central Avenue south of Highway 60, building walls shall be constructed along or within 10 feet of the front property line for a minimum of 70 percent of the primary street frontage and 40 percent on secondary street frontages. This requirement may be waived by the Director of Development Services upon finding that:
a. Ground-floor residential uses are proposed, a minimum 15-foot setback is proposed, and substantial landscaping will be located between the build-to and ground-floor residential units as a buffer;
321

CHINO ZONING CODE

3. Required ground floor transparency for non-residential uses. Exterior walls for non-residential ground-floor uses facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area between 2 feet and 8 feet above the sidewalk. No wall shall run in a horizontal plane more than 25 feet without an opening.
a. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into display areas, sales areas, work area, lobbies or other active spaces, and window displays shall be at least 3 feet in depth.
b. Parking garages are not required to meet these transparency requirements. c. Alternatives to the building transparency requirement may be approved by the Director of Development Services for uses that have unique operational requirements making windows or doors infeasible or for street-facing building walls that exhibit architectural relief and detail with landscaping that creates visual interest at the pedestrian level.

4. Building entrances.
a. Principal building entries shall front upon the primary street. b. Building entries shall be accented with features such as moldings, lighting, overhangs, or awnings.

5. Building mass and scale.
a. To reduce upper-story building mass, floorplates for the fourth story shall not exceed 80 percent of the ground-floor floorplate. The Director of Development Services may waive this requirement upon finding the architectural articulation of exterior walls and a sloped roof modulates the visual mass of the top of the building and avoids the appearance of a box-like structure.
b. Buildings that are more than 150 feet in length shall include a minimum 2-foot vertical variation in height for at least 50 feet.
c. To maintain a human-scale at the street level where ground floor commercial space is provided, building storefront widths shall not exceed 30 feet without a recess or a break, which may be a building entry or a separate display window. d. Minimum ground floor height for commercial uses, including retail shops, restaurants, and offices: 14 feet.

6. Pedestrian orientation and accessible pedestrian facilities on designated streets. a. Along Riverside Drive and Central Avenue south of Highway 60, all development on sites over two acres in size shall incorporate features such as plazas, interior walkways, canopies, 322

CHINO ZONING CODE

OVERLAY DISTRICTS CHAPTER 20.09
Part 2 –Zoning Districts July 2010
Revised: July 2014 (Ordinance No. 2014-013) Revised: April 2016 (Ordinance No. 2016-005) Revised: August 2017 (Ordinance No. 2017-009) Revised: October 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-013) Revised: March 2020 (Ordinance No. 2020-006) Revised: April 2023 (Ordinance No. 2023-008 Revised: December 2024 (Ordinance No. 2024-003)
64 arcades, paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, plant materials, seating, fountains, or other similar features, as appropriate, to support and enhance pedestrian spaces. b. Outdoor pedestrian space shall be landscaped and shall include appropriate street furniture to encourage pedestrian activity.
c. Clearly marked pedestrian connections shall be provided between parking areas and buildings.
d. Encroachments into the public right-of-way are allowed for outdoor seating in conjunction with full-service restaurants and food retailers, provided a minimum 6-foot wide walkway and pedestrian clear zone is maintained, and the outdoor eating area is contiguous with interior eating space and does not encroach into the public right-of-way of an adjacent business. An encroachment permit issued by the City is required, and a fee may be charged.
e. All sidewalks, crosswalks, courts, plazas, and residential buildings shall be designed to be safe, accessible, and convenient for individuals of all abilities, whether travelling by foot, wheelchair, or other mobility aid, consistent with the City’s adopted Policy on Accessible Pedestrian Facilities.

7. Parking.
a. Long-term parking and residents’ guest parking areas are prohibited between the building and primary street edge. On-site parking shall be in the rear of buildings in the back half of the lot or development site. Short-term drop-off spaces, short-term parking for retail shops, and a limited number of parking spaces for guests of residents may be allowed with valet service in courtyards and at building entries with approval of the Planning Commission.
b. Multi-story parking structures within 25 feet of a street frontage shall be buffered with foundation planting or lined with commercial, retail, or residential use at the ground floor. c. Building siting and parking design shall maximize opportunities for shared parking, access entries and driveways in order to minimize the number of curb cuts and thus limit possible conflict between pedestrians and automobiles.
d. Whenever possible, vehicle access shall be provided from side streets and alleys to limit the number of driveways along arterial streets.

8. Landscaping.
a. Street trees shall be included along all street frontages of mixed-use development. Trees shall be selected from a list of city-approved trees and shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to installation.
b. Where pedestrian paths or walkways cross parking areas or driveways, the paths shall incorporate landscaping and decorative paving to define the pedestrian space. 323

CHINO ZONING CODE

OVERLAY DISTRICTS CHAPTER 20.09
Part 2 –Zoning Districts July 2010
Revised: July 2014 (Ordinance No. 2014-013) Revised: April 2016 (Ordinance No. 2016-005) Revised: August 2017 (Ordinance No. 2017-009) Revised: October 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-013) Revised: March 2020 (Ordinance No. 2020-006) Revised: April 2023 (Ordinance No. 2023-008 Revised: December 2024 (Ordinance No. 2024-003)
65 H. Open spaces standards for residential projects. The open space requirements of the Multiple- Family Residential Design Standards in Section 20.17.050 for private areas and common areas shall apply to all proposed residential development and to residential units in mixed use development with the following modifications. Private areas shall consist of balconies, decks, patios, or fenced yards directly accessible from the residence. Common areas shall consist of landscaped areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, picnic and barbeque areas, playgrounds, children’s play areas, playing courts, turf, rooftop areas, gym and fitness facilities, space for yoga, dance and instruction, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor living environment of the development and to provide recreational facilities for residents. Landscaped courtyard entries that are oriented towards the public street and create a welcoming entry feature are also considered common areas. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular accessways, trash enclosures, and similar items or devoted to perimeter landscaping shall be developed as common areas with the types of attributes described above.

1. Minimum amount of outdoor living area (private or common open space). The minimum percentage of net lot area devoted to permanent open space is 20 percent, and the minimum area to be devoted to outdoor living area (private or common open space) shall be 400 square feet per unit.

2. Minimum amount of private open space. The minimum amount of private open space shall be at least 25 percent of the amount of outdoor living area required. This space shall be provided on patios, decks or balconies shall be as follows:
a. Ground floor units: 150 square feet patio with a minimum horizontal dimension of 10 feet or 72 square foot deck with a minimum horizontal dimension of 6 feet; and b. Upper level units: 72 square feet with a minimum horizontal dimension of 6 feet.

3. Minimum amount of common open space areas. A minimum of 65 percent of the required outdoor living area shall be provided as common open space with a minimum horizontal dimension of 20 feet. This common open space shall be a well-designed, coherent area that is an essential component of the project’s design, not merely space left over after the building mass is placed.
a. Landscape areas having minimum dimensions of less than 20 feet but at least five feet at any point which are contiguous with and an integral part of the common open space or are connected to the common open space by walkways, may be included in calculating the area of such space. Non-contiguous landscape areas proposed to be included shall not exceed 20 percent of the total area of common open space. b. Up to one-half of covered patio areas designed to be commonly used by residents of a development may be included in calculation of common open space provided such area does not comprise more than 25 percent of the total common open space. c. Up to 15 percent of the required common open space area may be provided within a recreational building.

4. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood 324

CHINO ZONING CODE

I. Minimum affordable housing requirement.

2. Calculations. All calculations of the number of affordable units required to be built on-site in a project that result in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

3. Common owners and control. An applicant for development within an AHO or MUO district shall not avoid the requirements of this section by submitting piecemeal planning applications.

CHINO ZONING CODE

K. Review Procedures.

CHINO ZONING CODE

1. The number and proportion of housing units affordable to moderate-income, low-income, and very-low income households by type, their location, and the number of bedrooms in each one;

2. Standards for maximum qualifying household incomes and maximum rents or sale prices;

3. Minimum home buyer payments and sources of funds for them;

4. The party responsible for certifying rents and sales prices of affordable housing units and reporting this information to the City;

5. The process that will be used to certify incomes of tenants or purchasers of the affordable housing units;

6. The manner in which vacancies will be marketed and filled, including the screening and qualifying of prospective renters and purchasers of the affordable units; 329

CHINO ZONING CODE

10. Project phasing, including the timing of completions, and rental or sale of the affordable housing units, in relation to the timing of the market-rate units.

3. The fund shall be administered by the Director of Development Services.

4. A developer receiving funding from the fund shall implement a local preference in their resident selection criteria.

330

CHINO ZONING CODE

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

TABLE LU-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION ACREAGES (CONTINUED)
LU-9

Land Use

1. Residential Land Use Designations
The residential designations include seven distinct designations of varying density.

They permit certain non -residential uses including places of worship, day care centers, schools, libraries, and recreational facilities.

341

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT
LU-12

b. MU30
This designation allows for higher density mixed -use developments and is reserved only for key central locations. There will be similar uses to the mixed -use medium 342

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

LU-13

density designation, but additional residential density is allowed. Maximum residential density will be 30 dwelling units per gross acre and FAR is 1.5.

d. Office Commercial
While office uses are allowed in all commercial designations , the office co mmercial designation applies to areas to be used predominantly for offices. The FAR is 1.0.

4. Industrial Land Use Designations
Chino has f our categories of industrial land uses to plan for the large indu strial economy in the City.

343

CITY OF CHINO

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT

LU-19

The AHO is intended for standalone affordable and mixed income housing projects at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

The MUO provides for mixed use development with affordable housing either on upper floors or in separate buildings at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

Measure M prevents the change of any land zoned non-residential to residential use and the rezoning of any land zoned reside ntial for higher density residential use .

Any such changes must be made through another ba llot initiative. The ordinance applies to the zoning map as it was on November 8, 1988. The following text constitutes the General Plan policies enacted by the Measure M ordinance:
♦ Section 1: To insure the quality of the residential environment and the qua lity of life in the City of Chino, the People of the City of Chino hereby declare their intent to establish maximum densities for residential lands and to prevent the increase of land designated for residential uses within the City of Chino. 344
1 Gonzaga, Natalie
From: Morelion, Warren
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 4:14 PM
To: Robert Nigg; Reich, Linda
Cc: Hitz, Michael; Gilbert, Andrea; Gonzaga, Natalie
Subject: Re: [EXT EMAIL] FAR Appeal - Public Notice
Good afternoon Bob,

We are in receipt of your follow up email to the City Manager. We have provided the explanation that no publication is required per the City’s Municipal Code. Regardless, we will include your correspondence below as part of the appeal packet.

Respectfully,

Warren Morelion, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Chino | Development Services Department
13220 Central Avenue | Chino, CA 91710
PO Box 667 | Chino, CA 91708
Direct Phone 909-334-3332

www.cityofchino.org

From: Robert Nigg
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:24 PM
To: Reich, Linda <[email protected]>; Morelion, Warren <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXT EMAIL] FAR Appeal - Public Notice

To: Linda Reich, City Manager, City of Chino
Cc: Warren Morelion, Director of Development Services

I am in disagreement with the response made by Warren today. I believe Warren’s response is just another example of the lack of transparency and accountability being demonstrated by city staff.

First of all, my appeal was made under Section 20.23.150.B.1 of the zoning code which reads: “ Any applicant or any interested person may appeal to the city council, any action or decision of the planning commission.” The Planning Commission clearly took action by voting and made a decision to deny my appeal during the planning commission meeting held on February 19, 2025. 345
2 Under TABLE 20.23-2 MINIMUM PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS , the zoning code unmistakably states that an “Appeal of a Planning Commission action not affecting specific real property” requires a “public hearing” and to “publish” the notice of the hearing. This Table also states “Additional regulations” are required under “20.23.140.C.2”. This Subsection states: “A public notice shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, at least ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.”
It would be capricious and arbitrary, and without any logical foundation for the city to maintain an appeal of an action by the planning commission is not appealable to the city council under the requirements of Table 20.23-2, Subsection 20.23.140.C.2 and Section 20.23.150.B.1. I can think of no other reason for the public notice and publication of the hearing not being completed in accordance with the city zoning code other than it is the intent of the city’s staff to limit the public’s right to know what is going on in the city.

Furthermore, my original appeal to the planning commission heard on February 19, 2025 was made under 20.23.150.A.1 in accordance with Section 20.02.030.D. Unfortunately, the city’s zoning code has erroneous information under Section 20.02.030.D. Wherein this Subsection provides that: “ Appeals.

Any interpretation of the zoning code by the director of community development may be appealed to the planning commission as provided in Subsection 20.22.130.I (Appeals) .” There is no Subsection 20.22.130.I . The appropriate and proper Section for Appeals, is deemed to be Section 20.23.150 - Appeals.

Notwithstanding Section 20.23.150.A.1, there was also the right of a citizen to appeal a Director’s interpretation of the zoning code under Section 20.02.030.D. For further clarification, I have included Section 20.02.030 below and also inquires made on the internet for guidance on how zoning director’s interpretations can be appealed as an action or decision.

I look forward to your prompt response before making any postings of my concerns to the Fern/Schaefer Facebook site. It is also requested that this correspondence be included in the agenda packet to be provided to the city council for my hearing scheduled for April 15, 2025.

Thanks in advance,
Bob Nigg
Chino Zoning Code

20.02.030 - Procedures for interpretation.

A. Request of interpretation. The director of community development shall respond in writing to any written request for interpretation of the regulations set forth in this title, and the following procedure shall apply:

1. The written request shall state which provision is to be interpreted, and it shall provide any information that the director of community development deems necessary to assist in the review.

2. The director of community development shall respond to an interpretation request within thirty days of receiving the request.

3. The director of community development may refer any request for interpretation to the planning commission for a determination.
346
3 B. Form and content of interpretation. Official interpretations prepared by the director of community development shall be in writing, and shall quote the provisions of the regulations that are being interpreted. The interpretation shall describe the circumstance that caused the need for the interpretation.

C. Official record of interpretations.

An official record of interpretations shall be kept on file by the community development department. The record of interpretations shall be indexed by the number of the section that is the subject of the interpretation and made available for public inspection during normal business hours.

D. Appeals.

Any interpretation of the zoning code by the director of community development may be appealed to the planning commission as provided in Subsection 20.22.130.I (Appeals). If the appeal results in a change of interpretation, the new interpretation shall be filed in the official record of interpretations.
(Ord. 2010-05, § 1(exh. A), 2010.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See below for examples of AI generated responses to internet inquiries for appeal rights for interpretations made by zoning directors in California.

It appears artificial intelligence may have more
intellect than the whimsical and unsupported responses being provided by city staff.

California zoning laws, is a written interpretation by the zoning director an action and/or decision?
In California zoning law, a written interpretation by a zoning director, depending on the specific context and local ordinances, can be considered both an action and a decision that can be appealed, as it interprets and applies zoning regulations.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
 Action:

The zoning director's interpretation is an action because it involves applying the zoning code to a specific situation or question, thereby influencing the application of the zoning regulations.  Decision:

The interpretation is a decision because it determines the meaning or applicability of a zoning requirement, which can impact the rights and obligations of property owners and developers.  Appealability:
347
4 Planning Commissions and City Councils often have the authority to review and potentially overturn the zoning director's interpretation, meaning the interpretation is a decision that can be appealed.  Example:

If a zoning director interprets a zoning ordinance to allow a specific type of development in a certain zone, that interpretation is both an action (applying the zoning code) and a decision (determining the allowed uses).
 Local Ordinances:

The specific procedures for issuing and appealing zoning director interpretations are typically outlined in local zoning ordinances, so it's important to consult the specific ordinances of the city or county where the property is located.
 Written Record:

Interpretations are often required to be in writing and include the facts and reasons supporting the interpretation. This ensures transparency and provides a record for review.  Public Review:

The planning department may also be required to maintain records of interpretations for public review.

California zoning laws, is a written interpretation by the zoning director appealable? Yes, in California, a written interpretation by a zoning director is generally appealable, and the specific appeal process is typically outlined in the local zoning ordinance or municipal code.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Authority to Interpret:

The zoning director (or Community Development Director) often has the authority to interpret the zoning regulations, but these interpretations are not always final.

Appealability:

Many zoning ordinances provide for appeals of the zoning director's interpretations, allowing affected parties to challenge the interpretation.

Appeal Authority:

The appeal authority is usually a Planning Commission or City Council, depending on the specific local jurisdiction.

Appeal Process:

The appeal process typically involves filing a written appeal within a specific timeframe (e.g., 14 calendar days) after the mailing or posting of the notice of decision.

Content of Appeal:

The written appeal should include the name and address of the person filing the appeal, the specific decision being appealed, a description of the grounds for the appeal, and applicable filing fees.

Review by Appeal Authority:

The appeal authority will then review the record and any additional evidence presented and may affirm, reverse, or modify the zoning director's interpretation.

Judicial Review:

In some cases, a final decision by the appeal authority may be subject to judicial review.

Statute of Limitations:
348
5 It's important to note that there may be a statute of limitations for filing appeals, so it's crucial to act promptly.

Local Variations:

The specific procedures for appealing zoning director interpretations can vary from city to city, so it's essential to consult the local zoning ordinance or municipal code for guidance.

On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 10:44:07 AM PDT, Morelion, Warren <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Bob-

The appeal does not require a public notice in the paper. The appeal will be posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meeting as required.

I hope this answers your question.

Respectfully,

Warren Morelion, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Chino | Development Services Department
13220 Central Avenue | Chino, CA 91710
PO Box 667 | Chino, CA 91708
Direct Phone 909-334-3332

www.cityofchino.org

From: Robert Nigg
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Reich, Linda <[email protected]>; Morelion, Warren <[email protected]> Subject: [EXT EMAIL] FAR Appeal - Public Notice

Date: April 7, 2025
Subject: FAR Appeal
To: Linda Reich, City Manager, City of Chino
Cc: Warren Morelion, Director of Development Services Hi Linda,
I am looking forward to my FAR appeal before the city council on April 15, 2025. I checked the April 5-11, 2025 edition of the Chino Champion for the public notice as required under Table 20.23-5 and Section 20.23.140.C.2 of the zoning code. Unfortunately, I could not find any public notice posting in the Champion.
349
6 Could you please advise me if the public notice of my appeal was posted, and if so, what newspaper of general circulation within the city was the notice published.

If the public notice was not published, could you please promptly provide an explanation to me as to why a public notice was not published.

Thanks,
Robert Nigg

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please verify sender email. If unknown, DO NOT open links/attachments. NEVER give out your user ID or password for any reason!
'
350

Chino City CouncilApril 15, 2025

Chino City Council
April 15, 2025