TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SWATI MESHRAM, PHD, AICP, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT
title
Consider the Applicant’s appeal of Public Works Condition of Approval No. 3.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines and denies the Applicant’s requested concession, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, for the housing project consisting of 100 for-sale housing units located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue (6033 and 6041 Riverside Drive).
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2026-056, denying the Applicant’s appeal to remove Public Works Condition of Approval No. 3.2 which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines for the development project located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue in the Affordable Housing Overlay.
body
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will receive one-time revenues associated with development activity, including permit and development-related fees.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES
The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Responsible Long-Range Planning
• Public Safety
• Infrastructure Reliability
|
Revenue: |
Expenditure: |
|
Transfer In: |
Transfer Out: |
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on PL25-0067 (Site Approval) and PL25-0068 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20794), to consider a 100-unit residential for-sale project at a density of 26.6 dwelling units per acre on a 3.76 adjusted gross acre site within the CG (General Commercial) zoning district in the Affordable Housing Overlay. The project site is one of the 91 Affordable Housing Overlay sites established through the City's Housing Element, adopted by the City Council in December 2024. Because the project provides 10 deed-restricted affordable units (10 percent of the total units) for moderate-income households, it qualifies for a density bonus and one incentive or concession pursuant to Government Code section 65915 (State Density Bonus Law). The applicant requested that the City's requirement to underground the existing overhead utility lines be waived as the project's one concession under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The Planning Commission approved the project, as recommended by staff requiring undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines operating at less than 34.5 kilovolts, finding the requirement necessary to protect public health and safety (Public Works Condition of Approval No. 3.2). The basis for that determination is contained in Finding No. 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2026-004 and is discussed further in the Issues/Analysis section of this report.
During the public hearing, the applicant representative stated he accepted all recommended Conditions of Approval except Public Works Condition No. 3.2 and requested that the undergrounding requirement be waived as the project's requested concession under the State Density Bonus Law. Five members of the public also addressed the Planning Commission regarding project access, traffic, and the requested utility concession, including two speakers who supported retaining the undergrounding requirement. During deliberation, one Commissioner recommended an additional condition requiring muted exterior colors on the upper portions of the buildings to reduce the visual appearance of the project's massing.
Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-004 by a 4-1 vote, approving the Site Approval and Tentative Tract Map while retaining Public Works Condition of Approval No. 3.2 requiring the undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines along Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Commissioner Alexandris recused himself from consideration of the item because of interest in a property within 500 feet of the project. On June 19, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal requesting that the City Council uphold the project approvals but grant a concession from Condition of Approval No. 3.2, allowing the existing overhead utility lines to remain in place.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The issue before the City Council is whether to uphold Public Works Condition of Approval No. 3.2 as approved by the Planning Commission, which requires undergrounding existing overhead utility lines operating at 34.5 kV or less along Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue pursuant to Chapter 13.32 of the Chino Municipal Code or to grant the requested concession from this condition of approval pursuant to concession allowances within the SDBL.
The condition has been consistently applied to comparable private development projects and applicable City capital improvement projects, where feasible and required, to improve utility reliability, reduce exposure to hazards affecting overhead electrical infrastructure, and enhance long-term infrastructure resiliency adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
Overhead electrical infrastructure is inherently more vulnerable to outages caused by vehicle collisions, severe weather, high winds, equipment failures, and falling tree limbs. Such outages can interrupt power to homes and critical medical equipment, interrupt emergency communications, and affect lighting and other essential public safety systems. Underground utility systems generally provide greater reliability because they are less vulnerable to these external hazards. Although service interruptions can still occur, underground systems are significantly less susceptible to weather-related events, traffic collisions, and physical damage. Maintaining reliable electrical service is particularly important in residential developments where residents may depend upon electrically powered medical devices, refrigerated medications, mobility equipment charging, home oxygen systems, and other essential health-related equipment. Accordingly, staff concludes that requiring underground utility facilities directly advances important governmental interests in protecting public health and safety by improving system reliability and reducing the likelihood of service interruptions affecting future residents.
Evaluation of Alternative Mitigation
In the appeal application dated June 19, 2026 (Exhibit C), the applicant contends that the Planning Commission failed to identify a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and/or moderate-income households.
Staff concludes that retaining the existing overhead utility system with protective measures is not an equivalent alternative to undergrounding. While alternative measures such as moving the poles farther from the street curb, installing barriers or bollards, or adding flexible delineators may reduce certain vehicle-impact risks, they do not address the broader impacts of retaining overhead utilities, including vulnerability to severe weather, vegetation, equipment failure, vehicle collisions, pole deterioration, and resulting service interruptions. Staff has considered whether these measures could satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impacts associated with retaining the overhead system. While they may reduce the likelihood or severity of a vehicle striking the pole, they do not address the other risks and reliability concerns associated with overhead utilities. In addition, rigid barriers may create their own roadside hazards, while flexible barriers primarily serve as deterrents or visibility enhancements. For these reasons, staff finds that the proposed protective measures would provide some mitigation but would not satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impacts associated with retaining the overhead system. As a result, staff does not find that retaining the overhead system with these measures provides a satisfactory alternative to undergrounding.
State Density Bonus Law
The SDBL requires a local agency to grant a requested concession unless it makes one of the statutory findings authorizing denial. In its appeal application, the applicant asserted that the Planning Commission failed to identify a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. The applicant characterized the Planning Commission’s safety concerns as generalized concerns related to the proposed concession, including traffic collisions that were not near the property, and requested that the City Council grant the concession. Following staff’s review of the applicant’s appeal statement and the administrative record, staff has determined that the information provided by the applicant does not constitute substantial evidence demonstrating that elimination of Condition No. 3.2 is necessary to achieve identifiable and actual cost reductions sufficient to provide for affordable housing costs. Staff further determines that retaining Condition No. 3.2 advances substantial governmental interests in protecting public health, public safety, and infrastructure reliability. These interests are supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record.
Additionally, Staff acknowledges receipt of a letter submitted by the Appellant’s attorney, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP, dated August 21, 2026, which included additional studies and supporting materials. These materials were received after expiration of the 10-day appeal period. Staff has reviewed and considered the information to the extent appropriate to address the issues raised in the letter, however the materials were not submitted within the applicable appeal period and were not part of the record presented before the Planning Commission’s public hearing to consider this project.
The applicant has provided three studies addressing specific aspects of the existing overhead utility facilities. Although the studies provide information regarding certain conditions at the site, their findings do not fully support the broader conclusion asserted by the applicant, which is that allowing the existing overhead utility lines to remain would not create a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety under the State Density Bonus Law. Collectively, the studies indicate that the poles and lines appear to be maintained in accordance with applicable standards, that there is no documented pattern of pole-related vehicle collisions, and that the site has relatively limited wildfire exposure. These findings, however, do not establish that the overhead facilities present no potential health or safety hazards or that undergrounding provides no incremental public-safety benefit.
More specifically, the studies generally evaluate discrete risks under existing or assumed conditions and do not establish that the potential hazards associated with retaining overhead utilities are eliminated or that future, emergency, or failure conditions present no potential risk. Thus, while the studies identify no apparent existing deficiency within the specific areas evaluated, they do not substantiate the applicant’s broader conclusion that allowing the overhead facilities to remain would result in no specific, adverse impact on public health or safety or that undergrounding would provide no incremental public-safety benefit. Accordingly, Staff finds that the studies, considered individually and collectively, do not provide substantial evidence to support the elimination of Condition No. 3.2.
Housing and Community Development (HCD) Correspondence
Following the Planning Commission’s decision, the applicant submitted correspondence dated June 29, 2026 (Exhibit D), to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requesting review of the City’s denial of the requested State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) concession. The applicant’s correspondence asserts that the City improperly denied the requested concession to retain existing overhead utility lines and requests that HCD issue a Notice of Violation.
The applicant’s correspondence raises several issues, including claims that: (1) the City’s undergrounding requirement is not an objective development standard; (2) the requested concession would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions necessary to provide affordable housing; (3) the City has not demonstrated a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety as required under Government Code section 65915; and (4) alternative measures, such as protective barriers, could mitigate any potential safety concerns associated with retaining the existing utility poles.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's correspondence and maintains that denial of the requested concession is supported by substantial evidence. Section 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 provided specific evidence, including traffic collision data compiled from 2021 to 2025 that indicates there have been 23 traffic accidents within Chino City Limits involving a vehicle collision with a Southern California Edison (SCE) pole resulting in damage to the pole. The addition of the residential units for the project would create new traffic to and from the project site and thus exacerbate the traffic collision risks to the utility poles in question. These risks are further heightened by the location of the two existing utility poles along Riverside Drive near the Magnolia Avenue intersection, which are situated near the face of the street curb (Exhibit F). The location of these poles increases the potential for a vehicle veering off the roadway to strike the utility poles and further supports the City’s determination that undergrounding is necessary to advance public safety at the project site. The legislative purpose of Chapter 13.32 of the Chino Municipal Code, which governs undergrounding of public utilities finds that the absence of utility poles, overhead utility lines and related transmission devices serves the public health, safety and welfare in the following respects: 1) Eliminate potential hazards to life and property in the event of emergencies or disasters such as earthquakes, fires, floods, hazardous or toxic waste releases, rains and riots; 2) Facilitate the delivery of emergency services to persons and property located adjacent to the public right-of-way; 3) Improve or increase the utility of the public right-of-way for such uses as pedestrian travel; and 4) Improve or increase the visibility of persons operating motor vehicles on public streets and promoting the safety of the pedestrian and motoring public.
Condition No. 3.2 implements Chapter 13.32 of the Chino Municipal Code and has been consistently applied to qualifying development projects. However, the existence of limited exceptions does not eliminate the City’s ability to apply the undergrounding requirement where applicable. Furthermore, while the Municipal Code authorizes the City Engineer to exempt certain developments under specified circumstances, including allowing payment of an in-lieu fee when the required undergrounding distance is less than 650 feet, those provisions do not apply to this project. The project does not meet these specific circumstances as the project extends along the project's frontage on both Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue and exceeds 650 feet. The City’s review of this project determined that the eligible overhead utility facilities along Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue are subject to the undergrounding requirement, while the higher-voltage transmission facilities along Magnolia Avenue are exempt pursuant to the Municipal Code. This exemption is based on the operational characteristics of higher-voltage transmission facilities and has been applied consistently to similar facilities throughout the City.
Staff also determined that retaining overhead utility facilities with protective measures would not provide an equivalent level of infrastructure reliability and public safety protection as undergrounding. While protective barriers, like bollards, may address certain vehicle collision risks, they would not mitigate vulnerabilities associated with weather-related events, equipment failures, damaged utility infrastructure, or other causes of electrical service interruptions. In addition, depending on the location and configuration, the placement of barriers like bollards may interfere with or obstruct required pedestrian paths of travel, potentially creating accessibility constraints and conflicts with applicable accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rigid barriers may create their own roadside hazards, while flexible barriers primarily serve as deterrents or visibility enhancements. These risks are particularly relevant in a new residential development that will introduce additional residents, including individuals who may rely on electrically powered medical equipment or other essential services.
At the time this report was prepared, HCD had not issued a determination regarding the applicant’s correspondence. The City Council’s consideration remains whether the applicant has demonstrated entitlement to the requested concession under the requirements of the SDBL and whether substantial evidence supports retaining Condition of Approval No. 3.2. Based on the administrative record, staff recommends the requested concession should be denied because the applicant has not demonstrated that elimination of the undergrounding requirement is necessary to provide affordable housing costs and because substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that the condition advances important public health, public safety, and infrastructure reliability objectives.
Public Notice
A 10-day notice was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. In addition, a notice was published in the Chino Champion on August 22, 2026. Comments received in response to the public notice through posting of the agenda are attached (Exhibit G). The notice meets legal noticing requirements.
CONCLUSION
Staff concludes that Condition No. 3.2 serves important public health and safety objectives by improving utility reliability, reducing the vulnerability of electrical infrastructure to external hazards, and enhancing service resiliency for future residents. Staff further concludes that the proposed alternative mitigation measures do not provide an equivalent level of protection. If the City Council denies the appeal, the Planning Commission’s prior approval of the project will remain in effect, including Condition No. 3.2. As a result, the applicant will be required to comply with the approved condition and underground applicable existing overhead utility lines as part of the project. As required by Government Code section 65915 (d)(1) the City must make a written finding based upon substantial evidence.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm Public Work’s Condition of Approval No. 3.2 by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2026-056.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution No. 2026-056
Exhibit B - Planning Commission staff report and Exhibits [LINKED]
Chino Planning Commission - File #: 26-278 <https://chino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8069881&GUID=A021009F-CADE-4A55-A9C5-E1E6F2E02C83&Options=&Search=>
Exhibit C - Appeal application from the applicant, dated June 19, 2026
Exhibit D - Applicant’s letter to HCD, dated June 29, 2026
Exhibit E- Cox Castle Letter, dated August 21, 2026
Exhibit F - Pole locations, photo and aerial
Exhibit G - Comments received