Ontario City Council
August 2, 2022

The responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the Airport Land Use Commission s (“ALUC”) within each county . However, State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an “Alternative Process” wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process when this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (Assembly Bill 2831). Specific requirements for implementation of the Alternative Process are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2).

Use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the Cit y of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport.

(2) Proposed Chino Airport Overlay District — The existing 1991 Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”). Although, the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries.

The basic function of the proposed ALUCP for Chino Airport ( “CNO”) is to promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses impacted within the City of Ontario. The main objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities. In addition, the ALUCP is aimed at addressing future land uses and development and compatibility with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan. The ALUCP does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration, or use of the airport.

The ALUCP addresses four compatibility facto rs which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight impacts. The compatibility plan includes policies to evaluate, land use plans and new development proposals for consistency with CNO. Each compatibility factor takes into consideration pre sent and future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect airport operations.

(a) Safety Zones — The intent of the safety compatibility policies are to minimize the risks associated with an off -airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential risks to people and property if such events where to occur.

The ALUCP relies on the Handbook ’s generic safety zones for general aviation runways for delineating the CNO safety zone boundaries. Portions of Safety Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 549
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

are located within Ontario city limits and are depicted in Exhibit B—Chino Airport Safety Zones. Safety Zone 5 is located outside of the Ontario city limits and not included in the CNO ALUCP. The safety zones around CNO affect both the intensity of development (i.e., number of people allowed per acre of land), and total permissible floor area of any future building developed. The safety zones also place restrictions on new residential land uses from being developed within the affected areas along with special land uses, such as schools.

(b) Noise — The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establishment of noise-sensitive land uses in the portions of the CNO AIA that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. For compatibility planning purposes, the noise contours reflect the County’s aircraft activity forecast of 209,400 annual operations for 2025 that is considered to be representative of the likely maximum number of aircraft operations that could be realized over the 20-year forecast period (2039) and are shown in Figure 1: Chino CNEL Contours (2025). For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 60 dB CNEL is suitable for new residential development and other noise sensitive land uses around most airports.

Figure 1 shows that only the 55 dB CNEL contour affects lands within the City of Ontario.

Since the 60 dB CNEL does not extend into the City of Ontario no significant impacts are anticipated and therefore no noise policies and criteria are included within the CNO ALUCP.

(c) Airspace Protection — Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent creation of land use features that can be hazards to aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident to occur. Such hazards may be physical such as a building being built too high, or land uses on the ground that may cause visual or electronic hazards. The factors considered in setting airspace protection po licies in include the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. To determine the allowable heights of future objects surrounding CNO, the underlying ground elevation is compared

Figure 1: Chino CNEL Contours (2025)
550
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

with the elevation of the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77 and is depicted in Exhibit C—Chino Airport Airspace Protection Zones.

(d) Overflight — Noise from individual aircraft operations, can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the noise impacts zones. Sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another . The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make informed decisions regarding acquisition or lease of property in the affected areas. Overflight compatibility is particularly important with regard to residential land uses. The boundaries of the overflight notification zones around CNO are depicted in Exhibit D—Chino Airport Overflight Notification Zones.

(3) ALUCP and General Plan Lan d Use Consistency — State Law requires General Plans and Specific Plans must be made consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans. Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that General Plans and any applicable Specific Plans “shall be consistent with” the Compatibility Plan and is reiterated in local agencies’ obligations under the Alternative Process (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(D)) . General Plans do not need to be identical with the ALUCP in order to achieve consistency. Affected jurisdictions’ General Plans must do the following: (1) address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other policy document; and (2) must avoid direct conflicts with the (ALUCP) development policies and criteria.

The consistency requirement pertains only to future land use development . Nothing in state law or the ALUCP requires that already existing development be removed or modified to eliminate incompatibilities that may already exist. Furthermore, General Plans and Specific Plans can show such land uses as continuing even though they would be nonconforming with the ALUCP criteria . Conflicts of this type do not constitute inconsistencies between a General Plan or Specific Plan and the ALUCP.

(4) Development Code Amendment — The proposed Development Code Amendment consists of the following:

(a) Chapter 5 — Provisions to establish the Chino Airport Overlay zoning district within Chapter 5 Development Code Section 5.01.005.F.6 (see Attachment A of the Planning Commission Resolution); and

(b) Reference – Provisions to establish Reference L the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan within the Reference section of the Development Cod e (see Attachment B of the Planning Commission Resolution).

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed pro ject is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan (“TOP”). More 551
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed project are as follows:

(1) City Council Goals.

 Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
 Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in the New Model Colony

(2) Governance.

Decision Making:

 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.

 G1-2 Long-term Benefit . We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision

(3) Policy Plan (General Plan)

Land Use Element:

 Goal LU 5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.

 LU5-3 Airport Impacts : We work with agencies to maximize resources to mitigate the impacts and hazards related to airport operations.

 LU5-6 Alternative Process: We fulfill our responsibilities and comply with state law with regard to the Alternative Process for proper airport land use compatibility planning.

 LU5-7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations: We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use airport.

 LU5-8 Chino Airport: We will support the creation and implementation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for al l public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with 552
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area , as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Chino ALUCP does not create any conflicting policies or inconsistencies with the ONT ALUCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed Development Code Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”) and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption (general rule) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

553
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

EXHIBIT A— CHINO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA

554
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

EXHIBIT B— CHINO AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES

555
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

EXHIBIT C— CHINO AIRPORT AIRSPACE PROTECTION ZONES

556
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

EXHIBIT D— CHINO AIRPORT OVERFLIGHT NOTIFICATION ZONES

557
RESOLUTION NO. PC22-032

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PDCA22-004, A DEVELOPMENT CODE

AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF ONTARIO

DEVELOPMENT CODE, ESTABLISHING THE CHINO AIRPORT

OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND REFERENCE L , CHINO AIRPORT

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.

WHEREAS, The City of Ontario ("Applican t") has initiated a Development Code Amendment, File No. PDCA22-004, as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Development Code (Ontario Municipal Code Title 9) provides the legislative framework for the implementation of The Ontario Plan, which establishes long term principals, goals, and policies for guiding the growth and development of the City in a manner that achieves Ontario's vision, and promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Chino Airport is a general aviation airport located within the City of Chino, immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the City of Ontario. The geographic scope of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) is the Airport Influence Area (“AIA”). The portion of the AIA within the City of Ontario is generally bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Merrill Avenue/southern boundary City limits to the south, Euclid Avenue to the west and Haven Avenue to the east; and

WHEREAS, certain revisions to the City of Ontario Development Code are proposed, as follows:

(1) Provisions to establish the Chino Airport Overlay zoning district within Chapter 5 Development Code Section 5.01.005.F.6.

(2) Provisions to establish Reference L the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan within the Reference section of the Development Code; and

WHEREAS, the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an ALUCP be prepared for all public-use airports in the state to “protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses”; and 558
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

WHEREAS, State law requires that local jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans “rely upon” the compatibility guidance provided by the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), Division of Aeronautics; and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”). However, State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an “Alternative Process” wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, the use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport; and

WHEREAS, the current ALUCP does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”). Although, t he City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries; and

WHEREAS, the basic function of the ALUCP for Chino Airport (“CNO”) is to promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. The main objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities; and

WHEREAS, the ALUCP addresses four compatibility factors which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight impacts. The compatibility plan includes policies to evaluate, land use plans and new development proposals for consistency with CNO.

Each compatibility factor takes into consideration present and future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect airport operations; and

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and
559
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area o f Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as “ALUCP”), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Chino ALUCP does not create any conflicting policies or inconsistencies with the ONT ALUCP; and

WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) T he Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines promulgated thereunder , pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the activity is covered by the “common sense exemption” (also known as the “general rule exemption”) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and 560
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and

(4) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 2: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Publi c Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP , establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as “ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties , and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, includi ng [ 1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2 -3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2- 4), and [ 4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2- 5). As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION , therefore, finds and determines that the Project will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above- referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Development Code Amendment will support the creation and implementation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport as promoted by Land Use Element Policy LU5-8 Chino Airport.

(2) The proposed Development Code Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The Development Code Amendment incorporates safeguards intended to ensure that the purposes of the Development Code are preserved; the project will not be contrary to or damage the public health, safety , convenience, or general welfare; the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities, and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan. 561
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCI L APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as “Attachment A” and “Attachment B,” incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 7: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

562
563
564
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

ATTACHMENT A:

Add Development Code Section 5.01.005.F.6 to read as follows:

“6. CNO (Chino Airport) Overlay Zoning District. The Chino Airport Overlay zoning district is hereby established to: [i] delineate the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Chino Airport as the boundary of the CNO Overlay zoning district; [ii] adopt an airport land use compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries; and [iii] promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. Property i n the CNO Overlay zoning district shall be subject to Reference L - Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, that includes maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA.”

565
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

ATTACHMENT B:

Add Development Code Reference L to read as follows:

L.01.001: Introduction

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) be prepared for all public-use airports in the state to:

“protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses.”

State law also requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility Plans. The statutes also require that local jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans “rely upon” the compatibility guidance provided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics in January 2011.

The responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county airport land use commission (ALUC). However, State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an “Alternative Process” wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process when this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (Assembly Bill 2831). Specific requirements for implementation of the Alternative Process are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2).

Use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport.

The current Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Although, the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries. 566
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Chino Airport is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino and is situated within the boundaries of the City of Chino, immediately south of Ontario. Chino Airport (CNO) is the busiest non-commercial airport within a 20-mile radius of the City of Ontario, making it a leading general aviation airport of choice for independent pilots, students and trainers, and corporate users. CNO occupies 1,097 acres, has three runways and provides full precision instrument approach capabilities. The airport reported nearly 165,000 annual operations for the 12- month period ending in September 2019. Aircraft operations on Runway 3- 21 (northeast/southwest crosswind runway) and Runway 8L- 26R (northern east/west parallel runway) have the greatest effect on the City of Ontario.

A brief summary of airport facilities is provided below and shown in Figure L- 1: Chino Airport Diagram.

Figure L-1: Chino Airport Runway Diagram

567
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Chino Airport Facilities

 Runway 3-21

• Airport Reference Code: C-II
• Existing Runway Dimensions: 4,919 feet x 150 feet
• Runway is lighted for nighttime operations
• Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest): Visual (>1-mile) • Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 77 category and approach slope: B(V), 20:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 3 (right), Runway 21 (left)

 Runway 8L-26R

• Airport Reference Code: C-III
• Runway Dimensions:
• Existing: 4,858 feet x 150 feet
• Future: 5,500 feet x 150 feet
• Existing Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest) and Part 77 category and approach slope:
• Runway 8L: Visual (>1 mile); B(V), 20:1
• Runway 26R: Precision (<3/4 mile); 50:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 8L (right), Runway 26R (left)

 Runway 8R-26L

• Airport Reference Code: D-III
• Existing Runway Dimensions: 7,000 feet x 150 feet
• Runway is lighted for nighttime operations
• Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest):
 Existing Runway 8R and 26L: Visual, >1-mile
 Future Runway 26L: Precision (3/4 mile)
• Part 77 category and approach slope:
 Existing: B(V), 20:1
 Future Runway 26L: Precision, 50:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 8R (right), Runway 26L (left)

L.01.002: Purpose
The purpose of the “Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan” (ALUCP) for Chino Airport (CNO) is to promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. The City’s general plan, specific plans, and zoning ordinances shall be made consistent with the CNO ALUCP through incorporation of the compatibility policies into their land use policy documents.

568
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

The main objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities. Also, the ALUCP is aimed at addressing future land uses and development, not airport activity. The ALUCP does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration, or use of the airport.

L.01.003: Definitions

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish definitions for terms and phrases used in this CNO ALUCP that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage.

B. Terms and Phrases. Definitions of Words Beginning with the Letter “A.”

Above Ground Level (AGL): An elevation datum given in feet above ground level.

Accident Potential Zones (APZs): A set of safety -related zones defined by AICUZ studies for areas beyond the ends of military airport runways. Typically, three types of zones are established: a clear zone closest to the runway end, then APZ I and APZ II. The potential for aircraft ac cidents and the corresponding need for land use restrictions is greatest with the clear zone and diminishes with increased distance from the runway.

Air Carriers: The commercial system of air transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers, air taxis (including commuters), supplemental air carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, and air travel clubs.

Aircraft Accident: An occurrence incident to flight in which, as a result of the operation of an aircraft, a person (occupant or nonoccupant) receives fatal or serious injury or an aircraft receives substantial damage.

 Except as provided below, substantial damage means damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

 Engine failure, damage limited to an engine, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small puncture holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered substantial damage.

Aircraft Incident: A mishap associated with the operation of an aircraft in which neither fatal or serious injuries nor substantial damage to the aircraft occur.

569
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Aircraft Mishap: The collective term for an aircraft accident or an incident.

Aircraft Operation: The airborne movement of aircraft at an airport or about an en route fix or at other point where counts can be made. There are two types of operations: local and itinerant. An operation is counted for each landing and each departure, such that a touch-and-go flight is counted as two operations.

Airport: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and taking off of aircraft and includes its buildings and facilities if any.

Airport Elevation: The highest point of an air port’s useable runways, measured in feet above mean sea level.

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP): A planning document that contains policies for promoting safety and compatibility between public use airports and the communities that surround them. The ALUCP is the foundation of the airport land use compatibility planning process.

Airport Layout Plan (ALP): A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities, their location on an airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate conformance with applicable standards.

Airport Master Plan (AMP): A long- range plan for development of an airport, including descriptions of the data and analyses on which the plan is based.

Airport Reference Code (ARC) : A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operation and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport.

Airports, Classes of: For the purposes of issuing a Site Approval Permit, The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics classifies airports into the following categories:

 Agricultural Airport or Heliport: An airport restricted to use only be agricultural aerial applicator aircraft (FAR Part 137 operators).

 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site: A site used for the landing and taking off of EMS helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near an medical facility and: 1)has been designated an EMS landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters; 2) is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical 570
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits; 3)is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations; and 4)is used only for emergency medical purposes.

 Heliport on Offshore Oil Platform: A heliport located on a structure in the ocean, not connected to the shore by pier, bridge, wharf, dock or breakwater, used in the support of petroleum exploration or production.

 Personal-Use Airport: An airport limited to the non-commercial use of an individual owner or family and occasional invited guests.

 Public-Use Airport: An airport that is open for aircraft operations to the general public and is listed in the current edition of the Airport/Facility Directory that is published by the National Ocean Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 Seaplane Landing Site: An area of water used, or intended for use, for landing and takeoff of seaplanes.

 Special-Use Airport or Heliport: An airport not open to the general public, access to which is controlled by the owner in support of commercial activities, public service operations, and/or personal use.

 Temporary Helicopter Landing Site: A site, other than an emergency medical service landing site at or near a medical facility, which is used for landing and taking off of helicopters and
is used or intended to be used for less than one year,
except for recurrent annual events and is not marked or lighted to be distinguishable as a heliport and is not used exclusively for helicopter operations.

Ambient Noise Level: The level of noise that is all encompassing within a given environment for which a single source cannot be determined. It is usually a composite of sounds from many and varied sources near to and far from the receiver.

Approach Protection Easement: A form of easement that both conveys all of the rights of an avigation easement and sets specified limitations on the type of land uses allowed to be developed on the property.

Approach Speed: The recommended speed contained in aircraft manuals used by pilots when making an approach to landing. This speed will vary for different segments of an approach as well as for aircraft weight and configuration.

Aviation-Related Use: Any facility or activity directly associated with the air transportation of persons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their 571
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal buildings, etc.

Avigation Easement: A type of easement that typically conveys the following rights:

 A right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (usually set in accordance with FAR Part 77 criteria).

 A right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with normal airport activity.

 A right to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would enter the acquired airspace.

 A right-of-entry onto the property, with proper advance notice, for the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace.

 A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and other hazards to aircraft flight from being created on the property.

Based Aircraft: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis.

Ceiling: Height above the earth’s surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena.

Circling Approach/Circle-to-Land Maneuver: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or not desirable.

Commercial Activities: Airport-related activities that may offer a facility, service or commodity for sale, hire or profit. Examples of commodities for sale are: food, lodging, entertainment, real estate, petroleum products, parts and equipment. Examples of services are: flight training, charter flights, maintenance, aircraft storage, and tiedown.

Commercial Operator: A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The noise metric adopted by the State of California for evaluating airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24- hour day, adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower 572
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

tolerance of people to noise during evening and nighttime periods relative to the daytime period.

Compatibility Plan: As used herein, a plan, that sets forth policies for promoting compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them.

Controlled Airspace: Any of several types of airspace within which some or all aircraft may be subject to air traffic control.

Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): The noise metric adopted by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for measurement of environmental noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, measured in decibels and adjusted to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during nighttime periods . The mathematical symbol is Ldn.

Decibel (dB): A unit measuring the magnitude of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound, specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear. For environmental noise from aircraft and other transportation sources, an A-weighted sound level (abbreviated dBA) is normally used. The A-weighting scale adjusts the values of different sound frequencies to approximate the auditory sensitivity of the human ear.

Deed Notice: A formal statement added to the legal description of a deed to a property and on any subdivision map. As used in airport land use planning, a deed notice would state that the property is subject to aircraft overflights. Deed notices are used as a form of buyer notification as a means of ensuring that those who are particularly sensitive to aircraft overflights can avoid moving to the affected areas.

Displaced Threshold: A landing threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway (see Threshold).

Equivalent Sound Level (L
eq): The level of constant sound that, in the given
situation and time period, has the same average sound energy as does a time- varying sound.

FAR Part 77: The part of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace.

FAR Part 77 Surfaces: Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The U.S. government agency that is responsible for ensuring the safe and efficient use of the nation’s airports and airspace. 573
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): Regulations formally issued by the FAA to regulate air commerce.

Fixed Base Operator (FBO): A business that operates at an airport and provides aircraft services to the general public including, but not limited to, sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tiedown or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol.

Fleet Mix: The composition of aircraft that operate at a particular airport.

Flight Tracks: Routes aircraft routinely use when arriving and departing from an airport.

Forecasts: A projection of the amount and type of aircraft operations at an airport.

General Aviation: That portion of ci vil aviation that encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers.

General Aviation Airport: Airports that do not receive scheduled commercial service, or do not meet the criteria for classification as a commercial service airport.

General aviation airports have at least 10 locally based aircraft, are at least twenty miles from the nearest NPIAS airports.

Glide Slope: An electronic signal radiated by a component of an ILS to provide vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing.

Helipad: A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters.

Heliport: A facility used for operating, basing, housing, an d maintaining helicopters. (HAI)

Infill: Development that takes place on vacant property largely surrounded by existing development, especially development that is similar in character.

Inner Approach/Departure Zone: A rectangular area extending beyond the RPZ.

If the RPZ widths approximately equal the runway widths, the Inner Approach/Departure Zoned extends along the sides of the RPZ from the end of the runway.

574
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Inner Turning Zone: A triangular area over which aircraft are turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern. It also includes the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff to climb mode and begin to turn on their en route headings.

Instrument Approach Procedure: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a specific airport by competent authority (refer to Nonprecision Approach Procedure and Precision Approach Procedure).

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Generally, IFR applies when meteorological conditions with a ceiling below 1,000 feet and visibility less than 3 miles prevail.

Instrument Landing System (ILS): A precision instrument approach system that normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Marker; (4) Middle Marker; (5) Approach Lights.

Instrument Operation: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility.

Instrument Runway: A runway equipped with electr onic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or nonprecision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved.

Inverse Condemnation: An action brought by a property owner seeking just compensation for land taken for a public use against a government or private entity having the power of eminent domain. It is a remedy peculiar to the property owner and is exercisable by that party where it appears that the taker of the property does not intend to bring eminent domain proceedings.

Land Use Density: A measure of the concentration of land use development in an area. Mostly the term is used with respect to residential development and refers to the number of dwelling units per acre. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to gross rather than net acreage.

Land Use Intensity: A measure of the concentration of nonresidential land use development in an area. For the purposes of airport land use planning, the term indicates the number of people per acre attracted by the land use. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to gross rather than net acreage.

575
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Large Airplane: An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight.

Localizer (LOC): The component of an ILS that provides course guidance to the runway.

Mean Sea Level (MSL): An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level.

Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA): The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle- to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided.

Missed Approach: A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be completed to a landing.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The U.S. government agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and incidents.

Navigational Aid (Navaid): Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface that provides point -to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.

Noise Contours: C ontinuous lines of equal noise level usually drawn around a noise source, such as an airport or highway. The lines are generally drawn in 5- decibel increments so that they resemble elevation contours in topographic maps.

Noise Level Reduction (NLR): A measure used to describe the reduction in sound level from envir onmental noise sources occurring between the outside and the inside of a structure.

Nonconforming Use: An existing land use that does not conform to subsequently adopted or amended zoning or other land use development standards.

Nonprecision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided.

Nonprecision Instrument Runway: A runway with an approved or planned straight-in instrument approach procedure that has no existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure.

Obstruction: Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein, the height of 576
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

which exceeds the standards established in Subpart C of Fe deral Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) Obstacle Identification Surface: For airports with runways that support air carrier operations, this surface begins at the same elevation of the end of the departure runway and slopes upward at 1 foot vertically to 62.5 feet horizontally. The inner width of the OEI surface is 600 feet while the outer width is 12,000 feet. The surface extends for a distance of 50,000 feet along the runway centerline.

Outer Approach/Departure Zone: A rectangular area located along the extended centerline beyond the Inner Approach/Departure Zone.

Overflight: Any distinctly visible and/or audible passage of an aircraft in flight, not necessarily directly overhead.

Overflight Easement: An easement that describes the right to overfly the property above a specified surface and includes the right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, and emissions. An overflight easement is used primarily as a form of buyer notification.

Overflight Zone: The area(s) where aircraft maneuver to enter or leave the traffic pattern, typically defined by the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface.

Precision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure where an electronic glide slope is provided.

Precision Instrument Runway: A runway with an existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure.

Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist: A biologist who has received specific training to identify hazards to aircraft operations pursuant to FAA criter ia set forth at Advisory Circular 150/5200-36A, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports.

Referral Area: The area around an airport defined by the planning area boundary adopted by an airport land use commission within which certain land use proposals are to be referred to the commission for review.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): An area (formerly called a clear zone) off the end of a runway used to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.

577
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Safety Zone: For the purpose of airport land use planning, an area near an airport in which land use restrictions are established to protect the saf ety of the public from potential aircraft accidents.

Sideline Zone: A rectangular area in close proximity and parallel to the runway.

Single-Event Noise: As used in herein, the noise from an individual aircraft operation or overflight.

Single Event Noi se Exposure Level (SENEL): A measure, in decibels, of the noise exposure level of a single event, such as an aircraft flyby, measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which the noise level of the event exceeds a threshold noise level and normalized to a reference duration of one second. SENEL is a noise metric established for use in California by the state Airport Noise Standards and is essentially identical to Sound Exposure Level (SEL).

Site Approval Permit: A written approval issued by the California Department of Transportation authorizing construction of an airport in accordance with approved plans, specifications, and conditions. Both public -use and special -use airports require a site approval permit. (CCR)

Small Air plane: An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. (Airport Design AC)

Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A time -integrated metric (i.e., continuously summed over a time period) that quantifies the total energy in the A-weighted sound level measured during a transient noise event. The time period for this measurement is generally taken to be that between the moments when the A -weighted sound level is 10 dB below the maximum.

Straight-In Instrument Approach: An instrument approach wherein a final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with a straight -in landing or made to straight -in landing weather minimums. (AIM)

Taking: Government appropriation of private land for which compensation must be paid as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is not essential that there be physical seizure or appropriation for a taking to occur, only that the government action directly interferes with or substantially disturbs the owner’s right to use and enjoyment of the property.

Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS): Procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airport s. There are four types of 578
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

terminal instrument procedures: precision approach, nonprecision approach, circling, and departure.

Threshold: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing (also see Displaced Threshold).

Touch-and-Go: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway.

Traffic Pattern: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traf fic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach.

Traffic Pattern Zone: An elliptical area that includes the majority of other portions of regular air traffic patterns and pattern entry routes, and generally extends to the farthest point of 6,000 foot radius arcs from the centers of each of the primary surfaces and connecting lines tangent to those arcs.

Visual Approach: An approach where the pilot must use visual reference to the runway for landing under VFR conditions.

Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. VFR applies when meteorological conditions are equal to or greater than the specified minimum-generally, a 1,000-foot ceiling and 3-mile visibility.

Visual Runway: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan.

L.01.004: Compatibility Factors

In accordance with guidance set forth the by 2011 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, the CNO Airport Influence Area (AIA) encompasses all lands that could be negatively impacted by CNO’s present, or future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect airport operations. The AIA is depicted in Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area) and encompasses the geogr aphic extent of four types of compatibility impacts, referred to as compatibility factors, listed below:

 Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground.

 Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise.

579
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

 Airspace Protection: Places where height and certain other land use characteristics, particularly uses that attract birds, need to be restricted in order to protect the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the airport.

 Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people.

The potential impact of each compatibility factor on land within the City of Ontario were evaluated and maps, criteria, and policy language have been created to guide development within the Chino AIA . The compatibility policies and criteria to evaluate future development proposals are consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

A. Safety. The intent of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur . The potential risks to people and property within the CNO AIA and to people on board the aircraft are considered.

The Handbook provides sets of generic zones for different types of general aviation runways and the shapes and sizes of the zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data and flight parameters. The Handbook safety zones and criteria serve as the basis for this CNO ALUCP and are described below:

 The generic Handbook safety zones for a Medium General Aviation Runway Group were applied for the approach end of Runway 21 (northeast) and Runway 26R (east).

 The generic Handbook safety zones for a Long General Aviation Runway Group were applied for the approach end of Runway 26L (east).

For implementation purposes, the generic Handbook Safety Zone boundaries were adjusted to follow parcel lines, roads, and other geographic features. The reconfiguration of the safety zones did not result in a substantial net acreage reduction of the safety zones. For consistency, the CNO Safety Zones maintain the same numbering system used in the Handbook. Portions of Safety Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are located within Ontario city limits and are depicted in Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones) . Safety Zone 5 is located outside of the Ontario city limits and not included in the CNO ALUCP.

1. Safety Zone 1. Zone 1 reflects the airport’s established Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Portions of the RPZ are located off airport within the City of Ontario and shall be maintained as undeveloped land, clear of objects in accordance with FAA standards.

Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

580
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft on very close final approach or departure –
very high risk
Normally Allowed Uses:
 None

Altitude:
 Less than 200 feet above runway
Uses to Avoid:
 Nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in
character and confined to the outer sides such as
parking lots, streets, roads
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Downdrafts and wind gusts. Low glide paths
 Departure: Runway overruns, aborted takeoffs, and
engine failures
Prohibit:
 All new structures and residential land uses
Risk Level:
 Very high
 Percentage of near -runway accidents in this zone:
20% - 21%
Other Factors:
 Airport ownership of property encouraged

2. Safety Zone 2. Zone 2 reflects the Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft overflying at low altitudes on final approach and straight-out departures
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Agriculture; non-group recreational uses
 Low-hazard materials storage, warehouses
 Low-intensity light industrial uses; auto, aircraft,
marine repair services
Altitude:
 Between 200 and 400 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 All residential uses except as infill in developed
areas
 Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity Shopping centers, most eating establishments
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Similar to Zone 1, aircraft under -shooting
approaches, forced short landings
 Departure: Similar to Zone 1, emergency landing on
straight-out departure
Uses to Avoid:
 All residential uses except as infill in developed
areas
 Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity  Shopping centers, most eating establishments
Risk Level:
 High
 Percentage of near -runway accidents in this zone:
8% to 22% Aircraft on very close final approach or
departure – very high risk
Uses Prohibit:
 Theaters, meeting halls and other assembly uses
 Office buildings greater than 3 stories
 Labor-intensive industrial use Nonresidential uses
except if very low intensity in character and
confined to the outer sides Parking lots, streets,
roads

3. Safety Zone 3. Zone 3 reflects the Inner Turning Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook. 581
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft—especially smaller, piston-powered
aircraft— turning base to final on landing approach
or initiating turn to en route direction on departure
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Uses allowed in Zone 2
 Greenhouses, low-hazard materials storage, mini -
storage, warehouses
 Light industrial, vehicle repair services
Altitude:
 Less than 500 feet above runway, particularly on
landing
Uses to Limit:
 Residential uses to very low densities
 Office and other commercial uses to low intensities
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pilot overshoots turn to final and
inappropriately cross controls the airplane rudder
and ailerons while attempting to return to the runway
alignment causing stall, spin, and uncontrolled crash
 Departure: Mechanical failure on takeoff; low altitude gives pilot few options on emergency landing site; or,
pilot attempts to return to airport and loses control
during tight turn
Uses to Avoid:
 Commercial and other nonresidential uses having
higher usage intensities
 Building with more than 3 aboveground habitable
floors
 Hazardous uses (e.g., aboveground bulk fuel
storage)
Risk Level:
 Moderate to high
 Percentage of near -runway accidents in this zone:
4% to 8%
Uses to Prohibit:
 Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls
and other assembly facilities
 Children’s schools, large daycare centers,
hospitals, nursing homes
 Stadiums, group recreational uses

4. Safety Zone 4. Zone 4 reflects the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Approaching aircraft usually at less than traffic
pattern altitude
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Uses allowed in Zone 3
 Restaurants, retail, industrial
Altitude:
 Less than 1,000 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 Residential uses to low density
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pilot undershoots runway during an
instrument approach, aircraft loses engine on
approach, forced landing
 Departure: Mechanical failure on takeoff
Uses to Avoid:
 High-intensity retail or office buildings

Risk Level:
 Moderate
 Percentage of near -runway accidents in this zone:
2% to 6%
Uses to Prohibit:
 Children’s schools, large daycare centers,
hospitals, nursing homes
 Stadiums, group recreational uses

5. Safety Zone 6. Zone 6 reflects the Traffic Pattern Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook. 582
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft within a regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Residential uses
Altitude:
 Less than 1,000 to 1,500 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 Children’s schools, large day care centers,
hospitals, and nursing homes
 Processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly
hazardous
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pattern accidents in proximity of airport
 Departure: Emergency landings
Uses to Avoid:
 Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high
intensities
Risk Level:
 Low
 Percentage of near -runway accidents in this zone:
18% to 29% (percentage is high because of large
area encompassed)

6. Factors in establishing Safety Zone Policies. To minimize risks to people and property on the ground, the safety compatibility criteria in Table L -2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria set limits on:

a. Residential Uses. The density of residential development is measured by the number of dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011) guidelines, a greater degree of protection is warranted for residential uses.

b. Nonresidential Uses. The intensity of nonresidential development is measured by the number of people per acre concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents.

7. Safety Zone Standards for New Development. To minimize risk -sensitive development in high-risk areas around CNO, the safety compatibility of new development shall be evaluated in accordance with the safety policies set forth in this section, including the criteria listed in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix, Table L-2:

Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria and the safety zones depicted on Policy Map L-2:

Chino Airport Safety Zones.

583
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

8. Safety Zone Policies.

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S1 Residential Development: New residential development is incompatible within all Safety Zones (1 through 4). Policies S1a and S1b are exceptions to this policy, if applicable.

S1a Single-Family Home: The construction of a single-family home on a legal lot of record is allowed in Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario’s land use regulations. See Policy SP2 with regard to development by right.

S1b Second-Unit: A second-unit as defined by state law is allowed within Safety Zones 2, 3 and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario’s land use regulations.

S1c Family Day Care: In accordance with state law, a family day care home serving 14 or fewer children may be established in any dwelling by the policies of this ALUCP.

S1d Residential Mixed -Use Developments: New mixed -use developments will locate the residential component outside of all safety zones.
584
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2 Occupancy Limits For Nonresidential Development: Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the usage intensity (number of people per acre) limit for each safety zone. The usage intensity limits represent the safety criteria for new nonresidential development. The usage intensity limits measure intensity in two forms:

1. Sitewide average intensity which sets intensity limits for the entire project site; and

2. Single-acre intensity which sets intensity limits on any single acre within the project site (see Figure L2: Land Use Intensity Calculation example) . As a condition of approval, all new nonresidential development within the Safety Zones shall comply with both forms of intensity limits as described further below.

S2a Sitewide Average Intensity is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be on the site at any given time under normal operating conditions and dividing by the total number of acres of the project site.

S2b Single-acre Intensity of a proposed development is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be within any one-acre portion of the site, typically the most intensively used building or part of a building. The 1.0-acre area calculations represent building footprints that are generally rectangular and not elongated in shape or, for buildings larger than 1.0 acre, represent a portion of the building.

Figure L2: Land Use Intensity Calculation Example

585
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2c Usage Intensity calculations includes all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors) who may be on the property at any single point in time during normal operating conditions, whether indoors or outdoors.

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the normal occupancy load factor (number of square feet per person) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for many nonresidential uses. These numbers are interrelated with the intensity limits (number of people per acre) and can be used to calculate the usage intensity of a proposed proj ect (see Figure L -3: Intensity Limits) . Note that the safety criteria are the sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (number of people per acre). The occupancy load factors and FARs are provided as methods for calculating the
intensity of a proposed project.

1. Occupancy Load Factors: The
occupancy load factors (minimum
number of square feet per person)
provided in Table L -2: Safety Zones
Compatibility Criteria vary from one
land use to another. As shown in Figure
L-4, the sitewide average usage intensity
of a project having multiple uses can be
calculated by:

 Dividing the number of square feet
of each component use by the
number of square feet per person
(occupancy load) for that use as
indicated in Table L-2;
 Adding together the number of
people for each component use;
and
 Dividing the total number of people
by the total number of acres of the
project site to get the sitewide
average intensity.
 Where occupancy load factors are
not indicated in the table or if the
assumed occupancy load factor for a particular proposal or component thereof is not applicable to the project, then the number of occupants is estimated in another manner – for example, the number of seats and employees at a restaurant or the number of parking places times the vehicle occupancy for an industrial plant.

Figure L-3: Intensity Limits
The interrelationship between Intensity limit,
normal occupancy load factor and Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) is indicated in the two examples
below. The examples reflect Zone 3 criteria:
intensity limit of 100 people per acre, occupancy
load factor of 200 square feet per person, and 0.46
FAR.

Example 1
200 square feet per person (occupancy
load factor)
x 100 people per acre (intensity limit)
20,000 square foot building
÷ 43,560 square feet per acre

0.46 FAR

Example 2
43,560 square feet per acre
x 0.46 FAR
20,000 square foot building
÷ 200 square feet per person (occupancy
load factor)
100 people per acre (intensity limit)
586
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2C 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs): The allowable FAR is indicated in Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria for a particular safety zone and vary from one land use to another. Each component use is calculated as occupying a share of the total project site equal to its percentage of the total floor area in the project. Mathematically, this means that the FAR for each component use will be the same as the FAR for the entire building.

3. Alternative Intensity Calculations: An alternative method for measuring compliance with the usage intensity limits is acceptable. For example, a method based upon the City’s parking space requirements may be used together with an assumed number of people per vehicle as a means of determining the number of occupants for uses that are vehicle oriented (this method would not be suitable for land uses where many users arrive by transit, bicycle, or other means of transportation).

4. Mixed-Use Development: Each component use within a nonresidential mixed- use development shall comply with Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria unless the use is ancillary (less than 10% of total building floor area).

5. Ancillary Uses: Up to 10% of the total floor area of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use of another type, including a use with a higher occupancy load factor that is shown as incompatible in Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibili ty Criteria . Ancillary uses may be excluded from the single -acre intensity calculations (but not the sitewide average intensity limits) provided that the ancillary use is neither:

 An assembly room having more than 750 square feet of floor area (this criterion is intended to parallel Building Code standards) and a capacity of more than 50 people; nor  A children’s school (grades K–12), day care center or other risk-sensitive use that is “incompatible” within the safety zone where the primary use is to be located.

6. Uncommon Land Use Considerations: If a particular development proposal is uncommon—that is, there would be more floor area per person and lower usage intensity —the local agency may consider that information in determining the safety compatibil ity of the proposal. In considering any such exceptions, the local agency shall also take into account the potential for the use of a building to change over time. A building could have planned low -intensity use initially, but later be converted to a higher - intensity use. Local agency permit language or other mechanisms to ensure continued compliance with the usage intensity criteria must be put in place.

7. Parcels within Multiple Safety Zones:

For the purposes of evaluat ing
consistency with the usage intensity
criteria set forth in Table L -2: Safety
Zones Compatibility Criteria, any parcel
that is split by safety zone boundaries shall
be considered as if it were multiple parcels
divided at the safety zone boundary line.

However, the intensity of nonresidential
development allowed within the more
restricted portion of the parcel can (and is
encouraged to) be transferred to the less
restricted portion. This full or partial
reallocation of intensity is permitted even if
the resulting intensity in the less restricted
area would then exceed the limits which
would otherwise apply within that safety
zone (see Figure L-4).

Figure L-4: Transferring Usage Intensity
An example of transferring usage intensity to the
less restrictive safety zone is provided below.

Zone 3 intensity limit: 100 people per acre
Zone 4 intensity limit: 160 people per acre
Proposed intensity in Zone 3: 80 people per
acre
Proposed intensity in Zone 4: 100 people per
acre
* The proposed intensity for Zone 3 (80 people
per acre) is encouraged to be transferred to
Zone 4 for a total of 180 people per acre, even if
it exceeds the Zone 4 intensity limit of 160
people per acre.
587
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S3 Land Use Event Exceptions: The City of Ontario may make exceptions for “conditional” or “incompatible” land uses associated with rare special events (e.g., an air show at the airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate.

S4 Land Uses of Special Concern: Certain types of land uses represent special safety concerns irrespective of the number of people associated with those uses. Table L -2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the criteria applicable to these uses. In some cases, these uses are not allowed in portions of the safety zones regardless of the number of occupants associated with the use. In other instances, these uses should be avoided—i.e., allowed only if an alternate site outside of the safety zone wou ld not work.

When allowed, special measures should be taken to minimize hazards to the facility and occupants if the facility were to be struck by an aircraft. Land uses of particular concern and the nature of the concern are listed policies S4a through S4c.

S4a Land Uses Having Vulnerable Occupants: These land uses are ones in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled—people who have reduced effective mobility or may be unable to respond to emergency situations. These uses include:
 Children’s schools (grades K–12).
 Day care centers (facilities with 15 or more children, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code).
 Hospitals, health care centers, and similar facilities, especially where patients remain overnight, nursing homes and inmate facilities.

S4b Hazardous Materials Storage: Materials that are flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic constitute special safety compatibility concerns to the extent that an aircraft accident could cause release of the materials and thereby pose dangers to people and property in the vicinity. Facilities in this category include:

 Facilities such as oil refineries and chemical plants that manufacture, process, and/or store bulk quantities (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons) of hazardous materials generally for shipment elsewhere.
 Facilities associated with otherwise compatible land uses where hazardous materials are stored in smaller quantities primarily for on-site use (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons).

S4c Critical Community Infrastructure: The damage or destruction of public infrastructure facilities which would cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Among these facilities are:

 Emergency services facilities such as police and fire stations.  Emergency communications facilities, power plants, and other utilities S5 Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition for approval of all proposed development situated off -airport within Safety Zones 1 through 4 in accordance with Policy SP1. The Safety Zones and this policy affect only the City of Ontario.

588
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S6 Safety Zone 1 (Runway Protection Zone):

1. The developer and airport owner must coordinate with the FAA for development proposals within the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). Land uses requiring airport/FAA coordination include:

 Buildings and structures
 Recreational uses (e.g., golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public assembly)
 Transportation facilities (e.g., rail, public roads/highways, vehicular parking)  Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)
 Hazardous material storage (above and below ground)
 Wastewater treatment facilities
 Above ground utility infrastructure (e.g., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations

2. The following uses shall be prohibited within Safety Zone 1(RPZ):

 All structures except ones with location set by aeronautical function  All assemblages of people (more than one)
 Hazards to flight such as:
o Objects exceeding 14 CFR Part 77 height limits
o Visual hazards including but not limited to lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust, steam or smoke
o Electronic hazards including but not limited to ones that may cause interference with aircraft communications or navigation
o Land uses and features that attract hazardous wildlife (i.e., Birds) including but not limited to aboveground stormwater facilities, open ponds, and landscaping that provides a food source, shelter or roosting

S7 Open Land: In the event that a light aircraft is forced to land away from an airport, the risks to the people on board and on the ground can be best minimized by providing as much open land area as possible within the airport vicinity. This concept is based upon the fact that the majority of light aircraft accidents that occur away from an airport runway are controlled emergency landings in which the pilot has reasonable opportunity to guide the aircraft and select the landing site. Open land provides opportunities f or a controlled landing in the event of an emergency. A percentage of Open land is required for all Safety Zones and are outlined in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix.

S7a Open Land Required Dimensions: Open land shall have minimum dimension of at least 75 feet wide by 300 feet long (approximately 0.5-acre in size).

589
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S7b Open Land Criteria:

1. Open land shall be free of most structures and other major obstacles such as walls, large trees, (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), poles, and overhead wires. Landscaping plans for open space areas should preclude large trees that would exceed the 4-inch diameter criterion at maturity. However, landscaping plans could allow for trees and shrubs that exceed 4 inches in diameter at a height of 4 feet at maturity for areas along the edge of open space areas where the vegetation abuts a wall or other similar feature, provided that the vegetation is planted within 4 feet of the wall.

2. Roads and automobile parking lots are acceptable as open land areas if the criteria for Policies S7a and S7b are met. Policy Map L-2a: Chino Airport Open Land Streets identifies three streets that will be designed to satisfy the Open Land criteria. The streets will be 75 to 84 feet wide with no medians.

Light poles and trees will be designed to maintain a clear width of about 75 feet. The light poles will be spaced 250 feet and staggered on the opposite side of the street; therefore, satisfying the 75-foot by 300-foot dimensional requirements for Open Land. A detailed review of proposed landscaping and lighting plans along Merrill Avenue within CNO Safety Zone 1 (RPZ) will be required to ensure that Zone 1 remains clear of permanent aboveground objects.

3. Open land requirements for each Safety Zone shall be applied with respect to the entire zone. Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum size open area requirement. Consequently, the identification of open land areas shall be initially accomplished at the general plan or specific plan level or as part of large (10 acres or more) development projects.

4. Clustering of development and providing contiguous landscaped (e.g., low -growing ground cover) and parking areas is encouraged as a means of increasing the size of open land areas. Clustering of development should be located a maximum distance from the extended runway centerline.

B. Noise. The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establishment of noise-sensitive land uses in the portions of the CNO AIA that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. For compatibility planning purposes, the noise contours reflect the County’s aircraft activity forecast of 209,400 annual operations for 2025 is considered to be representative of the likely maximum number of aircraft operations that could be realized over the 20- year forecast period (2039) and are shown in Figure L- 5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025).

Figure L-5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025)

590
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 60 dB CNEL is suitable for new residential development and other noise sensitive land uses around most airports.

Figure L-5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025) shows that only the 55 dB CNEL contour affects lands within the City of Ontario. Since the 60 dB CNEL does not extend into the City of Ontario no significant impacts are anticipated and therefore no noise policies and criteria are included within the CNO ALUCP.

C. Airspace Protection. Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent creation of land use features that can be hazards to aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident to occur. Such hazards may be physical, visual, or electronic.

1. Factors in establishing Airspace Protection Zones. The principal factors considered in setting the airspace protection zones are:

a. Federal Regulations. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, set the requirements for notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain proposed construction or alteration projects (Subpart B, Notice of Construction or Alteration) and establish standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace (Subpart C, Obstruction Standards).

b. CNO Part 77. The 14 CFR Part 77 airspace surfaces included in the 2003 Chino Airport Layout Plan was utilized to establish the allowable heights of future uses within the vicinity of Chino airport (see, Figure L- 6: Chino Part 77 Airspace Surfaces (2003)).

Figure L-6: Chino Part 77 Airspace Surfaces (2003)

591
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

2. Factors in establishing Airspace Protection Policies. The factors considered in setting the airspace protection policies in this section are described below.

a. Federal and State Regulations . The airspace protection policies outlined in this section are based upon and intended to help implement the regulations enacted by the FAA and the State of California. State airspace protection standards mostly mirror those of the FAA. A key difference is that state law gives the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and local agencies the authority to enforce the standards.

b. Flight Hazards. The FAA has well -defined standards by which potential hazards to flight, especially airspace obstructions, can be assessed. However, the FAA has no authority to prevent creation of such hazards. That authority rests with state and local governments. There are three categories of flight hazards: physical, visual, and electronic.

(1) Structure Heights — Height of structures and other objects situated near the airport are a primary determinant of physical hazards to the airport airspace.

(2) Land Use — Land use features that have the potential to attract birds and certain other wildlife to the airport area also need to be evaluated as a form of physical hazard.

(3) Visual Hazards — Visual hazards of concern include certain types of lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust, steam, thermal plumes, or smoke.

(4) Electrical Hazards — Electronic hazards are ones that may cause interference with aircraft communications or navigation

c. Airspace Obstructions. The criteria for determining the acceptability of a project with respect to height are based upon the standards set forth in: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C, Obstruction Standards; the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS); the One- Engine Inoperative (OEI) obstacle identification surface and other applicable airport design standards published by the FAA.

d. Local Topography. The topography underlying the airport’s airspace surfaces is a significant factor in determining the allowable height of a structure. The terrain north of CNO slopes upwards towards the San Gabriel Mountains, thereby reducing the allowable heights of objects in those areas.

592
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

3. Airspace Protection Zones for CNO. The airspace protection zones depicted in Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones were prepared for CNO in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

a. FAA Height Notification Surface. Established in accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, this airspace surface extends outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the airport runways.

b. Airspace Obstruction Surfaces. Includes the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, extending out to a point where these surfaces terminate at the outer limits of the FAA Height Notification Surface. Objects which penetrate these surfaces are subject to airspace evaluation by the FAA. Objects which penetrate the Approach/Departure Surfaces which extend beyond the FAA Height Notification Surface require evaluation by the FAA.

c. Allowable Heights. To determine the allowable heights of future objects, the underlying ground elevation is compared with the elevation of the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, TERPS, and OEI surfaces. These are depicted as color bands in Policy Map L- 3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones , e ach color band represents a range of distance, measured in vertical feet, between the ground and overlying surface.

4. Airspace Protection Standards for New Development. The airspace protection compatibility of proposed land uses within the AIA of CNO shall be evaluated in accordance with the policies in this section, including the existing airspace protection surfaces depicted in Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones.

5. Airspace Protection Policies.

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A1 FAA Height Notification Surface: Except as provided in Policy A2b, if a project contains proposed structures or other objects that would penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface for CNO, the project proponent should submit notification of the proposal to the FAA, as required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, Subpart B, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. The FAA will conduct an “aeronautical study” of the object(s) and determine whether the object(s) would be of a height that would constitute a hazard to air navigation. A copy of the completed FAR Part 77 notification form submitted to the FAA and the resulting FAA aeronautical study findings should be supplied to the City by the project proponent. The results of the FAA aeronautical study sh all be utilized when conducting compatibility reviews of the proposed project. The FAA notification requirements apply to the following:

A1a Penetrations to the FAA Height Notification Surface: With limited exceptions, the FAA requires notification for all objects which penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface, including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes.

593
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A1b Structures in Excess of 200 feet: The FAA requires that it be notified about any proposal to construct or alter a structure that would be taller than 200 feet above the ground level regardless of the structure’s proximity to CNO or any other airport.

A1c FAR Part 77 Notification: FAA requires project proponents to submit notification of the proposal where required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. Refer to the FAA notification requirements and online submittal process of Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

A2 Airspace Obstruction Surfaces: Except as provided in Policy A2a, no object should have a height that would result in a penetration of the Airspace Obstruction Surface depicted for CNO . Any object that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface sh all satisfy the conditions set forth in Policy A2a. These requirements apply to all objects including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes.

A2a Airspace Obstacle Criteria and Review Process: Except as indicated in Policy A2b, a proposed object having a height th at penetrates CNO’s airspace obstruction surfaces should be allowed only if all of the following apply:

1. The FAA conducts an aeronautical study of the proposed object and determines that the object would not be a hazard to air navigation.

2. FAA or other expert analysis conducted under the auspices of the airport owner, concludes that, despite being an airspace obstruction, the object would not cause any of the following:

 An increase in the ceiling or visibility minimums of the airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (a planned procedure is one that is formally on file with the FAA);  A reduction of the established operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; or  A conflict with the visual flight rules (VFR) airspace used for the airport traffic pattern or en route navigation to and from the airport.

3. Marking and lighting of the object will be installed as directed by the FAA aeronautical study or the California Division of Aeronautics and in a manner consistent with FAA standards in effect at the time the construction is proposed (Advisory Circular 70/7460- 1J, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, or any later guidance).

4. An avigation easement is dedicated to the owner of the airport.

5. The proposed project complies with all policies of the CNO ALUCP.

594
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A3 Flight Hazards: Land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft in flight or taking off or landing at the airport should be prohibited within the AIA consistent with FAA rules and regulations. To resolve any uncertainties with regard to the significance of flight hazards, local agencies should consult with the FAA, California Division of Aeronautics, and/or CNO officials. Specific characteristics to be avoided include:

1. Sources of glare (such as from mirrored or other highly reflective buildings or building features) or bright lights (including search lights and laser light displays).

2. Distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights.

3. Sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilots’ vision.

4. Sources of steam or other emissions that cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air.

5. Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation.

6. Any proposed use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including, but not limited to FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports and 150/5200- 34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight.

A4 Avigation Easements: An avigation easement shall be required as a condition of approval for proposed development that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surfaces (see Policy A2a).

A5 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports : Wildlife can pose hazards to aircraft operations; collisions or “strikes” with wildlife can cause damage to or destroy aircraft and result in injuries or fatalities to air travelers and those on the ground. FAA strike records indicate that most wildlife strikes occur in the immediate airport vicinity during aircraft a pproach or departure at altitudes of less than 3,500 feet above ground level (AGL).

A5a Caltrans Guidance: Caltrans completed a Wildlife Hazard Assessment at CNO in 2014. Wildlife attractants identified in the airport vicinity included open water basins, golf courses, and agricultural operations Hazardous wildlife identified on and near the airport included: raptors, ground squirrels (because they attract raptors), gulls, blackbirds and starlings, coyotes, crows, doves and pigeons, waterfowl, and shorebirds. To prevent the creation of new habitat within on or near CNO, new development shall be subject to the following:

1. A Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist (QAWB) sh all review landscaping plans to ensure that the proposed materials will not provide food, nesting opportunities, shelter, or roosting opportunities for potentially hazardous wildlife.

2. A QAWB sh all review proposed construction plans for their potential to create temporary or permanent wildlife attractants.

595
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A5b Federal Guidance: Consistent with state and federal guidance, any proposed land use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including but not limited to FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, and 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports, should be avoided within the “critical zones”.

For CNO, the critical zone extends 10,000 feet beyond aircraft movement areas and 5 miles from the approach/departure surfaces. The following is list of land uses known to attract potentially hazardous wildlife within critical zones and should be avoided:

 Landfills and waste management facilities (see also AC 150/5200- 34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports)
 Stormwater management facilities that create open water  Wastewater treatment facilities
 Wetlands and wetland mitigation sites
 Agricultural/aquacultural operations
 Parks and golf courses
 Resource mitigation sites

If land uses that are known to attract potentially hazardous wildlife are allowed within the airport influence area by right, the land use and its features should be modified to reduce wildlife hazards or mitigate known hazards. Sample mitigation/design measures include those associated with stormwater management facilities and landscape design.

A5c Stormwater Management Facilities: The FAA identifies stormwater management facilities as one of the greatest attractants to hazardous wildlife. Many species are attracted to open water features and associated vegetation that offers water, food, and shelter. N ew stormwater management facilities located within the AIA should be designed to avoid the creation of open water and habitat and incorporate the following criteria:

1. N ew detention basins should be designed to drain completely within a maximum 48-hour period following design storm event and remain totally dry between storm events.

2. Exposed surface water features should include one of the recommended design measures:
 Floating covers, bird balls, netting, or overhead wires should be installed to deter wildlife.

The deterrent should be selected based on pond size and the type of species to be discouraged;
 Steep-sided, rip-rap lined, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basin (i.e., 1:1 slopes) should be provided; and
 Vegetation should not be provided because it can provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife.

3. Stormwater management plans located within the CNO AIA shall be reviewed by an FAA-qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

4. Landscape designs for proposed projects located in the CNO AIA should be reviewed by an FAA- qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

D. Overflight. Noise from individual aircraft operations, especially by comparatively loud aircraft, can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the noise impacts. Sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another. The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make more informed decisions regarding acquis ition or lease of property in the affected areas.
596
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

1. Factors Considered in Establishing Overflight Zones.

a. State Law. State statutes (B PC Section 11010 and CC Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) define an AIA as “the area in which current or future airport - related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission.”

b. Measures of Overflight Exposure. The loudness of individual aircraft noise events is a key determinant of where airport proximity and aircraft overflight notification are warranted. The FAA has determined that overflight exposure is not significant where aircraft are flying at an altitude of 3,000 feet or more above ground level.

Figure L-7 presents the primary aircraft traffic patterns in blue, based on published airport information. The red and orange lines represent flight patterns captured by radar data from November 2015. On this particular day, aircraft were practicing touch-and-goes (closed loop patterns) from Runway 26R, 26L and Runway 21. Safety Zone 4 encompasses areas where aircraft make a turn from base to final when landing on Runway 21. Also, Safety Zone 6 is routinely overflown by aircraft.

Figure L-7: Radar Flight Track Sample (2015)

597
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

2. Factors Considered in Setting Overflight Compatibility Criteria.

a. Limitations of Local Agency Authority over Existing Uses. To be most effective, overflight policies should apply to transactions involving existing land uses, not just future development. However, local agencies have little authority to set requirements for existing development. The intent of this policy is to define, on an advisory basis, the boundaries within which required real estate transfer disclosure under state law is appropriate. Implementing the real estate transaction disclosure requirement is the responsibility of the property owner and real estate agent. The local agency is responsible only for providing a map to a property owner or real estate agent that defines the areas within which the real estate disclosure requirement should be applied.

b. Limitations of California Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Law.

State law applies to existing development, but not to all transactions. Specifically, California state statutes (BPC Section11010 and CC Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) require that, as part of many residential real estate transactions, information be disclosed regarding whether the property is situated within an AIA. The Business and Professions Code applies the disclosure requirement to the sale or lease of newly subdivided lands and condominium conversions and to the sale of certain existing residential property. The Civil Code applies the disclosure requirement to existing residential property transfers only when certain natural conditions (earthquake, fire, or flood hazards) warrant disclosure.

c. Need for Continuity of Notification to Future Property Owners and Tenants. To the extent that this Compatibility Plan sets notification requirements for new development, the poli cy should ensure that the notification runs with the land and is provided to prospective future owners and tenants.

d. Inappropriateness of Avigation Easement Dedication Solely for Buyer Awareness Purposes. Avigation easements involve conveyance of property rights from the property owner to the party owning the easement and are thus best suited to locations where land use restrictions for safety or airspace protection purposes are necessary.

3. Overflight Not ification Zones for CNO. The boundaries of the overflight notification zones around CNO are shown on Policy Map L- 4: Chino Overflight Notification Zones and include:

a. Avigation Easement Dedication. The boundary identifies the high- risk, and critical airs pace protection areas of CNO . Although not strictly an overflight notification boundary, the Avigation Easement Dedication boundary is established in accordance with Policy SP1 and reflected on Policy Map L-4.

b. Recorded Overflight Notification. The boundary identifies the primary 598
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

overflight area for the airport. The policy boundary matches Safety Zone 6 depicted on Policy Map L-4.

c. Real Estate Transaction Disclosure. The boundary reflects the CNO AIA and matches the outer boundary of the FAR Part 77 conical surface of the airport.

4. Overflight Policies. Unlike the function of safety and airspace protection compatibility policies, the overflight compatibility policies set forth in this section do not restrict the manner in which land can be developed or used. The policies in this section serve only to establish the language and recommended geographic coverage for notification about airport proximity and aircraft overflights for new development and with certain real estate transactions involving existing development.

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
O1 Recorded Overflight Notification: The City of Ontario shall require the recording of an overflight notification running with the land as a condition for approval of new residential development that falls within Safety Zone 6, as depicted in Policy Map L-4. Other conditions include:

O1a Notification Language: The overflight notification should contain language dictated by state law with regard to real estate transaction disclosure (see Policy O2a).

O1b Property Deed Recording: The overflight notification should be evident to future purchasers of the property by appearing on the property deed.

O1c Avigation Easement Exception: A separate recorded overflight notification is not required where an avigation easement is provided in accordance with Policy SP1.

O1d Nonresidential Exception: Recording of an overflight notification is not required for nonresidential development unless the project is a mixed -use development containing residential uses on the same property.

O2 Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: Airport proximity disclosure information should be provided in accordance with state law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353. See Section 6.4.4 (b) and Appendix A for information on these laws.

O2a Disclosure Language: State Law provides the following disclosure language:

NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.

O2b Airport Influence Area: The airport proximity disclosure is required within AIA as identified on Policy Map L-4.

599
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

E. Special Compatibility Policies. These policies are intended to address unique land use concerns.

Policy
No. Special Compatibility Policies
SP1 Avigation Easement Dedication: An avigation easement should be dedicated to the owner/operator of CNO for new development as specified in Policies SP1a and SP1b.

SP1a Avigation Easement Dedication Requirements: Within portions of the AIA inside the City of Ontario, avigation easement dedication shall be required for new development requiring discretionary as described below. Policy Map L-4 depicts the locations where an avigation easement dedication would be appropriate.

1. Safety Zones: All new development within Safety Zones 1 , through 4 as depicted on Policy Map L-2.

SP1b Avigation Easement Purpose: The avigation easement should do the following:

1. Right of Flight: Provide the right of flight in the airspace above the property.

2. Noise Impacts: Allow the generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft overflight.

3. Physical Hazards: Restrict the height of structures, trees and other objects in accordance with the policies in Section L.01.003.C and the airspace protection surfaces depicted on Policy Map L-2.

4. Obstruction Marking: Permit access to the property, with appropriate advance notice, for the removal or aeronautical marking of objects exceeding the established height limit.

5. Other Airspace Hazards: Prohibit electrical interference, glare, and other potential hazards to flight from being created on the property.

SP2 Nonconforming Uses: The policies within the CNO ALUCP do not apply to existing land uses even if those uses are not in conformance with the compatibility criteria set forth in this Compatibility Plan.

However, proposed changes to existing uses that would change or result in increased nonconformity with the compatibility criteria are subject to the provisions of the ALUCP. Specifically, proposed changes to existing nonconforming uses (including a parcel or building) are limited as follows:

SP2a Residential uses: A nonconforming residential land use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review.

SP2b Nonconforming Single-family: A nonconforming single-family dwelling may be maintained, remodeled, reconstructed or expanded in size. The lot line of an existing single- family residen tial parcel may be adjusted. Also, a new single-family residence may be constructed on an existing lot. The above noted property improvements may occur if improvements do not increase the number of units and lot line adjustments do not result in allowing for additional dwelling units. Examples include:

1. Any remodeling, reconstruction, or expansion must not increase the number of dwelling units.

For example, a bedroom could be added to an existing residence, but an additional dwelling unit could not be built on the parcel unless that unit is a secondary dwelling unit as defined by state and local laws.

2. A single -family residential parcel may not be divided for the purpose of allowing additional dwellings to be constructed.

SP2c Nonconforming Multi-family (> 8 du/ac): Nonconforming multi-family residential dwelling units may be maintained, remodeled, or reconstructed. The size of individual dwelling units may be increased, but additional dwelling units may not be added.
600
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy
No. Special Compatibility Policies
SP2d Nonresidential uses: A nonconforming, nonresidential use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review. Nonconforming, nonresidential facilities may be maintained, altered, or, if required by state law, reconstructed. However, any such work:

1. Should not result in expansion of either the portion of the site devoted to the nonconforming use or the floor area of the buildings; and

2. Should not result in an increase in the usage intensity (the number of people per acre) above the levels existing at the time of approval of the CNO ALUCP.

SP2e Schools: Children’s schools (including grades K -12, day care centers with more than 14 children, and school libraries) may be continued, reconstructed (see Policy SP5), expanded with the following restrictions per State Law:

1. Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted in any safety zone.

2. Replacement or expansion of buildings at existing schools is also not allowed in any safety zone.

This limitation does not preclude work required for normal maintenance or repair.

SP3 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Uses: An existing nonconforming building, structure, or use that has been partially or completely destroyed as the result of a fire, flood or natural disaster may be rebuilt under the conditions listed in Policies SP3a through SP3c so long as it does not violate local ordinances.

The requirements listed in this policy do not restrict normal maintenance and repairs.

SP3a Residential: Nonconforming residential uses may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not result in more dwelling units than existed on the parcel at the time of the damage. Addition of a secondary dwelling unit to a single-family residence is permitted if in accordance with state law and local zoning regulations.

SP3b Nonresidential: A nonconforming nonresidential development may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not increase the floor area of the previous structure or result in an increased intensity of use (i.e., more people per acre).

SP3c Reconstruction Requirements: The reconstruction of nonconforming uses listed in Policies SP3a and SP3b should comply with the following requirements:

1. A permit to rebuild the structure should be obtained by the local agency within twenty -four (24) months of the date the damage occurred.

2. The property should be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the airport owner, if required under Policy SP1.

3. The new structure should comply with FAR Part 77, TERPS, and applicable airport obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA.

601
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

L.01.005: Evaluating Land Use Consistency

A. Evaluating Compatibility of Proposed Development . The compatibility of proposed projects within the CNO AIA shall be evaluated in accordance with the specific safety, airspace protection, overflight policies, and special compatibility policies set forth in Section L.01.003 including the criteria listed in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix and Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria, and Policy Maps L-1 through L-4.

B. Evaluation Tools.

1. Safety Zone Criteria Table. Table L-2 list general land use categories and indicate each use as being either “normally compatible,” “conditionally compatible,” or “incompatible” depending upon the safety zone in which it is located. When evaluating a proposed development, each land use component of a project shall be evaluated as separate developments and must meet the criteria for the respective land use category.

2. Evaluation Considerations.

a. Land uses not specifically listed in Table L-2 shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar listed uses.

b. Multiple land use categories and the compatibility criteria associated with them may apply to a single project (e.g., mixed- use developments). Each land use component shall individually satisfy the criteria for the respective land use category in Table L-2.

3. Land Use Compatibility Determinations.

a. Normally Compatible. Normally Compatible means that common examples of the use are compatible with the airport; uncommon examples of the use may require review to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria.

b. Conditionally Compatible. Conditionally Compatible means that the use is compatible if the listed conditions are met.

c. Incompatible. Incompatible means that the use should not be permitted under any circumstances.

602
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

L.01.006: Criteria Tables and Policy Maps

A. Criteria Tables. The compatibility tables at the end of this chapter provide the following information:

1. Table L- 1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix. The Compatibility Criteria table provides a comprehensive list of open land percentages, people per acre limits and other relevant criteria summarized for each safety zone.

2. Table L- 2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria. The safety criteria table provides a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of specific land uses within each of the five safety zones. Intensity limits for nonresidential uses (i.e., maximum number of people per acre) and other safety considerations within each safety zone are also noted.

B. Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area). The AIA boundary encompasses the geographic extents of all the compatibility factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight.

C. Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones). This policy map displays a single set of safety zones reflecting the existing runway configurations. The safety zones for are based upon the generic safety zones provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

D. Policy Map L-2a (Chino Airport Open Land Streets). This policy map identifies three streets that will be designed to satisfy the Open Land criteria.

E. Policy Map L- 3 (Chino Airspace Protection Zones ). The airspace protection zones are prepared in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the Federal Aviation Administration. The airspace surfaces reflect the existing runway configurations.

F. Policy Map L-4 (Chino Overflight Notification Zones). This policy map identifies the overflight notification zones. The overflight notification zones also encompass the areas underlying the airport’s critical airspace surfaces.

603
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix
Safety Zones Residential
Density
Limits
Non-Residential
Intensity Limits
(People per acre)
Open Land
Requirement
for Entire Zone
Other Criteria Boundary
Determinations
Zone 1
Runway
Protection Zone
0 0 All Remaining
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
RPZ
Zone 2
Inner
Approach/
Departure Zone
0 60 (avg.)
120 (single acre)
25%; preserve
open land
nearest runway
end
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 2
Zone 3
Inner
Turning Zone
1 dwelling unit
per 2-acre lot
100 (avg.)
300 (single acre)
15%; preserve
open land along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 3
Zone 4
Outer Approach/
Departure Zone
2 dwelling
units
per 2-acre lot
150 (avg.)
450 (single acre)
15%; preserve
open land along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 4

Zone 6
Traffic Pattern
Zone
No Limit 300 (avg.)
1,200 (single acre)
10%; preserve
open land every
1/4 to 1/2 mile
Deed Notice and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 6

604
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Outdoor Uses (limited or no activities in buildings)
Natural Land Areas: desert, brush lands 3

1: Avoid new features that attract birds;
vegetation must be clear of airspace
surfaces
Water: flood plains, stormwater facilities,
wetlands, lakes, reservoirs 3 1-6: Avoid new features that attract birds Agriculture (except residences and
livestock): crops, orchards, vineyards,
pasture, range land 3

1-6: Avoid new features that attract birds
Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards,
breeding, fish hatcheries, horse stables
3 2-6: Avoid new features that attract birds
Outdoor Major/Large Assembly Facilities:
4 spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums,
amphitheaters, fairgrounds, race
tracks, water parks, zoos

6: Allowed if intensity criteria met
Outdoor Group Recreation (limited
spectator stands): athletic fields, water
recreation facilities, picnic areas

4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended function
Outdoor Small/Non-Group Recreation:
golf courses, tennis courts, shooting
ranges 3

3-6: Allowed if intensity criteria met
Local Parks: children-oriented
neighborhood parks, playgrounds 6: Allowed if intensity criteria met Camping: campgrounds, recreational
vehicle/ motor home parks 3-6: Allowed only if intensity criteria met Cemeteries (except chapels)

605
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Residential and Lodging Uses
Residential: individual dwellings,
townhouses, mobile homes,
apartments, condominiums, bed &
breakfast inns 5

3, 4: 1 du/2-acre lots (avg. density); 4
du/single- acre; locate dwelling max.
distance from extended runway
centerline where feasible
Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights):
extended-stay hotels, dormitories

Short-Term Lodging (≤ 30 nights): hotels,
motels, other transient lodging (except
conference/assembly facilities)
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.69 4: FAR limits as indicated
Congregate Care: retirement homes,
assisted living, nursing homes,
intermediate care facilities

6: Allowed only if site outside zone would
not serve intended function
Educational and Institutional Uses
Family day care homes (≤14 children) 5
Children’s Schools: K-12, day care
centers (>14 children); school libraries 6: Subject to approval by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Adult Education classroom space:
adult schools, colleges, universities
[approx. 40 s.f./person] 0.09 0.14 0.28
3-6: FAR limits as indicated; also see
individual components of campus
facilities (e.g., assembly facilities, offices,
gymnasiums)
Community Libraries
[approx. 100 s.f./person] 0.23 0.34 0.69 3-6: FAR limits as indicated Major Indoor Assembly Facilities 4:
auditoriums, conference centers,
concert halls, arenas

606
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Large Indoor Assembly Facilities 4:
movie theaters, places of worship,
cemetery chapels, mortuaries
[approx. 15 s.f./person]

0.03 0.05 0.10
3-6: FAR limits as indicated
Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums, club
houses, athletic clubs, dance studios
[approx. 60 s.f./person]

0.14 0.21 0.41
3-6: FAR limits as indicated
In-Patient Medical: hospitals, mental
hospitals 6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended function
Out-Patient Medical: health care
centers, clinics
[approx. 240 s.f./person]

0.55 0.83
3, 4: FAR limits as indicated
Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories 6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended function
Public Safety Facilities: police, fire
stations 3, 4: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function
Commercial, Office, and Service Uses
Major Retail: regional shopping
centers, ‘big box’ retail
[approx. 110 s.f./person]

0.25 0.38 0.76
3-6: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate
eating/ drinking areas separately if >10%
of total floor area
Local Retail:
community/neighborhood shopping
centers, grocery stores
[approx. 170 s.f./person]

0.39 0.59
3, 4: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate
eating/ drinking areas separately if >10%
of total floor area
Eating/Drinking Establishments:
restaurants, fast-food dining, bars
[approx. 60 s.f./person]

0.14 0.21 0.41
3-5: FAR limits as indicated
Limited Retail/Wholesale: furniture,
automobiles, heavy equipment,
lumber yards, nurseries
[approx. 250 s.f./person]

0.34 0.57
2, 3: FAR limits as indicated; design site to
place parking inside and buildings
outside of zone if possible
607
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Offices: professional services, doctors,
finance, civic; radio, television &
recording studios, office space
associated with other listed uses
[approx. 215 s.f./person]

0.30 0.49 0.74
2-4: FAR limits as indicated
Personal & Miscellaneous Services:
barbers, car washes, print shops
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.28 0.46 0.69
2-4: FAR limits as indicated
Vehicle Fueling: gas stations, trucking &
transportation terminals
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Storage Uses
Hazardous Materials Production: oil
refineries, chemical plants ( ≥ 6,000
gallons)

Heavy Industrial

4: Avoid bulk storage of hazardous
(flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic)
materials; permitting agencies to
evaluate possible need for special
measures to minimize hazards if struck by
aircraft
Light Industrial, High Intensity: food
products preparation, electronic
equipment
[approx. 200 s.f./person] 0.28 0.46 0.69
2-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
Light Industrial, Low Intensity: machine
shops, wood products, auto repair
[approx. 350 s.f./person] 0.48 0.80 1.21
2-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
608
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Research & Development
[approx. 300 s.f./person]

0.69 1.03
3-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
Indoor Storage: wholesale sales,
warehouses, mini/other indoor
storage, barns, greenhouses
[approx. 1,000 s.f./person]

2: Single story only; max. 10% in
mezzanine
Outdoor Storage: public works yards,
automobile dismantling
Mining & Extraction 6
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Airport Terminals: airline, general
aviation
Rail & Bus Stations

2: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function

Transportation Routes: road & rail rights-of-
way, bus stops 3 1: Avoid new features that create airspace obstructions
Auto Parking: surface lots, structures 3 1: Avoid new features that create airspace obstructions
Communications Facilities: emergency
communications, broadcast & cell towers 7
4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function;
not allowed within ½ mile of runway
Power Plants 7 4, 6: Primary plants not allowed; peaker plants only
609
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Electrical Substations 7

4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function;
avoid features that create flight hazards
Wastewater Facilities: treatment, disposal 3

6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function; avoid new
features that attract birds
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill,
incineration 3
6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function; avoid new
features that attract birds
Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle
Centers 3
6: Allowed only if site outside zone would
not serve intended public function; avoid
new features that attract birds

1. Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses.

2. Sample safety zones from the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), as applied to Chino Airport, extend into the limits of the City of Ontario, except for Safety Zone 5. For numerical consistency, the Compatibility Zones for Chino Airport maintain the same numbering system used in the Handbook despite omission of Safety Zone 5. Avigation easement dedication required as condition of approval for all properties within Compatibility Zones 1-4.

3. Although these uses may satisfy the Safety criteria, they may be inconsistent with the Airspace Protection criteria as these uses may attract birds or other wildlife that could pose hazards to flight (see Airspace Protection Policies) or create obstructions to navigable airspace.

4. A Major Assembly Facility is defined as having a capacity of ≥1,000 people, while a Large Assembly Facility has a capacity of 300 to 999 people. Source: International Building Code.

5. Construction of a single-family home, including a second dwelling unit as defined by state law, allowed on a legal lot of record if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. A family day care home (serving ≤14 children) may be established in any dwelling.

6. These uses may generate dust or other hazards to flight.

7. Power lines or other tall objects associated with these uses may be hazards to flight.

610
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area)

611
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones)

612
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy Map L-2a: Chino Airport Open Land Streets

613
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones

614
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDCA22-004
June 28, 2022

Policy Map L-4: Chino Overflight Notification Zones

615
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PDCA22-004, A DEVELOPMENT

CODE AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CODE, ESTABLISHING THE CHINO

AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND REFERENCE L, CHINO

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario ("Applicant") has initiated a Development Code Amendment, File No. PDCA22-004, as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Development Code (Ontario Municipal Code Title 9) provides the legislative framework for the implementation of The Ontario Plan, which establishes long term principals, goals, and policies for guiding the growth and development of the City in a manner that achieves Ontario's vision, and promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Chino Airport is a general aviation airport located within the City of Chino, immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the City of Ontario. The geographic scope of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) is the Airport Influence Area (“AIA”). The portion of the AIA within the City of Ontario is generally bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Merrill Avenue/southern boundary City limits to the south, Euclid Avenue to the west and Haven Avenue to the east; and

WHEREAS, certain revisions to the City of Ontario Development Code are proposed, as follows:

(1) Provisions to establish the Chino Airport Overlay zoning district within Chapter 5 Development Code Section 5.01.005.F.6; and

(2) Provisions to establish Reference L, the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan within the Reference section of the Development Code; and

WHEREAS, the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an ALUCP be prepared for all public-use airports in the state to “protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses”; and

WHEREAS, State law requires that local jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans “rely upon” the compatibility guidance provided by the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), Division of Aeronautics; and
616

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”). However, State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an “Alternative Process” wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, the use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport; and

WHEREAS, the current ALUCP does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”). Although, the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries; and

WHEREAS, the basic function of the ALUCP for Chino Airport (“CNO”) is to promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. The main objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities; and

WHEREAS, the ALUCP addresses four compatibility factors which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight impacts. The compatibility plan includes policies to evaluate, land use plans and new development proposals for consistency with CNO.

Each compatibility factor takes into consideration present and future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect airport operations; and

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility 617
Plan (ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Chino ALUCP does not create any conflicting policies or inconsistencies with the ONT ALUCP; and

WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, as the first action on the Application, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a public hearing to consider the Project and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (6-0) to issue Resolution No. PC22-032, recommending the City Council approve the proposed Development Code Amendment; and

WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a public hearing to consider the introduction of this Ordinance, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:

(1) The administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) The Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the activity is covered by the “common sense exemption” (also known as the “general rule exemption”) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and

(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 2. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual 618
development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 3. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 2, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Development Code Amendment will support the creation and implementation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport as promoted by Land Use Element Policy LU5-8 Chino Airport.

(2) The proposed Development Code Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The Development Code Amendment incorporates safeguards intended to ensure that the purposes of the Development Code are preserved; the project will not be contrary to or damage the public health, safety, convenience, or general welfare; the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities, and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan.

SECTION 4. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Development Code Amendment, File No. PDCA22-004, amending the City of Ontario Development Code as stipulated in “Attachment A and B”, incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

619
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 8. Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2022.

_____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

620

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Ordinance No. 3222 was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held July 19, 2022 and adopted at the regular meeting held August 2, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 3222 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022 and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on July 26, 2022 and August 9, 2022, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.

__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)
621
ATTACHMENT A:

Add Development Code Section 5.01.005.F.6 to read as follows:

“6. CNO (Chino Airport) Overlay Zoning District. The Chino Airport Overlay zoning district is hereby established to: [i] delineate the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Chino Airport as the boundary of the CNO Overlay zoning district; [ii] adopt an airport land use compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries; and [iii] promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. Property in the CNO Overlay zoning district shall be subject to Reference L - Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, that includes maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA.”

622

ATTACHMENT B:

Add Development Code Reference L to read as follows:

L.01.001: Introduction

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) be prepared for all public-use airports in the state to:

“protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses.”

State law also requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility Plans. The statutes also require that local jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans “rely upon” the compatibility guidance provided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics in January 2011.

The responsibility for the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county airport land use commission (ALUC). However, State law also provides for what is generally referred to as an “Alternative Process” wherein a county does not have to form an ALUC and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process when this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (Assembly Bill 2831). Specific requirements for implementation of the Alternative Process are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2).

Use of the Alternative Process within San Bernardino County was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport.

The current Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Although, the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario’s boundaries.

623
Chino Airport is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino and is situated within the boundaries of the City of Chino, immediately south of Ontario. Chino Airport (CNO) is the busiest non-commercial airport within a 20-mile radius of the City of Ontario, making it a leading general aviation airport of choice for independent pilots, students and trainers, and corporate users. CNO occupies 1,097 acres, has three runways and provides full precision instrument approach capabilities. The airport reported nearly 165,000 annual operations for the 12-month period ending in September 2019. Aircraft operations on Runway 3-21 (northeast/southwest crosswind runway) and Runway 8L- 26R (northern east/west parallel runway) have the greatest effect on the City of Ontario.

A brief summary of airport facilities is provided below and shown in Figure L-1: Chino Airport Diagram.

Figure L-1: Chino Airport Runway Diagram

624
Chino Airport Facilities

 Runway 3-21

• Airport Reference Code: C-II
• Existing Runway Dimensions: 4,919 feet x 150 feet
• Runway is lighted for nighttime operations
• Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest): Visual (>1-mile) • Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 77 category and approach slope: B(V), 20:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 3 (right), Runway 21 (left)

 Runway 8L-26R

• Airport Reference Code: C-III
• Runway Dimensions:
• Existing: 4,858 feet x 150 feet
• Future: 5,500 feet x 150 feet
• Existing Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest) and Part 77 category and approach slope:
• Runway 8L: Visual (>1 mile); B(V), 20:1
• Runway 26R: Precision (<3/4 mile); 50:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 8L (right), Runway 26R (left)

 Runway 8R-26L

• Airport Reference Code: D-III
• Existing Runway Dimensions: 7,000 feet x 150 feet
• Runway is lighted for nighttime operations
• Approach Visibility Minimums (lowest):
 Existing Runway 8R and 26L: Visual, >1-mile
 Future Runway 26L: Precision (3/4 mile)
• Part 77 category and approach slope:
 Existing: B(V), 20:1
 Future Runway 26L: Precision, 50:1
• Traffic Pattern: Runway 8R (right), Runway 26L (left)

L.01.002: Purpose
The purpose of the “Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan” (ALUCP) for Chino Airport (CNO) is to promote compatibility between CNO and the land uses that surround it. The City’s general plan, specific plans, and zoning ordinances shall be made consistent with the CNO ALUCP through incorporation of the compatibility policies into their land use policy documents.

The main objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities. Also, the ALUCP is aimed at addressing future land uses and development, not airport activity. The ALUCP does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration, or use of the airport. 625

L.01.003: Definitions

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish definitions for terms and phrases used in this CNO ALUCP that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage.

B. Terms and Phrases. Definitions of Words Beginning with the Letter “A.”

Above Ground Level (AGL): An elevation datum given in feet above ground level.

Accident Potential Zones (APZs): A set of safety-related zones defined by AICUZ studies for areas beyond the ends of military airport runways. Typically, three types of zones are established: a clear zone closest to the runway end, then APZ I and APZ II. The potential for aircraft accidents and the corresponding need for land use restrictions is greatest with the clear zone and diminishes with increased distance from the runway.

Air Carriers: The commercial system of air transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers, air taxis (including commuters), supplemental air carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, and air travel clubs.

Aircraft Accident: An occurrence incident to flight in which, as a result of the operation of an aircraft, a person (occupant or nonoccupant) receives fatal or serious injury or an aircraft receives substantial damage.

 Except as provided below, substantial damage means damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

 Engine failure, damage limited to an engine, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small puncture holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered substantial damage.

Aircraft Incident: A mishap associated with the operation of an aircraft in which neither fatal or serious injuries nor substantial damage to the aircraft occur.

Aircraft Mishap: The collective term for an aircraft accident or an incident.

Aircraft Operation: The airborne movement of aircraft at an airport or about an en route fix or at other point where counts can be made. There are two types of operations: local and itinerant. An operation is counted for each landing and each departure, such that a touch-and-go flight is counted as two operations.

626
Airport: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and taking off of aircraft and includes its buildings and facilities if any.

Airport Elevation: The highest point of an airport’s useable runways, measured in feet above mean sea level.

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP): A planning document that contains policies for promoting safety and compatibility between public use airports and the communities that surround them. The ALUCP is the foundation of the airport land use compatibility planning process.

Airport Layout Plan (ALP): A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities, their location on an airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate conformance with applicable standards.

Airport Master Plan (AMP): A long-range plan for development of an airport, including descriptions of the data and analyses on which the plan is based.

Airport Reference Code (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operation and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport.

Airports, Classes of: For the purposes of issuing a Site Approval Permit, The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics classifies airports into the following categories:

 Agricultural Airport or Heliport: An airport restricted to use only be agricultural aerial applicator aircraft (FAR Part 137 operators).

 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site: A site used for the landing and taking off of EMS helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near an medical facility and: 1)has been designated an EMS landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters; 2) is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits; 3)is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations; and 4)is used only for emergency medical purposes.

 Heliport on Offshore Oil Platform: A heliport located on a structure in the ocean, not connected to the shore by pier, bridge, wharf, dock or breakwater, used in the support of petroleum exploration or production.

 Personal-Use Airport: An airport limited to the non-commercial use of an individual owner or family and occasional invited guests.
627

 Public-Use Airport: An airport that is open for aircraft operations to the general public and is listed in the current edition of the Airport/Facility Directory that is published by the National Ocean Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 Seaplane Landing Site: An area of water used, or intended for use, for landing and takeoff of seaplanes.

 Special-Use Airport or Heliport: An airport not open to the general public, access to which is controlled by the owner in support of commercial activities, public service operations, and/or personal use.

 Temporary Helicopter Landing Site: A site, other than an emergency medical service landing site at or near a medical facility, which is used for landing and taking off of helicopters and is used or intended to be used for less than one year, except for recurrent annual events and is not marked or lighted to be distinguishable as a heliport and is not used exclusively for helicopter operations.

Ambient Noise Level: The level of noise that is all encompassing within a given environment for which a single source cannot be determined. It is usually a composite of sounds from many and varied sources near to and far from the receiver.

Approach Protection Easement: A form of easement that both conveys all of the rights of an avigation easement and sets specified limitations on the type of land uses allowed to be developed on the property.

Approach Speed: The recommended speed contained in aircraft manuals used by pilots when making an approach to landing. This speed will vary for different segments of an approach as well as for aircraft weight and configuration.

Aviation-Related Use: Any facility or activity directly associated with the air transportation of persons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal buildings, etc.

Avigation Easement: A type of easement that typically conveys the following rights:

 A right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (usually set in accordance with FAR Part 77 criteria).

 A right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with normal airport activity.

 A right to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would enter the acquired airspace.
628

 A right-of-entry onto the property, with proper advance notice, for the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace.

 A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and other hazards to aircraft flight from being created on the property.

Based Aircraft: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis.

Ceiling: Height above the earth’s surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena.

Circling Approach/Circle-to-Land Maneuver: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or not desirable.

Commercial Activities: Airport-related activities that may offer a facility, service or commodity for sale, hire or profit. Examples of commodities for sale are: food, lodging, entertainment, real estate, petroleum products, parts and equipment. Examples of services are: flight training, charter flights, maintenance, aircraft storage, and tiedown.

Commercial Operator: A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The noise metric adopted by the State of California for evaluating airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during evening and nighttime periods relative to the daytime period.

Compatibility Plan: As used herein, a plan, that sets forth policies for promoting compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them.

Controlled Airspace: Any of several types of airspace within which some or all aircraft may be subject to air traffic control.

Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): The noise metric adopted by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for measurement of environmental noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, measured in decibels and adjusted to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during nighttime periods. The mathematical symbol is Ldn.

Decibel (dB): A unit measuring the magnitude of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound, specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear. For environmental noise from aircraft and other transportation sources, an A-weighted sound 629
level (abbreviated dBA) is normally used. The A-weighting scale adjusts the values of different sound frequencies to approximate the auditory sensitivity of the human ear.

Deed Notice: A formal statement added to the legal description of a deed to a property and on any subdivision map. As used in airport land use planning, a deed notice would state that the property is subject to aircraft overflights. Deed notices are used as a form of buyer notification as a means of ensuring that those who are particularly sensitive to aircraft overflights can avoid moving to the affected areas.

Displaced Threshold: A landing threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway (see Threshold).

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The level of constant sound that, in the given situation and time period, has the same average sound energy as does a time-varying sound.

FAR Part 77: The part of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace.

FAR Part 77 Surfaces: Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The U.S. government agency that is responsible for ensuring the safe and efficient use of the nation’s airports and airspace.

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): Regulations formally issued by the FAA to regulate air commerce.

Fixed Base Operator (FBO): A business that operates at an airport and provides aircraft services to the general public including, but not limited to, sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tiedown or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol.

Fleet Mix: The composition of aircraft that operate at a particular airport.

Flight Tracks: Routes aircraft routinely use when arriving and departing from an airport.

Forecasts: A projection of the amount and type of aircraft operations at an airport.

General Aviation: That portion of civil aviation that encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers.

General Aviation Airport: Airports that do not receive scheduled commercial service, or do not meet the criteria for classification as a commercial service airport. 630
General aviation airports have at least 10 locally based aircraft, are at least twenty miles from the nearest NPIAS airports.

Glide Slope: An electronic signal radiated by a component of an ILS to provide vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing.

Helipad: A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters.

Heliport: A facility used for operating, basing, housing, and maintaining helicopters. (HAI)

Infill: Development that takes place on vacant property largely surrounded by existing development, especially development that is similar in character.

Inner Approach/Departure Zone: A rectangular area extending beyond the RPZ.

If the RPZ widths approximately equal the runway widths, the Inner Approach/Departure Zoned extends along the sides of the RPZ from the end of the runway.

Inner Turning Zone: A triangular area over which aircraft are turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern. It also includes the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff to climb mode and begin to turn on their en route headings.

Instrument Approach Procedure: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a specific airport by competent authority (refer to Nonprecision Approach Procedure and Precision Approach Procedure).

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Generally, IFR applies when meteorological conditions with a ceiling below 1,000 feet and visibility less than 3 miles prevail.

Instrument Landing System (ILS): A precision instrument approach system that normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Marker; (4) Middle Marker; (5) Approach Lights.

Instrument Operation: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility.

Instrument Runway: A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or nonprecision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved.

631
Inverse Condemnation: An action brought by a property owner seeking just compensation for land taken for a public use against a government or private entity having the power of eminent domain. It is a remedy peculiar to the property owner and is exercisable by that party where it appears that the taker of the property does not intend to bring eminent domain proceedings.

Land Use Density: A measure of the concentration of land use development in an area. Mostly the term is used with respect to residential development and refers to the number of dwelling units per acre. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to gross rather than net acreage.

Land Use Intensity: A measure of the concentration of nonresidential land use development in an area. For the purposes of airport land use planning, the term indicates the number of people per acre attracted by the land use. Unless otherwise noted, policies in this compatibility plan refer to gross rather than net acreage.

Large Airplane: An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight.

Localizer (LOC): The component of an ILS that provides course guidance to the runway.

Mean Sea Level (MSL): An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level.

Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA): The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided.

Missed Approach: A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be completed to a landing.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The U.S. government agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and incidents.

Navigational Aid (Navaid): Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface that provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.

Noise Contours: Continuous lines of equal noise level usually drawn around a noise source, such as an airport or highway. The lines are generally drawn in 5-decibel increments so that they resemble elevation contours in topographic maps.

Noise Level Reduction (NLR): A measure used to describe the reduction in sound level from environmental noise sources occurring between the outside and the inside of a structure.

632
Nonconforming Use: An existing land use that does not conform to subsequently adopted or amended zoning or other land use development standards.

Nonprecision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided.

Nonprecision Instrument Runway: A runway with an approved or planned straight-in instrument approach procedure that has no existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure.

Obstruction: Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein, the height of which exceeds the standards established in Subpart C of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) Obstacle Identification Surface: For airports with runways that support air carrier operations, this surface begins at the same elevation of the end of the departure runway and slopes upward at 1 foot vertically to 62.5 feet horizontally. The inner width of the OEI surface is 600 feet while the outer width is 12,000 feet. The surface extends for a distance of 50,000 feet along the runway centerline.

Outer Approach/Departure Zone: A rectangular area located along the extended centerline beyond the Inner Approach/Departure Zone.

Overflight: Any distinctly visible and/or audible passage of an aircraft in flight, not necessarily directly overhead.

Overflight Easement: An easement that describes the right to overfly the property above a specified surface and includes the right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, and emissions. An overflight easement is used primarily as a form of buyer notification.

Overflight Zone: The area(s) where aircraft maneuver to enter or leave the traffic pattern, typically defined by the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface.

Precision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure where an electronic glide slope is provided.

Precision Instrument Runway: A runway with an existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure.

Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist: A biologist who has received specific training to identify hazards to aircraft operations pursuant to FAA criteria set forth at Advisory Circular 150/5200-36A, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports.

633
Referral Area: The area around an airport defined by the planning area boundary adopted by an airport land use commission within which certain land use proposals are to be referred to the commission for review.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): An area (formerly called a clear zone) off the end of a runway used to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.

Safety Zone: For the purpose of airport land use planning, an area near an airport in which land use restrictions are established to protect the safety of the public from potential aircraft accidents.

Sideline Zone: A rectangular area in close proximity and parallel to the runway.

Single-Event Noise: As used in herein, the noise from an individual aircraft operation or overflight.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): A measure, in decibels, of the noise exposure level of a single event, such as an aircraft flyby, measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which the noise level of the event exceeds a threshold noise level and normalized to a reference duration of one second. SENEL is a noise metric established for use in California by the state Airport Noise Standards and is essentially identical to Sound Exposure Level (SEL).

Site Approval Permit: A written approval issued by the California Department of Transportation authorizing construction of an airport in accordance with approved plans, specifications, and conditions. Both public-use and special-use airports require a site approval permit. (CCR)

Small Airplane: An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. (Airport Design AC)

Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A time-integrated metric (i.e., continuously summed over a time period) that quantifies the total energy in the A-weighted sound level measured during a transient noise event. The time period for this measurement is generally taken to be that between the moments when the A-weighted sound level is 10 dB below the maximum.

Straight-In Instrument Approach: An instrument approach wherein a final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing weather minimums. (AIM)

Taking: Government appropriation of private land for which compensation must be paid as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is not essential that there be physical seizure or appropriation for a taking to occur, only that the government action directly interferes with or substantially disturbs the owner’s right to use and enjoyment of the property.

634
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS): Procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports. There are four types of terminal instrument procedures: precision approach, nonprecision approach, circling, and departure.

Threshold: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing (also see Displaced Threshold).

Touch-and-Go: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway.

Traffic Pattern: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach.

Traffic Pattern Zone: An elliptical area that includes the majority of other portions of regular air traffic patterns and pattern entry routes, and generally extends to the farthest point of 6,000 foot radius arcs from the centers of each of the primary surfaces and connecting lines tangent to those arcs.

Visual Approach: An approach where the pilot must use visual reference to the runway for landing under VFR conditions.

Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. VFR applies when meteorological conditions are equal to or greater than the specified minimum-generally, a 1,000-foot ceiling and 3-mile visibility.

Visual Runway: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan.

L.01.004: Compatibility Factors

In accordance with guidance set forth the by 2011 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, the CNO Airport Influence Area (AIA) encompasses all lands that could be negatively impacted by CNO’s present, or future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect airport operations. The AIA is depicted in Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area) and encompasses the geographic extent of four types of compatibility impacts, referred to as compatibility factors, listed below:

 Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground.

 Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise.

635
 Airspace Protection: Places where height and certain other land use characteristics, particularly uses that attract birds, need to be restricted in order to protect the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the airport.

 Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people.

The potential impact of each compatibility factor on land within the City of Ontario were evaluated and maps, criteria, and policy language have been created to guide development within the Chino AIA. The compatibility policies and criteria to evaluate future development proposals are consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

A. Safety. The intent of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur. The potential risks to people and property within the CNO AIA and to people on board the aircraft are considered.

The Handbook provides sets of generic zones for different types of general aviation runways and the shapes and sizes of the zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data and flight parameters. The Handbook safety zones and criteria serve as the basis for this CNO ALUCP and are described below:

 The generic Handbook safety zones for a Medium General Aviation Runway Group were applied for the approach end of Runway 21 (northeast) and Runway 26R (east).

 The generic Handbook safety zones for a Long General Aviation Runway Group were applied for the approach end of Runway 26L (east).

For implementation purposes, the generic Handbook Safety Zone boundaries were adjusted to follow parcel lines, roads, and other geographic features. The reconfiguration of the safety zones did not result in a substantial net acreage reduction of the safety zones. For consistency, the CNO Safety Zones maintain the same numbering system used in the Handbook. Portions of Safety Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are located within Ontario city limits and are depicted in Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones). Safety Zone 5 is located outside of the Ontario city limits and not included in the CNO ALUCP.

1. Safety Zone 1. Zone 1 reflects the airport’s established Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Portions of the RPZ are located off airport within the City of Ontario and shall be maintained as undeveloped land, clear of objects in accordance with FAA standards.

Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft on very close final approach or departure –
very high risk
Normally Allowed Uses:
 None

636
Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Altitude:
 Less than 200 feet above runway
Uses to Avoid:
 Nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in
character and confined to the outer sides such as
parking lots, streets, roads
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Downdrafts and wind gusts. Low glide paths
 Departure: Runway overruns, aborted takeoffs, and
engine failures
Prohibit:
 All new structures and residential land uses
Risk Level:
 Very high
 Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone:
20% - 21%
Other Factors:
 Airport ownership of property encouraged

2. Safety Zone 2. Zone 2 reflects the Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft overflying at low altitudes on final approach and straight-out departures
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Agriculture; non-group recreational uses
 Low-hazard materials storage, warehouses
 Low-intensity light industrial uses; auto, aircraft,
marine repair services
Altitude:
 Between 200 and 400 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 All residential uses except as infill in developed
areas
 Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity Shopping centers, most eating establishments
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Similar to Zone 1, aircraft under-shooting
approaches, forced short landings
 Departure: Similar to Zone 1, emergency landing on
straight-out departure
Uses to Avoid:
 All residential uses except as infill in developed
areas
 Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity  Shopping centers, most eating establishments
Risk Level:
 High
 Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone:
8% to 22% Aircraft on very close final approach or
departure – very high risk
Uses Prohibit:
 Theaters, meeting halls and other assembly uses
 Office buildings greater than 3 stories
 Labor-intensive industrial use Nonresidential uses
except if very low intensity in character and
confined to the outer sides Parking lots, streets,
roads

3. Safety Zone 3. Zone 3 reflects the Inner Turning Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft—especially smaller, piston-powered
aircraft— turning base to final on landing approach
or initiating turn to en route direction on departure
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Uses allowed in Zone 2
 Greenhouses, low-hazard materials storage, mini-
storage, warehouses
 Light industrial, vehicle repair services
Altitude:
 Less than 500 feet above runway, particularly on
landing
Uses to Limit:
 Residential uses to very low densities
 Office and other commercial uses to low intensities
637
Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pilot overshoots turn to final and
inappropriately cross controls the airplane rudder
and ailerons while attempting to return to the runway
alignment causing stall, spin, and uncontrolled crash
 Departure: Mechanical failure on takeoff; low altitude gives pilot few options on emergency landing site; or,
pilot attempts to return to airport and loses control
during tight turn
Uses to Avoid:
 Commercial and other nonresidential uses having
higher usage intensities
 Building with more than 3 aboveground habitable
floors
 Hazardous uses (e.g., aboveground bulk fuel
storage)
Risk Level:
 Moderate to high
 Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone:
4% to 8%
Uses to Prohibit:
 Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls
and other assembly facilities
 Children’s schools, large daycare centers,
hospitals, nursing homes
 Stadiums, group recreational uses

4. Safety Zone 4. Zone 4 reflects the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Approaching aircraft usually at less than traffic
pattern altitude
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Uses allowed in Zone 3
 Restaurants, retail, industrial
Altitude:
 Less than 1,000 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 Residential uses to low density
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pilot undershoots runway during an
instrument approach, aircraft loses engine on
approach, forced landing
 Departure: Mechanical failure on takeoff
Uses to Avoid:
 High-intensity retail or office buildings

Risk Level:
 Moderate
 Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone:
2% to 6%
Uses to Prohibit:
 Children’s schools, large daycare centers,
hospitals, nursing homes
 Stadiums, group recreational uses

5. Safety Zone 6. Zone 6 reflects the Traffic Pattern Zone. Below is a summary of risk and basic compatibility policies listed in the Handbook.

Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Normal Maneuvers:
 Aircraft within a regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes
Normally Allowed Uses:
 Residential uses
Altitude:
 Less than 1,000 to 1,500 feet above runway
Uses to Limit:
 Children’s schools, large day care centers,
hospitals, and nursing homes
 Processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly
hazardous
Common Accident Types:
 Arrival: Pattern accidents in proximity of airport
 Departure: Emergency landings
Uses to Avoid:
 Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high
intensities
638
Nature of Risk Basic Compatibility Policies
Risk Level:
 Low
 Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone:
18% to 29% (percentage is high because of large
area encompassed)

6. Factors in establishing Safety Zone Policies. To minimize risks to people and property on the ground, the safety compatibility criteria in Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria set limits on:

a. Residential Uses. The density of residential development is measured by the number of dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011) guidelines, a greater degree of protection is warranted for residential uses.

b. Nonresidential Uses. The intensity of nonresidential development is measured by the number of people per acre concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents.

7. Safety Zone Standards for New Development. To minimize risk-sensitive development in high-risk areas around CNO, the safety compatibility of new development shall be evaluated in accordance with the safety policies set forth in this section, including the criteria listed in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix, Table L-2:

Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria and the safety zones depicted on Policy Map L-2:

Chino Airport Safety Zones.

8. Safety Zone Policies.

Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S1 Residential Development: New residential development is incompatible within all Safety Zones (1 through 4). Policies S1a and S1b are exceptions to this policy, if applicable.

S1a Single-Family Home: The construction of a single-family home on a legal lot of record is allowed in Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario’s land use regulations. See Policy SP2 with regard to development by right.

S1b Second-Unit: A second-unit as defined by state law is allowed within Safety Zones 2, 3 and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario’s land use regulations.

S1c Family Day Care: In accordance with state law, a family day care home serving 14 or fewer children may be established in any dwelling by the policies of this ALUCP.

S1d Residential Mixed-Use Developments: New mixed-use developments will locate the residential component outside of all safety zones.
639
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2 Occupancy Limits For Nonresidential Development: Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the usage intensity (number of people per acre) limit for each safety zone. The usage intensity limits represent the safety criteria for new nonresidential development. The usage intensity limits measure intensity in two forms:

1. Sitewide average intensity which sets intensity limits for the entire project site; and

2. Single-acre intensity which sets intensity limits on any single acre within the project site (see Figure L2: Land Use Intensity Calculation example). As a condition of approval, all new nonresidential development within the Safety Zones shall comply with both forms of intensity limits as described further below.

S2a Sitewide Average Intensity is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be on the site at any given time under normal operating conditions and dividing by the total number of acres of the project site.

S2b Single-acre Intensity of a proposed development is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be within any one-acre portion of the site, typically the most intensively used building or part of a building. The 1.0-acre area calculations represent building footprints that are generally rectangular and not elongated in shape or, for buildings larger than 1.0 acre, represent a portion of the building.

Figure L2: Land Use Intensity Calculation Example

In this example, both the sitewide and single-acre intensity of a proposed Research & Development (R&D) / warehouse facility is calculated using the common occupancy load factors [number of square feet per person] information in Table L-2 together with project-specific data. The results are then compared with the maximum sitewide and single-acre intensity limits to determine consistency of the project with the safety criteria.

640
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2c Usage Intensity calculations includes all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors) who may be on the property at any single point in time during normal operating conditions, whether indoors or outdoors.

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the normal occupancy load factor (number of square feet per person) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for many nonresidential uses. These numbers are interrelated with the intensity limits (number of people per acre) and can be used to calculate the usage intensity of a proposed project (see Figure L-3: Intensity Limits). Note that the safety criteria are the sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (number of people per acre). The occupancy load factors and FARs are provided as methods for calculating the
intensity of a proposed project.

1. Occupancy Load Factors: The
occupancy load factors (minimum
number of square feet per person)
provided in Table L-2: Safety Zones
Compatibility Criteria vary from one
land use to another. As shown in Figure
L-4, the sitewide average usage intensity
of a project having multiple uses can be
calculated by:

 Dividing the number of square feet
of each component use by the
number of square feet per person
(occupancy load) for that use as
indicated in Table L-2;
 Adding together the number of
people for each component use;
and
 Dividing the total number of people
by the total number of acres of the
project site to get the sitewide
average intensity.
 Where occupancy load factors are
not indicated in the table or if the
assumed occupancy load factor for a particular proposal or component thereof is not applicable to the project, then the number of occupants is estimated in another manner – for example, the number of seats and employees at a restaurant or the number of parking places times the vehicle occupancy for an industrial plant.

Figure L-3: Intensity Limits
The interrelationship between Intensity limit,
normal occupancy load factor and Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) is indicated in the two examples
below. The examples reflect Zone 3 criteria:
intensity limit of 100 people per acre, occupancy
load factor of 200 square feet per person, and 0.46
FAR.

Example 1
200 square feet per person (occupancy
load factor)
x 100 people per acre (intensity limit)
20,000 square foot building
÷ 43,560 square feet per acre

0.46 FAR

Example 2
43,560 square feet per acre
x 0.46 FAR
20,000 square foot building
÷ 200 square feet per person (occupancy
load factor)
100 people per acre (intensity limit)
641
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S2C 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs): The allowable FAR is indicated in Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria for a particular safety zone and vary from one land use to another. Each component use is calculated as occupying a share of the total project site equal to its percentage of the total floor area in the project. Mathematically, this means that the FAR for each component use will be the same as the FAR for the entire building.

3. Alternative Intensity Calculations: An alternative method for measuring compliance with the usage intensity limits is acceptable. For example, a method based upon the City’s parking space requirements may be used together with an assumed number of people per vehicle as a means of determining the number of occupants for uses that are vehicle oriented (this method would not be suitable for land uses where many users arrive by transit, bicycle, or other means of transportation).

4. Mixed-Use Development: Each component use within a nonresidential mixed-use development shall comply with Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria unless the use is ancillary (less than 10% of total building floor area).

5. Ancillary Uses: Up to 10% of the total floor area of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use of another type, including a use with a higher occupancy load factor that is shown as incompatible in Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria. Ancillary uses may be excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations (but not the sitewide average intensity limits) provided that the ancillary use is neither:

 An assembly room having more than 750 square feet of floor area (this criterion is intended to parallel Building Code standards) and a capacity of more than 50 people; nor  A children’s school (grades K–12), day care center or other risk-sensitive use that is “incompatible” within the safety zone where the primary use is to be located.

6. Uncommon Land Use Considerations: If a particular development proposal is uncommon—that is, there would be more floor area per person and lower usage intensity—the local agency may consider that information in determining the safety compatibility of the proposal. In considering any such exceptions, the local agency shall also take into account the potential for the use of a building to change over time. A building could have planned low-intensity use initially, but later be converted to a higher- intensity use. Local agency permit language or other mechanisms to ensure continued compliance with the usage intensity criteria must be put in place.

7. Parcels within Multiple Safety Zones:

For the purposes of evaluating
consistency with the usage intensity
criteria set forth in Table L-2: Safety
Zones Compatibility Criteria, any parcel
that is split by safety zone boundaries shall
be considered as if it were multiple parcels
divided at the safety zone boundary line.

However, the intensity of nonresidential
development allowed within the more
restricted portion of the parcel can (and is
encouraged to) be transferred to the less
restricted portion. This full or partial
reallocation of intensity is permitted even if
the resulting intensity in the less restricted
area would then exceed the limits which
would otherwise apply within that safety
zone (see Figure L-4).

S3 Land Use Event Exceptions: The City of Ontario may make exceptions for “conditional” or “incompatible” land uses associated with rare special events (e.g., an air show at the airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate.

Figure L-4: Transferring Usage Intensity
An example of transferring usage intensity to the
less restrictive safety zone is provided below.

Zone 3 intensity limit: 100 people per acre
Zone 4 intensity limit: 160 people per acre
Proposed intensity in Zone 3: 80 people per
acre
Proposed intensity in Zone 4: 100 people per
acre
* The proposed intensity for Zone 3 (80 people
per acre) is encouraged to be transferred to
Zone 4 for a total of 180 people per acre, even if
it exceeds the Zone 4 intensity limit of 160
people per acre.
642
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S4 Land Uses of Special Concern: Certain types of land uses represent special safety concerns irrespective of the number of people associated with those uses. Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria indicates the criteria applicable to these uses. In some cases, these uses are not allowed in portions of the safety zones regardless of the number of occupants associated with the use. In other instances, these uses should be avoided—i.e., allowed only if an alternate site outside of the safety zone would not work.

When allowed, special measures should be taken to minimize hazards to the facility and occupants if the facility were to be struck by an aircraft. Land uses of particular concern and the nature of the concern are listed policies S4a through S4c.

S4a Land Uses Having Vulnerable Occupants: These land uses are ones in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled—people who have reduced effective mobility or may be unable to respond to emergency situations. These uses include:
 Children’s schools (grades K–12).
 Day care centers (facilities with 15 or more children, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code).
 Hospitals, health care centers, and similar facilities, especially where patients remain overnight, nursing homes and inmate facilities.

S4b Hazardous Materials Storage: Materials that are flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic constitute special safety compatibility concerns to the extent that an aircraft accident could cause release of the materials and thereby pose dangers to people and property in the vicinity. Facilities in this category include:

 Facilities such as oil refineries and chemical plants that manufacture, process, and/or store bulk quantities (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons) of hazardous materials generally for shipment elsewhere.
 Facilities associated with otherwise compatible land uses where hazardous materials are stored in smaller quantities primarily for on-site use (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons).

S4c Critical Community Infrastructure: The damage or destruction of public infrastructure facilities which would cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Among these facilities are:

 Emergency services facilities such as police and fire stations.  Emergency communications facilities, power plants, and other utilities S5 Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition for approval of all proposed development situated off-airport within Safety Zones 1 through 4 in accordance with Policy SP1. The Safety Zones and this policy affect only the City of Ontario.

643
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S6 Safety Zone 1 (Runway Protection Zone):

1. The developer and airport owner must coordinate with the FAA for development proposals within the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). Land uses requiring airport/FAA coordination include:

 Buildings and structures
 Recreational uses (e.g., golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public assembly)
 Transportation facilities (e.g., rail, public roads/highways, vehicular parking)  Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)
 Hazardous material storage (above and below ground)
 Wastewater treatment facilities
 Above ground utility infrastructure (e.g., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations

2. The following uses shall be prohibited within Safety Zone 1(RPZ):

 All structures except ones with location set by aeronautical function  All assemblages of people (more than one)
 Hazards to flight such as:
o Objects exceeding 14 CFR Part 77 height limits
o Visual hazards including but not limited to lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust, steam or smoke
o Electronic hazards including but not limited to ones that may cause interference with aircraft communications or navigation
o Land uses and features that attract hazardous wildlife (i.e., Birds) including but not limited to aboveground stormwater facilities, open ponds, and landscaping that provides a food source, shelter or roosting

S7 Open Land: In the event that a light aircraft is forced to land away from an airport, the risks to the people on board and on the ground can be best minimized by providing as much open land area as possible within the airport vicinity. This concept is based upon the fact that the majority of light aircraft accidents that occur away from an airport runway are controlled emergency landings in which the pilot has reasonable opportunity to guide the aircraft and select the landing site. Open land provides opportunities for a controlled landing in the event of an emergency. A percentage of Open land is required for all Safety Zones and are outlined in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix.

S7a Open Land Required Dimensions: Open land shall have minimum dimension of at least 75 feet wide by 300 feet long (approximately 0.5-acre in size).

644
Policy
No. Safety Zone Policies
S7b Open Land Criteria:

1. Open land shall be free of most structures and other major obstacles such as walls, large trees, (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), poles, and overhead wires. Landscaping plans for open space areas should preclude large trees that would exceed the 4-inch diameter criterion at maturity. However, landscaping plans could allow for trees and shrubs that exceed 4 inches in diameter at a height of 4 feet at maturity for areas along the edge of open space areas where the vegetation abuts a wall or other similar feature, provided that the vegetation is planted within 4 feet of the wall.

2. Roads and automobile parking lots are acceptable as open land areas if the criteria for Policies S7a and S7b are met. Policy Map L-2a: Chino Airport Open Land Streets identifies three streets that will be designed to satisfy the Open Land criteria. The streets will be 75 to 84 feet wide with no medians.

Light poles and trees will be designed to maintain a clear width of about 75 feet. The light poles will be spaced 250 feet and staggered on the opposite side of the street; therefore, satisfying the 75-foot by 300-foot dimensional requirements for Open Land. A detailed review of proposed landscaping and lighting plans along Merrill Avenue within CNO Safety Zone 1 (RPZ) will be required to ensure that Zone 1 remains clear of permanent aboveground objects.

3. Open land requirements for each Safety Zone shall be applied with respect to the entire zone. Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum size open area requirement. Consequently, the identification of open land areas shall be initially accomplished at the general plan or specific plan level or as part of large (10 acres or more) development projects.

4. Clustering of development and providing contiguous landscaped (e.g., low-growing ground cover) and parking areas is encouraged as a means of increasing the size of open land areas. Clustering of development should be located a maximum distance from the extended runway centerline.

B. Noise. The purpose of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establishment of noise-sensitive land uses in the portions of the CNO AIA that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. For compatibility planning purposes, the noise contours reflect the County’s aircraft activity forecast of 209,400 annual operations for 2025 is considered to be representative of the likely maximum number of aircraft operations that could be realized over the 20-year forecast period (2039) and are shown in Figure L-5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025).

Figure L-5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025)

645
For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 60 dB CNEL is suitable for new residential development and other noise sensitive land uses around most airports.

Figure L-5: Chino CNEL Contours (2025) shows that only the 55 dB CNEL contour affects lands within the City of Ontario. Since the 60 dB CNEL does not extend into the City of Ontario no significant impacts are anticipated and therefore no noise policies and criteria are included within the CNO ALUCP.

C. Airspace Protection. Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent creation of land use features that can be hazards to aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident to occur. Such hazards may be physical, visual, or electronic.

1. Factors in establishing Airspace Protection Zones. The principal factors considered in setting the airspace protection zones are:

a. Federal Regulations. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, set the requirements for notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain proposed construction or alteration projects (Subpart B, Notice of Construction or Alteration) and establish standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace (Subpart C, Obstruction Standards).

b. CNO Part 77. The 14 CFR Part 77 airspace surfaces included in the 2003 Chino Airport Layout Plan was utilized to establish the allowable heights of future uses within the vicinity of Chino airport (see, Figure L-6: Chino Part 77 Airspace Surfaces (2003)).

2. Factors in establishing Airspace Protection Policies. The factors considered in setting the airspace protection policies in this section are described below.

Figure L-6: Chino Part 77 Airspace Surfaces (2003)

646

a. Federal and State Regulations. The airspace protection policies outlined in this section are based upon and intended to help implement the regulations enacted by the FAA and the State of California. State airspace protection standards mostly mirror those of the FAA. A key difference is that state law gives the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and local agencies the authority to enforce the standards.

b. Flight Hazards. The FAA has well-defined standards by which potential hazards to flight, especially airspace obstructions, can be assessed. However, the FAA has no authority to prevent creation of such hazards. That authority rests with state and local governments. There are three categories of flight hazards: physical, visual, and electronic.

(1) Structure Heights — Height of structures and other objects situated near the airport are a primary determinant of physical hazards to the airport airspace.

(2) Land Use — Land use features that have the potential to attract birds and certain other wildlife to the airport area also need to be evaluated as a form of physical hazard.

(3) Visual Hazards — Visual hazards of concern include certain types of lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust, steam, thermal plumes, or smoke.

(4) Electrical Hazards — Electronic hazards are ones that may cause interference with aircraft communications or navigation

c. Airspace Obstructions. The criteria for determining the acceptability of a project with respect to height are based upon the standards set forth in: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C, Obstruction Standards; the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS); the One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) obstacle identification surface and other applicable airport design standards published by the FAA.

d. Local Topography. The topography underlying the airport’s airspace surfaces is a significant factor in determining the allowable height of a structure. The terrain north of CNO slopes upwards towards the San Gabriel Mountains, thereby reducing the allowable heights of objects in those areas.

3. Airspace Protection Zones for CNO. The airspace protection zones depicted in Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones were prepared for CNO in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

a. FAA Height Notification Surface. Established in accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, this airspace surface extends outward and upward at a slope of 647
100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the airport runways.

b. Airspace Obstruction Surfaces. Includes the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, extending out to a point where these surfaces terminate at the outer limits of the FAA Height Notification Surface. Objects which penetrate these surfaces are subject to airspace evaluation by the FAA. Objects which penetrate the Approach/Departure Surfaces which extend beyond the FAA Height Notification Surface require evaluation by the FAA.

c. Allowable Heights. To determine the allowable heights of future objects, the underlying ground elevation is compared with the elevation of the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, TERPS, and OEI surfaces. These are depicted as color bands in Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones, each color band represents a range of distance, measured in vertical feet, between the ground and overlying surface.

4. Airspace Protection Standards for New Development. The airspace protection compatibility of proposed land uses within the AIA of CNO shall be evaluated in accordance with the policies in this section, including the existing airspace protection surfaces depicted in Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones.

5. Airspace Protection Policies.

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A1 FAA Height Notification Surface: Except as provided in Policy A2b, if a project contains proposed structures or other objects that would penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface for CNO, the project proponent should submit notification of the proposal to the FAA, as required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, Subpart B, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. The FAA will conduct an “aeronautical study” of the object(s) and determine whether the object(s) would be of a height that would constitute a hazard to air navigation. A copy of the completed FAR Part 77 notification form submitted to the FAA and the resulting FAA aeronautical study findings should be supplied to the City by the project proponent. The results of the FAA aeronautical study shall be utilized when conducting compatibility reviews of the proposed project. The FAA notification requirements apply to the following:

A1a Penetrations to the FAA Height Notification Surface: With limited exceptions, the FAA requires notification for all objects which penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface, including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes.

A1b Structures in Excess of 200 feet: The FAA requires that it be notified about any proposal to construct or alter a structure that would be taller than 200 feet above the ground level regardless of the structure’s proximity to CNO or any other airport.

A1c FAR Part 77 Notification: FAA requires project proponents to submit notification of the proposal where required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. Refer to the FAA notification requirements and online submittal process of Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

A2 Airspace Obstruction Surfaces: Except as provided in Policy A2a, no object should have a height that would result in a penetration of the Airspace Obstruction Surface depicted for CNO. Any object that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface shall satisfy the conditions set forth in Policy A2a. These requirements apply to all objects including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes.

648
Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A2a Airspace Obstacle Criteria and Review Process: Except as indicated in Policy A2b, a proposed object having a height that penetrates CNO’s airspace obstruction surfaces should be allowed only if all of the following apply:

1. The FAA conducts an aeronautical study of the proposed object and determines that the object would not be a hazard to air navigation.

2. FAA or other expert analysis conducted under the auspices of the airport owner, concludes that, despite being an airspace obstruction, the object would not cause any of the following:

 An increase in the ceiling or visibility minimums of the airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (a planned procedure is one that is formally on file with the FAA);  A reduction of the established operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; or  A conflict with the visual flight rules (VFR) airspace used for the airport traffic pattern or en route navigation to and from the airport.

3. Marking and lighting of the object will be installed as directed by the FAA aeronautical study or the California Division of Aeronautics and in a manner consistent with FAA standards in effect at the time the construction is proposed (Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, or any later guidance).

4. An avigation easement is dedicated to the owner of the airport.

5. The proposed project complies with all policies of the CNO ALUCP.

A3 Flight Hazards: Land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft in flight or taking off or landing at the airport should be prohibited within the AIA consistent with FAA rules and regulations. To resolve any uncertainties with regard to the significance of flight hazards, local agencies should consult with the FAA, California Division of Aeronautics, and/or CNO officials. Specific characteristics to be avoided include:

1. Sources of glare (such as from mirrored or other highly reflective buildings or building features) or bright lights (including search lights and laser light displays).

2. Distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights.

3. Sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilots’ vision.

4. Sources of steam or other emissions that cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air.

5. Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation.

6. Any proposed use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including, but not limited to FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports and 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight.

A4 Avigation Easements: An avigation easement shall be required as a condition of approval for proposed development that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surfaces (see Policy A2a).

A5 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports: Wildlife can pose hazards to aircraft operations; collisions or “strikes” with wildlife can cause damage to or destroy aircraft and result in injuries or fatalities to air travelers and those on the ground. FAA strike records indicate that most wildlife strikes occur in the immediate airport vicinity during aircraft approach or departure at altitudes of less than 3,500 feet above ground level (AGL).

649
Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
A5a Caltrans Guidance: Caltrans completed a Wildlife Hazard Assessment at CNO in 2014. Wildlife attractants identified in the airport vicinity included open water basins, golf courses, and agricultural operations Hazardous wildlife identified on and near the airport included: raptors, ground squirrels (because they attract raptors), gulls, blackbirds and starlings, coyotes, crows, doves and pigeons, waterfowl, and shorebirds. To prevent the creation of new habitat within on or near CNO, new development shall be subject to the following:

1. A Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist (QAWB) shall review landscaping plans to ensure that the proposed materials will not provide food, nesting opportunities, shelter, or roosting opportunities for potentially hazardous wildlife.

2. A QAWB shall review proposed construction plans for their potential to create temporary or permanent wildlife attractants.

A5b Federal Guidance: Consistent with state and federal guidance, any proposed land use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including but not limited to FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, and 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports, should be avoided within the “critical zones”.

For CNO, the critical zone extends 10,000 feet beyond aircraft movement areas and 5 miles from the approach/departure surfaces. The following is list of land uses known to attract potentially hazardous wildlife within critical zones and should be avoided:

 Landfills and waste management facilities (see also AC 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports)
 Stormwater management facilities that create open water  Wastewater treatment facilities
 Wetlands and wetland mitigation sites
 Agricultural/aquacultural operations
 Parks and golf courses
 Resource mitigation sites

If land uses that are known to attract potentially hazardous wildlife are allowed within the airport influence area by right, the land use and its features should be modified to reduce wildlife hazards or mitigate known hazards. Sample mitigation/design measures include those associated with stormwater management facilities and landscape design.

A5c Stormwater Management Facilities: The FAA identifies stormwater management facilities as one of the greatest attractants to hazardous wildlife. Many species are attracted to open water features and associated vegetation that offers water, food, and shelter. New stormwater management facilities located within the AIA should be designed to avoid the creation of open water and habitat and incorporate the following criteria:

1. New detention basins should be designed to drain completely within a maximum 48-hour period following design storm event and remain totally dry between storm events.

2. Exposed surface water features should include one of the recommended design measures:
 Floating covers, bird balls, netting, or overhead wires should be installed to deter wildlife.

The deterrent should be selected based on pond size and the type of species to be discouraged;
 Steep-sided, rip-rap lined, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basin (i.e., 1:1 slopes) should be provided; and
 Vegetation should not be provided because it can provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife.

3. Stormwater management plans located within the CNO AIA shall be reviewed by an FAA-qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

4. Landscape designs for proposed projects located in the CNO AIA should be reviewed by an FAA- qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

650
D. Overflight. Noise from individual aircraft operations, especially by comparatively loud aircraft, can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the noise impacts. Sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another. The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make more informed decisions regarding acquisition or lease of property in the affected areas.

1. Factors Considered in Establishing Overflight Zones.

a. State Law. State statutes (BPC Section 11010 and CC Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) define an AIA as “the area in which current or future airport- related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission.”

b. Measures of Overflight Exposure. The loudness of individual aircraft noise events is a key determinant of where airport proximity and aircraft overflight notification are warranted. The FAA has determined that overflight exposure is not significant where aircraft are flying at an altitude of 3,000 feet or more above ground level.

Figure L-7 presents the primary aircraft traffic patterns in blue, based on published airport information. The red and orange lines represent flight patterns captured by radar data from November 2015. On this particular day, aircraft were practicing touch-and-goes (closed loop patterns) from Runway 26R, 26L and Runway 21. Safety Zone 4 encompasses areas where aircraft make a turn from base to final when landing on Runway 21. Also, Safety Zone 6 is routinely overflown by aircraft.

Figure L-7: Radar Flight Track Sample (2015)

651

2. Factors Considered in Setting Overflight Compatibility Criteria.

a. Limitations of Local Agency Authority over Existing Uses. To be most effective, overflight policies should apply to transactions involving existing land uses, not just future development. However, local agencies have little authority to set requirements for existing development. The intent of this policy is to define, on an advisory basis, the boundaries within which required real estate transfer disclosure under state law is appropriate. Implementing the real estate transaction disclosure requirement is the responsibility of the property owner and real estate agent. The local agency is responsible only for providing a map to a property owner or real estate agent that defines the areas within which the real estate disclosure requirement should be applied.

b. Limitations of California Real Estate Transaction Disclosure Law.

State law applies to existing development, but not to all transactions. Specifically, California state statutes (BPC Section11010 and CC Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) require that, as part of many residential real estate transactions, information be disclosed regarding whether the property is situated within an AIA. The Business and Professions Code applies the disclosure requirement to the sale or lease of newly subdivided lands and condominium conversions and to the sale of certain existing residential property. The Civil Code applies the disclosure requirement to existing residential property transfers only when certain natural conditions (earthquake, fire, or flood hazards) warrant disclosure.

c. Need for Continuity of Notification to Future Property Owners and Tenants. To the extent that this Compatibility Plan sets notification requirements for new development, the policy should ensure that the notification runs with the land and is provided to prospective future owners and tenants.

d. Inappropriateness of Avigation Easement Dedication Solely for Buyer Awareness Purposes. Avigation easements involve conveyance of property rights from the property owner to the party owning the easement and are thus best suited to locations where land use restrictions for safety or airspace protection purposes are necessary.

3. Overflight Notification Zones for CNO. The boundaries of the overflight notification zones around CNO are shown on Policy Map L-4: Chino Overflight Notification Zones and include:

a. Avigation Easement Dedication. The boundary identifies the high- risk, and critical airspace protection areas of CNO. Although not strictly an overflight notification boundary, the Avigation Easement Dedication boundary is established in accordance with Policy SP1 and reflected on Policy Map L-4.

b. Recorded Overflight Notification. The boundary identifies the primary overflight area for the airport. The policy boundary matches Safety Zone 6 depicted on Policy Map L-4.

c. Real Estate Transaction Disclosure. The boundary reflects the CNO 652
AIA and matches the outer boundary of the FAR Part 77 conical surface of the airport.

4. Overflight Policies. Unlike the function of safety and airspace protection compatibility policies, the overflight compatibility policies set forth in this section do not restrict the manner in which land can be developed or used. The policies in this section serve only to establish the language and recommended geographic coverage for notification about airport proximity and aircraft overflights for new development and with certain real estate transactions involving existing development.

Policy
No. Airspace Protection Policies
O1 Recorded Overflight Notification: The City of Ontario shall require the recording of an overflight notification running with the land as a condition for approval of new residential development that falls within Safety Zone 6, as depicted in Policy Map L-4. Other conditions include:

O1a Notification Language: The overflight notification should contain language dictated by state law with regard to real estate transaction disclosure (see Policy O2a).

O1b Property Deed Recording: The overflight notification should be evident to future purchasers of the property by appearing on the property deed.

O1c Avigation Easement Exception: A separate recorded overflight notification is not required where an avigation easement is provided in accordance with Policy SP1.

O1d Nonresidential Exception: Recording of an overflight notification is not required for nonresidential development unless the project is a mixed-use development containing residential uses on the same property.

O2 Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: Airport proximity disclosure information should be provided in accordance with state law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353. See Section 6.4.4 (b) and Appendix A for information on these laws.

O2a Disclosure Language: State Law provides the following disclosure language:

NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.

O2b Airport Influence Area: The airport proximity disclosure is required within AIA as identified on Policy Map L-4.

E. Special Compatibility Policies. These policies are intended to address unique land use concerns.

Policy
No. Special Compatibility Policies
SP1 Avigation Easement Dedication: An avigation easement should be dedicated to the owner/operator of CNO for new development as specified in Policies SP1a and SP1b. 653
Policy
No. Special Compatibility Policies
SP1a Avigation Easement Dedication Requirements: Within portions of the AIA inside the City of Ontario, avigation easement dedication shall be required for new development requiring discretionary as described below. Policy Map L-4 depicts the locations where an avigation easement dedication would be appropriate.

1. Safety Zones: All new development within Safety Zones 1, through 4 as depicted on Policy Map L-2.

SP1b Avigation Easement Purpose: The avigation easement should do the following:

1. Right of Flight: Provide the right of flight in the airspace above the property.

2. Noise Impacts: Allow the generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft overflight.

3. Physical Hazards: Restrict the height of structures, trees and other objects in accordance with the policies in Section L.01.003.C and the airspace protection surfaces depicted on Policy Map L-2.

4. Obstruction Marking: Permit access to the property, with appropriate advance notice, for the removal or aeronautical marking of objects exceeding the established height limit.

5. Other Airspace Hazards: Prohibit electrical interference, glare, and other potential hazards to flight from being created on the property.

SP2 Nonconforming Uses: The policies within the CNO ALUCP do not apply to existing land uses even if those uses are not in conformance with the compatibility criteria set forth in this Compatibility Plan.

However, proposed changes to existing uses that would change or result in increased nonconformity with the compatibility criteria are subject to the provisions of the ALUCP. Specifically, proposed changes to existing nonconforming uses (including a parcel or building) are limited as follows:

SP2a Residential uses: A nonconforming residential land use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review.

SP2b Nonconforming Single-family: A nonconforming single-family dwelling may be maintained, remodeled, reconstructed or expanded in size. The lot line of an existing single-family residential parcel may be adjusted. Also, a new single-family residence may be constructed on an existing lot. The above noted property improvements may occur if improvements do not increase the number of units and lot line adjustments do not result in allowing for additional dwelling units. Examples include:

1. Any remodeling, reconstruction, or expansion must not increase the number of dwelling units.

For example, a bedroom could be added to an existing residence, but an additional dwelling unit could not be built on the parcel unless that unit is a secondary dwelling unit as defined by state and local laws.

2. A single-family residential parcel may not be divided for the purpose of allowing additional dwellings to be constructed.

SP2c Nonconforming Multi-family (> 8 du/ac): Nonconforming multi-family residential dwelling units may be maintained, remodeled, or reconstructed. The size of individual dwelling units may be increased, but additional dwelling units may not be added.

SP2d Nonresidential uses: A nonconforming, nonresidential use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review. Nonconforming, nonresidential facilities may be maintained, altered, or, if required by state law, reconstructed. However, any such work:

1. Should not result in expansion of either the portion of the site devoted to the nonconforming use or the floor area of the buildings; and

2. Should not result in an increase in the usage intensity (the number of people per acre) above the levels existing at the time of approval of the CNO ALUCP. 654
Policy
No. Special Compatibility Policies
SP2e Schools: Children’s schools (including grades K-12, day care centers with more than 14 children, and school libraries) may be continued, reconstructed (see Policy SP5), expanded with the following restrictions per State Law:

1. Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted in any safety zone.

2. Replacement or expansion of buildings at existing schools is also not allowed in any safety zone.

This limitation does not preclude work required for normal maintenance or repair.

SP3 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Uses: An existing nonconforming building, structure, or use that has been partially or completely destroyed as the result of a fire, flood or natural disaster may be rebuilt under the conditions listed in Policies SP3a through SP3c so long as it does not violate local ordinances.

The requirements listed in this policy do not restrict normal maintenance and repairs.

SP3a Residential: Nonconforming residential uses may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not result in more dwelling units than existed on the parcel at the time of the damage. Addition of a secondary dwelling unit to a single-family residence is permitted if in accordance with state law and local zoning regulations.

SP3b Nonresidential: A nonconforming nonresidential development may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not increase the floor area of the previous structure or result in an increased intensity of use (i.e., more people per acre).

SP3c Reconstruction Requirements: The reconstruction of nonconforming uses listed in Policies SP3a and SP3b should comply with the following requirements:

1. A permit to rebuild the structure should be obtained by the local agency within twenty-four (24) months of the date the damage occurred.

2. The property should be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the airport owner, if required under Policy SP1.

3. The new structure should comply with FAR Part 77, TERPS, and applicable airport obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA.

L.01.005: Evaluating Land Use Consistency

A. Evaluating Compatibility of Proposed Development. The compatibility of proposed projects within the CNO AIA shall be evaluated in accordance with the specific safety, airspace protection, overflight policies, and special compatibility policies set forth in Section L.01.003 including the criteria listed in Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix and Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria, and Policy Maps L-1 through L-4.

B. Evaluation Tools.

1. Safety Zone Criteria Table. Table L-2 list general land use categories and indicate each use as being either “normally compatible,” “conditionally compatible,” or “incompatible” depending upon the safety zone in which it is located. When evaluating a proposed development, each land use component of a project shall be evaluated as separate developments and must meet the criteria for the respective land use category.

2. Evaluation Considerations.

655
a. Land uses not specifically listed in Table L-2 shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar listed uses.

b. Multiple land use categories and the compatibility criteria associated with them may apply to a single project (e.g., mixed-use developments). Each land use component shall individually satisfy the criteria for the respective land use category in Table L-2.

3. Land Use Compatibility Determinations.

a. Normally Compatible. Normally Compatible means that common examples of the use are compatible with the airport; uncommon examples of the use may require review to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria.

b. Conditionally Compatible. Conditionally Compatible means that the use is compatible if the listed conditions are met.

c. Incompatible. Incompatible means that the use should not be permitted under any circumstances.

L.01.006: Criteria Tables and Policy Maps

A. Criteria Tables. The compatibility tables at the end of this chapter provide the following information:

1. Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix. The Compatibility Criteria table provides a comprehensive list of open land percentages, people per acre limits and other relevant criteria summarized for each safety zone.

2. Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria. The safety criteria table provides a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of specific land uses within each of the five safety zones. Intensity limits for nonresidential uses (i.e., maximum number of people per acre) and other safety considerations within each safety zone are also noted.

B. Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area). The AIA boundary encompasses the geographic extents of all the compatibility factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight.

C. Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones). This policy map displays a single set of safety zones reflecting the existing runway configurations. The safety zones for are based upon the generic safety zones provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

D. Policy Map L-2a (Chino Airport Open Land Streets). This policy map identifies three streets that will be designed to satisfy the Open Land criteria.

656
E. Policy Map L-3 (Chino Airspace Protection Zones). The airspace protection zones are prepared in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and applicable obstruction clearance standards published by the Federal Aviation Administration. The airspace surfaces reflect the existing runway configurations.

F. Policy Map L-4 (Chino Overflight Notification Zones). This policy map identifies the overflight notification zones. The overflight notification zones also encompass the areas underlying the airport’s critical airspace surfaces.

Table L-1: CNO ALUCP Compatibility Criteria Matrix
Safety Zones Residential
Density
Limits
Non-Residential
Intensity Limits
(People per acre)
Open Land
Requirement
for Entire Zone
Other Criteria Boundary
Determinations
Zone 1
Runway
Protection Zone
0 0 All Remaining
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
RPZ
Zone 2
Inner
Approach/
Departure Zone
0 60 (avg.)
120 (single acre)
25%; preserve
open land
nearest runway
end
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 2
Zone 3
Inner
Turning Zone
1 dwelling unit
per 2-acre lot
100 (avg.)
300 (single acre)
15%; preserve
open land along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation Easement
and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 3
Zone 4
Outer Approach/
Departure Zone
2 dwelling
units
per 2-acre lot
150 (avg.)
450 (single acre)
15%; preserve
open land along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 4

Zone 6
Traffic Pattern
Zone
No Limit 300 (avg.)
1,200 (single acre)
10%; preserve
open land every
1/4 to 1/2 mile
Deed Notice and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 6

657

Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Outdoor Uses (limited or no activities in buildings)
Natural Land Areas: desert, brush lands 3

1: Avoid new features that attract birds;
vegetation must be clear of airspace
surfaces
Water: flood plains, stormwater facilities,
wetlands, lakes, reservoirs 3 1-6: Avoid new features that attract birds Agriculture (except residences and
livestock): crops, orchards, vineyards,
pasture, range land 3

1-6: Avoid new features that attract birds
Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards,
breeding, fish hatcheries, horse stables
3 2-6: Avoid new features that attract birds
Outdoor Major/Large Assembly Facilities:
4 spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums,
amphitheaters, fairgrounds, race
tracks, water parks, zoos

6: Allowed if intensity criteria met
Outdoor Group Recreation (limited
spectator stands): athletic fields, water
recreation facilities, picnic areas

4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended function
Outdoor Small/Non-Group Recreation:
golf courses, tennis courts, shooting
ranges 3

3-6: Allowed if intensity criteria met
Local Parks: children-oriented
neighborhood parks, playgrounds 6: Allowed if intensity criteria met Camping: campgrounds, recreational
vehicle/ motor home parks 3-6: Allowed only if intensity criteria met Cemeteries (except chapels)

658
Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Residential and Lodging Uses
Residential: individual dwellings,
townhouses, mobile homes,
apartments, condominiums, bed &
breakfast inns 5

3, 4: 1 du/2-acre lots (avg. density); 4
du/single- acre; locate dwelling max.
distance from extended runway
centerline where feasible
Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights):
extended-stay hotels, dormitories
Short-Term Lodging ( 30 nights): hotels,
motels, other transient lodging (except
conference/assembly facilities)
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.69 4: FAR limits as indicated
Congregate Care: retirement homes,
assisted living, nursing homes,
intermediate care facilities

6: Allowed only if site outside zone would
not serve intended function
Educational and Institutional Uses
Family day care homes (14 children) 5
Children’s Schools: K-12, day care
centers (>14 children); school libraries 6: Subject to approval by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Adult Education classroom space:
adult schools, colleges, universities
[approx. 40 s.f./person] 0.09 0.14 0.28
3-6: FAR limits as indicated; also see
individual components of campus
facilities (e.g., assembly facilities, offices,
gymnasiums)
Community Libraries
[approx. 100 s.f./person] 0.23 0.34 0.69 3-6: FAR limits as indicated Major Indoor Assembly Facilities 4:
auditoriums, conference centers,
concert halls, arenas

Large Indoor Assembly Facilities 4:
movie theaters, places of worship,
cemetery chapels, mortuaries
[approx. 15 s.f./person]

0.03 0.05 0.10
3-6: FAR limits as indicated
Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums, club
houses, athletic clubs, dance studios
[approx. 60 s.f./person]

0.14 0.21 0.41
3-6: FAR limits as indicated
659
Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
In-Patient Medical: hospitals, mental
hospitals 6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended function
Out-Patient Medical: health care
centers, clinics
[approx. 240 s.f./person]

0.55 0.83
3, 4: FAR limits as indicated
Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories 6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended function
Public Safety Facilities: police, fire
stations 3, 4: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function
Commercial, Office, and Service Uses
Major Retail: regional shopping
centers, ‘big box’ retail
[approx. 110 s.f./person]

0.25 0.38 0.76
3-6: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate
eating/ drinking areas separately if >10%
of total floor area
Local Retail:
community/neighborhood shopping
centers, grocery stores
[approx. 170 s.f./person]

0.39 0.59
3, 4: FAR limits as indicated; evaluate
eating/ drinking areas separately if >10%
of total floor area
Eating/Drinking Establishments:
restaurants, fast-food dining, bars
[approx. 60 s.f./person]

0.14 0.21 0.41
3-5: FAR limits as indicated
Limited Retail/Wholesale: furniture,
automobiles, heavy equipment,
lumber yards, nurseries
[approx. 250 s.f./person]

0.34 0.57
2, 3: FAR limits as indicated; design site to
place parking inside and buildings
outside of zone if possible
Offices: professional services, doctors,
finance, civic; radio, television &
recording studios, office space
associated with other listed uses
[approx. 215 s.f./person]

0.30 0.49 0.74
2-4: FAR limits as indicated
Personal & Miscellaneous Services:
barbers, car washes, print shops
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.28 0.46 0.69
2-4: FAR limits as indicated
Vehicle Fueling: gas stations, trucking &
transportation terminals
660
Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Storage Uses
Hazardous Materials Production: oil
refineries, chemical plants ( 6,000
gallons)

Heavy Industrial

4: Avoid bulk storage of hazardous
(flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic)
materials; permitting agencies to
evaluate possible need for special
measures to minimize hazards if struck by
aircraft
Light Industrial, High Intensity: food
products preparation, electronic
equipment
[approx. 200 s.f./person] 0.28 0.46 0.69
2-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
Light Industrial, Low Intensity: machine
shops, wood products, auto repair
[approx. 350 s.f./person] 0.48 0.80 1.21
2-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
Research & Development
[approx. 300 s.f./person]

0.69 1.03
3-4: FAR limits as indicated; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable,
explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials;
permitting agencies to evaluate possible
need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
Indoor Storage: wholesale sales,
warehouses, mini/other indoor
storage, barns, greenhouses
[approx. 1,000 s.f./person]

2: Single story only; max. 10% in
mezzanine
Outdoor Storage: public works yards,
automobile dismantling
Mining & Extraction 6
661
Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Airport Terminals: airline, general
aviation
Rail & Bus Stations

2: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function

Transportation Routes: road & rail rights-of-
way, bus stops 3 1: Avoid new features that create airspace obstructions
Auto Parking: surface lots, structures 3 1: Avoid new features that create airspace obstructions
Communications Facilities: emergency
communications, broadcast & cell towers 7
4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function;
not allowed within ½ mile of runway
Power Plants 7 4, 6: Primary plants not allowed; peaker plants only
Electrical Substations 7

4, 6: Allowed only if site outside zone
would not serve intended public function;
avoid features that create flight hazards
Wastewater Facilities: treatment, disposal 3

6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function; avoid new
features that attract birds
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill,
incineration 3
6: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function; avoid new
features that attract birds
Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle
Centers 3
6: Allowed only if site outside zone would
not serve intended public function; avoid
new features that attract birds
662
Table L-2: Safety Zones Compatibility Criteria
Legend: Land Use Compatibility
(A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided at the end of this table) Normally Compatible
Land Use
Conditional
Land Use (FAR)
Incompatible
Land Use

 A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions.  Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity (number of people per acre) of the proposed development. Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits.

Land Use Category 1
Note: Multiple land use categories and
compatibility criteria may apply to a project
Compatibility Zone 2 Criteria for Conditional Uses

Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which
condition applies. 1 2 3 4 6
Max Sitewide Average Intensity(people/acre)
Max Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
0 0
60 120
100
300
150
450
300
1200
 Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms
of intensity limits.
 Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally
Compatible as well as Conditional land uses

1. Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses.

2. Sample safety zones from the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), as applied to Chino Airport, extend into the limits of the City of Ontario, except for Safety Zone 5. For numerical consistency, the Compatibility Zones for Chino Airport maintain the same numbering system used in the Handbook despite omission of Safety Zone 5. Avigation easement dedication required as condition of approval for all properties within Compatibility Zones 1-4.

3. Although these uses may satisfy the Safety criteria, they may be inconsistent with the Airspace Protection criteria as these uses may attract birds or other wildlife that could pose hazards to flight (see Airspace Protection Policies) or create obstructions to navigable airspace.

4. A Major Assembly Facility is defined as having a capacity of 1,000 people, while a Large Assembly Facility has a capacity of 300 to 999 people. Source: International Building Code.

5. Construction of a single-family home, including a second dwelling unit as defined by state law, allowed on a legal lot of record if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. A family day care home (serving 14 children) may be established in any dwelling.

6. These uses may generate dust or other hazards to flight.

7. Power lines or other tall objects associated with these uses may be hazards to flight.

663
Policy Map L-1 (Chino Airport Influence Area)

664
Policy Map L-2 (Chino Airport Safety Zones)

665
Policy Map L-2a: Chino Airport Open Land Streets

666
Policy Map L-3: Chino Airspace Protection Zones

667
Policy Map L-4: Chino Overflight Notification Zones

668
Department: City Manager's Office
Prepared By: Scott Ochoa
Staff Member Presenting:

Ruben Duran, City Attorney
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 6
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTIONS CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A GENERAL TAX MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
August
2, 2022
SECTION:

ADMINISTRATIVE

REPORTS/DISCUSSION/ACTION

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolutions (1) Placing a measure to approve a general capital Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) at the rate of one cent (1¢) on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election ballot; (2) requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino render the General Municipal Election consolidated with the State General Election; and (3) setting rules for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments regarding the measure.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City’s Economy Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
FISCAL IMPACT:

The current Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax rate in the City of Ontario is 7.75%, and breaks down as follows:

5.00% to the State of California

0.50% for Prop 172 Public Safety (Statewide)

0.25% for County Transportation Development Act (TDA)

0.50% to the County Health & Welfare

0.50% to the San Bernardino County Transit Authority

1.00% to the City of Ontario

7.75%

The sales and use tax applies to general consumer goods and merchandize. Unprocessed foods (such as groceries form a grocery store or farmer's market), prescription medications, real estate transactions, and services are exempt from the tax.

669
Over the last several years (pre and post-COVID 19 pandemic), the City's share of the sales tax has generated an annual average of $95 million. An additional 1% would double this amount for the City's General Fund. The General Fund may be appropriated by the City Council for non-enterprise government projects and services like police, fire & EMS, libraries, parks, and administration.

If approved by voters, this general tax, could be used to augment existing staffing levels in various City departments, from OPD to Community Improvement to Homeless Services. Just as importantly, this ongoing revenue stream could significantly enhance the City's capital improvement program (CIP) and allow for strategic investments in streets, storm drains, parks, drinking water facilities, crime prevention infrastructure, and affordable broadband access.

Additionally, programs including emergency response, youth and senior services, and access to new affordable housing could be expanded.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City of Ontario has a strong economic base, featuring a diverse and dynamic sales tax revenue stream. Indeed, the City's sales tax receipts outstrip those of the City's property tax revenues. Ideally, these two foundational General Fund resources would develop an equilibrium that would assure the community of more stable revenues (and thus services), regardless of a given economic cycle.

To help achieve this strategic balance of resources and services, City staff recommends placing a measure on the ballot to allow voters to decide on a 1% sales tax measure that would generate an estimated $95 million per year. This general tax could fund investments in infrastructure, public safety and quality of life services. These investments would manifest in the City's property values, thereby securing the City's revenue balance and stability over the long term. Moreover, because more than half of the City's sales tax revenues are generated by non-Ontario residents (through regional retail locations and worldwide online sales), the City would be able to use this additional sales tax revenue to improve the local quality of life with non-local funding.

The City Council is extremely sensitive to the concerns of residents and businesses regarding the state of the national economy and the potential impact of a 1% sales tax increase. Still, the reality that any new funds generated would be allocated locally and with direct accountability to voters acts as a safeguard to ensure that real and lasting value is created for the Ontario community. This focus on local control has led many cities to seek local sales tax increases and thus insulate themselves from the actions of the state and provide the resources to reinvest in the community. 670

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR TH E FILING OF PRIMARY AND

REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR THE FILING OF

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE TO BE
SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION.

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Ontario, California on November 8, 2022, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure:

“City of Ontario Services Measure

To secure Ontario’s long-term financial stabili ty; maintain fire, police, 9-1-1 response, help prev ent crime/thefts/burglaries; recruit/retain firefighter s/paramedics/police; repair
streets/potholes; improve local drinking water sources; address homelessness; clean/maintain public areas; fund
youth/afterschool programs; for general government use; shall the measure establishing a 1¢ sales tax providing
approximately $95,00 0,000 annually until ended by voters; requiring audits/public spending disclosure, funds locally controlled, be adopted?”

Yes

No

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COU NCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Primary Argument s. That the City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, ( ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the above measure, (iii) a bona fide association of such citi zens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a wri tten argument in favor of or against the City measure, accompanied by t he printed name(s) and signat ure(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California, and to change the argument until and including the date fixed below by the City Clerk, after which no ar guments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.

The deadline to submit arguments for or against the City Measure pursuant to this Resolution is declared by the City Clerk to be Monday, August 22, 2022, at 12:00 p.m.

Each argument shall not exceed 300 words and shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the autho r(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an or ganization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.
671

If the City Council chooses to file an argum ent in favor of the ballot measure, it hereby designates the following Councilmembers to author the argument on behalf of the City Council:

____________________________

____________________________

SECTION 2. Rebuttal Arguments. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the primary arguments for and against the City Measur e which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send copies of the primary argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of the primary argument against, and copies of the primary argument against to the authors of the primary argument in favor. The authors or pers ons designated by them may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than Friday, August 26, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.

Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the primary arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the primary argument which it seeks to rebut.

SECTION 3. Prior Resolutions. That a ll previous resolutions providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments related to City measures are repealed.

SECTION 4. November 8, 2022 Election. That the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2022 and shall then be repealed.

SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall ce rtify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2022.

_______________ ______________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

672

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

673

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_______________ _____________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022.

_______________ ______________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

674
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022 WITH THE

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
PURSUANT TO §10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE.

WHEREAS, on August 2, 2022, the City Co uncil of the City of Ontario adopted Resolution No. 2022-____, call ing a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022; for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question relating to the Transactions and Use Tax; and

WHEREAS, it is therefore desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the election department of the County of San Bernardino canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to the requirements of §10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino is hereby requested to consent and agree to t he consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the following question relating to the Transactions and Use Tax.

SECTION 2. Measure Language. A measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:

“City of Ontario Services Measure

To secure Ontario’s long-term financial stabili ty; maintain fire, police, 9-1-1 response, help prev ent crime/thefts/burglaries; recruit/retain firefighter s/paramedics/police; repair
streets/potholes; improve local drinking water sources; address homelessness; clean/maintain public areas; fund
youth/afterschool programs; for general government use; shall the measure establishing a 1¢ sales tax providing
approximately $95,00 0,000 annually until ended by voters; requiring audits/public spending disclosure, funds locally controlled, be adopted?”

Yes

No
675

SECTION 3. Canvass of Returns. The C ounty election department is authorized to canvass the returns and perform all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the General Municipal Election. The Election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election will be held and con ducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.

SECTION 4. Necessary Steps. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 5. Costs. The City Council determines and declares that the City will pay to the County the reasonable and actual expenses incurred by the County by the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. The City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. The City Manager of the City of Ontario is authorized and directed to pay fo r the expenses incurred after receiving a statement from the County of San Bernardino.

SECTION 6. Filing of Resolution. The Cit y Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the election department of the County of San Bernardino.

SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall ce rtify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2022.

_______________ ______________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
676

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_______________ _____________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022.

_______________ ______________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

677
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC IL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A GENERAL TAX
MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL

MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE SU BMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A GENERAL TRANSACTIONS
AND USE TAX (SALES TAX) AT THE RATE OF ONE CENT (1¢).

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ontario (“City”) is authorized to levy a Transactions and Use Tax (“sales tax”) for general purposes pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, subject to approval by a majority vote of the electorate pursuant to Article XIII C, section 2 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 218”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Californ ia Elections Code section 9222, the City Council has authority to place local measures on the ballot to be considered at a Municipal Election; and

WHEREAS, the City Council would like to submit to t he voters at the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election a measure enacting a general sales tax at a rate of one cent (1¢) on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the City until it is ended by voters, as more specifically set forth in the attached proposed ordinance adding Chapter 12 to Title 3 of the City’s Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, a 1% increase will cost an addition al one .01 cent per $1.00 dollar spent on taxable goods or .10 cents for every $10.00 spent and whereby the sales tax does not apply to groceries, medicine, medical, dental, real estate, rent, education, utilities, personal services, or labor; and

WHEREAS, the one cent (1¢) sales tax is a general tax, the revenue of which will be placed in the City’s general fund and will be used to pay for important general City services; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the vote rs of the State of California approved Proposition 218, an amendment to the State Constitution which requires that all general taxes which are imposed, extended or increased must be submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors voting in the election; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Propos ition 218 (California Consti tution, Article XIII C, § 2(b)), the general rule is that any local election for the approval of an increase to a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government; and

WHEREAS, the next regularly scheduled general election at which City Council members are to be elected is November 8, 2022; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 53724 (“Proposition 62”) and Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the City Council is required to place the Measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot; and 678

WHEREAS, the ordinance to be considered by the qualified voters and the terms of approval, collection and use of the general sales tax are described and provided for in the ordinance/measure attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Measure”) and by this reference made an operative part hereof, in accordance with all applicable laws.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals . The foregoing re citals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and made an operative part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Submission of Ballot Meas ure. Pursuant to Ca lifornia Elections Code section 9222, Government Code sect ion 53724, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9 and any other applicable requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to the City, the City Council, by a tw o-thirds (2/3) vote of all members, hereby orders the Measure to be submitted to the vo ters of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

SECTION 3. The City Council, purs uant to California Elections Code section 9222, hereby orders t hat the Measure shall be pr esented and printed upon the ballot submitted to the qualified voters in the manner and form set forth in this Section 3.

On the ballot to be submitted to the qualified vo ters at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, in addition to any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following ballot question:
“City of Ontario Services Measure

To secure Ontario’s long-term fi nancial stability; maintain fire, police, 9-1-1 response, help prev ent crime/thefts/burglaries; recruit/retain firefighter s/paramedics/police; repair
streets/potholes; improve local drinking water sources; address homelessness; clean/maintain public areas; fund
youth/afterschool programs; for general government use; shall the measure establishing a 1¢ sa les tax providing approximately $95,000,000 annually until ended by voters; requiring
audits/public spending disclosure, funds locally controlled, be adopted?”
YES
NO

SECTION 4. Conduct of Election. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that ma y be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 5. Pursuant to Elections C ode section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in 679
length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk not later than the deadline for submittal of primary arguments for or against the Measure.

The impartial analysis sha ll include a statem ent indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-font bold type, t he following: “The abov e statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure _____. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (909) 395-2395 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”

SECTION 6. Notice of the election is hereby given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 7. Placement on the Ballot. The full text of the Measure shall /shall not be printed in the voter information guide, and a statement shall be printed on the ballot pursuant to Elections Code section 9223 advising voters that they may obtain a copy of this Resolution and the Measure, at no cost, upon request made to the City Clerk.

SECTION 8. Filing with Co unty. The City Clerk shall, not later than the 88th day prior to the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, file with the Board of Supervisors and the County Clerk – Registrar of Voters of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, a certified copy of this Resolution.

SECTION 9. Public Examination. Purs uant to Elections Code section 9295, this Measure will be available for public examination for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to being submitted for printing in the voter information guide. The City Clerk shall post notice in the Clerk’s office of the specific dates that the examination period will run.

SECTION 10. The City Co uncil hereby finds and dete rmines that the Measure relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5).

SECTION 11. Severability. The provisi ons of this Resolution are severable and if any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, that provision shall be severed from the Resolution and the remainder of this Resolution shall continue in full force and effect, and not be affected by such invalidity.

SECTION 12. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario sha ll certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

680
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2022.

_______________ ______________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

681

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_______________ _____________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 2, 2022.

_______________ ______________________

S H E I L A M A U T Z , C I T Y C L E R K

(SEAL)

682

Exhibit “A”
Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

[attached behind this page]
683

ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 12 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT A ONE-CENT (1¢) GENERAL

TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX (SAL ES TAX) TO BE ADMINISTERED

BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE
ADMINISTRATION.

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9 the City of Ontario (“City”) is authorized to levy a Transactions and Use Tax for general purposes, subject to majority voter approval; and

WHEREAS, the People of the City desire to levy a Transactions and Use Tax for general purposes until repealed to fund important general City services, at a rate of one cent (1¢); and

WHEREAS, if approved by the City Council and Ontario voters, the Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance will be in corporated into Chapter 12 of Title 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Title and Text. This Or dinance shall be known as the Ontario Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance, the full text of which is set forth in Attachment “1”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Approval by the City Counc il. Pursuant to California Government Code section 53724 and Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, this Ordinance was duly approved for placement on the ballot by a minimum two-thirds (2/3) supermajority of all members of the City Council on August 2, 2022.

SECTION 3. Approval by the Voters. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9217, this Ordinance shall be deem ed adopted and take effect only if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of Ontario voting at the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022. It sha ll be deemed adopted when the City Council has certified the results of that election by reso lution and shall take effect ten (10) days thereafter.

SECTION 4. Operative Date. “Operat ive Date” for the Transactions and Use Tax means the first day of the first ca lendar quarter commencin g more than 110 days after the date this Ordinance is adopted, as set forth in Section 3 above.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
684

SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign th is Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within fifteen (15) days of the adoption. T he City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

I hereby certify that the Ontario Tr ansactions and Use Tax Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the P eople of the City of Ontario on the 8 th
day of November 2022.

PASSED, APPROVED, A ND ADOPTED this ________ day of _________ 2022.

_______________ ______________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

685

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario hel d _____________ and adopted at t he regular meeting held ___________, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

I hereby certify that the for egoing is the original of Or dinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.

__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

686

Chapter 12 – TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX

Sections:

3-12.01 - Purpose.
3-12.02 - Contract with State.
3-12.03 - Transactions Tax Rate.
3-12.04 - Place of Sale.
3-12.05 - Use Tax Rate.
3-12.06 - Adoption of Provisions of State Law.
3-12.07 - Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. 3-12.08 - Permit Not Required.
3-12.09 - Exemptions and Exclusions.
3-12.10 - Amendments.
3-12.11 - Enjoining Collection Forbidden.
3-12.12 - Duration of Tax

Sections:

3-12.01 - Purpose.

This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part

1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.

B. To adopt a retail transactions and use ta x ordinance that incor porates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts it self as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possi ble deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collect ing the California St ate Sales and Use Taxes.

D. To adopt a retail transactions and use ta x ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record-keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance.
687

3-12.02 - Contract with State.

Prior to the operative dat e, the City shall contract with t he California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functi ons incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the operative date, it shall nevert heless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.

3-12.03- Transactions Tax Rate.

For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of one percent (1%) of the gross receipts of any reta iler from the sale of all tangi ble personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this ordinance.

3-12.04 - Place of Sale.

For the purposes of this or dinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-o f-state destination or to a co mmon carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. T he gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be det ermined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

3-12.05 - Use Tax Rate.

An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one percent (1%) of the sales pr ice of the property. The sale s price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

3-12.06 - Adoption of Provisions of State Law.

Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (comm encing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein.

688

3-12.07 - Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes.

In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

A. Wherever the State of Ca lifornia is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:

1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, California Victim Compensation Board, Calif ornia Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Stat e Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;

2. The result of that substi tution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rath er than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Admi nistration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, includi ng, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the Stat e of California, wh ere the result of the substitution would be to:

a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangibl e personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from th is tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;

b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, st orage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which wo uld not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.

4. In reference to Sections 6701, 6702 (exce pt in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

B. The word “city” shall be substituted for the word “state” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this state” in Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.

1. “A retailer engaged in business in the District” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this state or for delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the reta iler that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this se ction, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.

689

3-12.08 - Permit not Required.

If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this ordinance.

3-12.09 - Exemptions and Exclusions.

A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.

B. There are exempted from th e computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:

1. Sales of tangible personal property, ot her than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or proper ty under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:

a. With respect to vehicles (oth er than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and

b. With respect to commercial vehicles , by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obli gated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

4. A lease of tangible personal property wh ich is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

690

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4 ) of this subsection, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deem ed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

C. There are exempted fr om the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:

1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.

2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or proper ty for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sect ions 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obli gated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a cont inuing purchase of such property for any period of time for whic h the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4 ) of this subsection, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property s hall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or del ivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.

7. “A retailer engaged in busi ness in the City” shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilitie s Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (c ommencing with Section 9840) of the 691

Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.

D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursem ent for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for, a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

3-12.10 - Amendments.

All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of t he Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically becom e a part of this ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance.

3-12.11 - Enjoining Collection Forbidden.

No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the St ate or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.

3-12.12 – Duration of Tax.

The tax imposed by this chapter shall continue until this ordinance is repealed.

692