Norco council debates A‑1 zone development standards — council declines immediate code amendment

Planning staff (Alma) asked the council whether it wanted to proceed with a zoning code amendment to establish development standards for conditionally permitted nonresidential uses in the A‑1 (agricultural) zone. The Planning Commission had recommended options including larger side setbacks (for example increasing from 5/15 ft to 25 ft), reduced lot coverage (for example 25%), a maximum building mass per structure (a suggested example: not exceeding 10,000 square feet per building), graduated setbacks tied to eave height, and clearer architectural standards to match neighborhood character.

Councilmembers asked for detail on what "character of the neighborhood" would mean in practice; staff said that could be spelled out (single‑story limits if surrounding buildings are single story, ranch‑style design elements, building materials). The mayor and council clarified technical points with staff: height would be measured to the eave (not the ridge), and graduated setbacks would increase with each foot of eave height above an 8‑foot baseline (staff described a 1.0–1.5 foot incremental ratio per foot above the baseline). The city attorney and planning staff also explained state constraints: certain small community care facilities (serving six or fewer residents) are treated under state law in a way that limits local bans or exclusions.

Public commenter Terry Young suggested the council could remove some uses from the A‑1 permitted list (while recognizing grandfathered uses), but legal staff cautioned the city cannot categorically ban certain uses if state law or other rules apply. Several councilmembers expressed concern that a blanket zone code amendment might be too rigid given Norco's varied lot sizes and recommended preserving conditional use permit (CUP) discretion for case‑by‑case mitigation. After debate, staff reported the apparent council consensus: no direction to prepare a zoning code amendment at this time; staff will return with clarifying information (for example how assembly uses and churches are regulated and where the city's current accessory‑building code review stands).

The discussion touched repeatedly on a recent controversy involving an assembly use (a church proposal on Hillside Avenue), with council members emphasizing they can set architectural and size expectations in certain cases but cannot broadly prohibit churches across the city. The council concluded without directing a code rewrite; staff will follow up with legal clarifications and related accessory‑building ordinance review notes.