Chino City Council upholds planning director’s floor-area-ratio interpretation for mixed-use overlay

The Chino City Council voted unanimously April 15 to uphold the director of development services’ written interpretation that the city’s Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) applies FAR limits to nonresidential space only, denying an appeal from resident Robert Nigg challenging that reading of the zoning standards.

The action came after a staff presentation explaining the city adopted MUO and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) standards in 2023 and later amended them to satisfy the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Principal Planner Michael Hitz told the council the director’s written decision of Dec. 5, 2024, arose from a citizen request for clarification and was appealed to the Planning Commission, which upheld the director’s interpretation in a subsequent hearing. City Attorney Fred Galante told the council that overturning the Planning Commission would require an ordinance amendment affecting 91 overlay sites and that “the council cannot approve those revisions to the ordinance without HCD’s approval.”

Why it matters: the dispute turns on whether the MUO’s FAR cap should count both commercial and residential buildings on a parcel or only the nonresidential portion. The difference affects how much building area a developer may place on a site and has drawn public concern because the MUO was created to facilitate housing while also encouraging ground-floor commercial uses. Opponents at the meeting argued counting residential area toward FAR would restrict housing development; supporters of the appellant said the adopted materials and past presentations indicated a different intent.

Robert Nigg, the appellant who filed the original clarification request and appealed the director’s interpretation, pressed the council for a more expansive review and said the matter involved specific properties, including the Fern–Shafer (Euclid–Shafer) area. Nigg said the earlier council materials and a March 2023 consultant report supported his view and urged the council to require more specific factual findings. “You can’t comprehend something in 3 minutes,” Nigg said during his allotted time, urging the council to review materials he submitted the same day. Staff and the city attorney said council consideration must be limited to the narrow question before it—an interpretation of the code—and that additional project-specific claims would need to be raised later when those projects come forward.

Public comment included multiple residents who said a proposed large nearby development (referred to by speakers as the Orbis or Fern–Shafer project) would create privacy, parking and traffic problems if built at the densities enabled under the current standards. Several speakers urged the council to pursue more scrutiny or negotiate different project designs if and when applications are submitted. One resident, Maria Torres, described proximity and privacy concerns for homes directly behind the site. Another resident, Susan Beckettie, read a prepared statement from a neighbor urging the council to conduct a fact-finding process to address legal and community questions.

Council members discussed the tension between local objectives and state housing law. Council Member Comstock said the city has repeatedly pressed Sacramento and HCD and described the current state of law as difficult for local control; Comstock also called Nigg’s brief “extremely well written and compelling” but said the city faces practical limits in overruling an interpretation that could trigger HCD review. Council Member Flores and Mayor Eunice Ulloa emphasized the council’s desire to protect residents’ interests while complying with state requirements. In explaining the adopted approach, staff and the city attorney said HCD’s posture in certifying housing elements tends to favor permissive rules that allow higher-density residential development.

The formal motion before the council was to accept staff’s recommendation to concur with the Planning Commission and the director. Council Member Comstock moved the motion; Council Member Flores seconded. The roll-call vote was unanimous: Council Member Lucio — yes; Council Member Flores — yes; Council Member Comstock — yes; Mayor Pro Tem Burton — yes; Mayor Eunice Ulloa — yes. The motion carried, leaving the director’s FAR interpretation in place.

What’s next: the council and staff repeatedly told the audience that no specific development application for the Orbis/Fern–Shafer property was before the body that evening, and that any concrete project would be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission and would provide additional opportunities for public comment and findings. City Attorney Fred Galante and staff also warned that amending the ordinance without HCD concurrence could risk decertification of the city’s housing element, with legal and fiscal consequences.

The council encouraged continued public engagement. Mayor Eunice Ulloa and other members told residents they have repeatedly appealed to legislators and HCD in Sacramento but that local choices are constrained by state law; several council members encouraged residents to contact state lawmakers about the broader policy dispute.