TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY OF CHINO
FROM: WARREN MORELION, AICP, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT
title
Appeal of Planning Commission action approving the Eden Mixed Use Development Project.
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing; Adopt Resolution No. 2025-048, denying the appeal and thereby upholding the approval of PL22-0074 (Special Conditional Use Permit), PL22-0075 (Site Approval), PL24-0080 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20634), PL24-0081 (Special Conditional Use Permit), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval, as amended by the Planning Commission.
body
FISCAL IMPACT
If the appeal is denied and the project is developed, the City will receive one-time revenues in the form of Development Impact Fees. Ongoing revenues through property and sales taxes will also be generated in the future.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES
The recommendation detailed above furthers 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
|
Revenue: |
Expenditure: |
|
Transfer In: |
Transfer Out: |
BACKGROUND
The 2021-2029 Housing Element (Housing Element) update was originally adopted by the City Council on January 4, 2022, with revisions to the document adopted December 2024, followed by HCD certification. The Housing Element established an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) and Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) on 91 different sites throughout the City. These specific sites were identified during the drafting of the Housing Element as a strategy for meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers required by the State. Housing sites within both overlays allow for residential development of up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) provided that projects provide affordable housing for low-income households. The subject project is located on one of the MUO sites identified in the adopted Housing Element.
On September 29, 2022, Orbis Schaefer, LLC (the “Applicant”) submitted a Special Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) (PL22-0074) and Site Approval (SA) (PL22-0075) for the development of the project site as a commercial center. The project scope was later revised, and on October 18, 2023, the Applicant submitted updated plans reflecting the current proposal for a mixed-use development consisting of a 264-unit residential rental community, a commercial center and a self-storage facility. Consistent with the revised project scope, subsequent applications were submitted on July 9, 2024, including Tentative Tract Map No. 20634 (TTM 20634) (PL24-0080) and a second Special Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) (PL24-0081) (the “Project”). In addition, on December 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted a preliminary application under the provisions of Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330). SB 330 was adopted by the State in 2019 to, among other things, provide more certainty to housing developers by allowing them to lock in the standards that apply to their project. Subject to limited exceptions, filing a preliminary application locks in the development standards that are in place on the day the preliminary application is filed.
It is also important to note that the State has placed increased limitations on the City’s discretion to approve or deny housing projects. Under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5(j)), when a proposed housing project meets applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, and environmental review has been conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), then the City must approve the project unless it makes written findings that: (1) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than disapproval of the project. In addition, when a mixed-use project, such as this Project contains at least two-thirds of its square footage as residential, it is considered a housing project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and must be treated as a single, unified housing development project for the purposes of entitlement review and approval.
On May 21, 2025, the Project was presented to the Planning Commission, where the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Project with a 6-0 vote (one Commissioner absent), with the addition of two conditions of approval. The added conditions included lowering the north elevation of the apartment building from four-stories to three-stories and adding that square footage to a third floor around the apartment building courtyard, increasing from three-stories to four-stories, and adding Chino branding to signage, and an open space feature at the corner of Euclid and Schaefer Avenues. The Planning Commission staff report packet has been attached as Exhibit A for reference and Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-009, including the conditions added by the Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit B.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Robert Nigg (the “Appellant”), submitted three appeals as part of his appeal application of the Planning Commission’s decision on May 29, 2025. Mr. Nigg submitted a fourth appeal after the 10-day appeal period, which is addressed below for the Council’s reference, but may not be considered in the Council’s evaluation of this appeal. Each appeal covers multiple areas of concern, requesting the City Council to deny the approval of the Project based on the specific reasons as outlined in his appeal application. The appeal application and supplemental appeal materials are attached as Exhibit C and discussed below in the issues/analysis section of the Council report.
APPEAL
Appeal 1 - PL22-0074 (Special Conditional Use Permit) Self-Storage Facility
The Appellant claims that Chino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 20.09.090.E.4 requires approval of a SCUP for a self-storage facility within an MUO district. The Appellant further claims that the Planning Commission did not hear or approve a self-storage facility as part of the Project. This claim is false. The Applicant submitted PL22-0074 (SCUP) for the approval of a self-storage facility within the Project, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2025. At the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Project, including the SCUP for the proposed self-storage facility.
In his appeal, the Appellant raises seven primary areas of concern that the self-storage facility should be denied, which are summarized below followed by a staff response.
Mass and Scope
The Appellant objects to the concentration of 264 residential units on the 5.02-acre portion of the project site, equating to a perceived density of approximately 52.6 units per acre. He claims the incorporation of the self-storage facility eliminates land that could be used to spread the density of the residential portion of the project to lower the height of the residential building and allow for additional open space and parking for the project. He requests the City Council explain how the self-storage facility is compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood as part of the appeal.
The Project is a horizontal mixed-use development, consistent with the MUO district (CMC 20.09.090.E.1.a), which allows residential density to be calculated across the entire site, even when other land uses such as commercial and self-storage are proposed. With a total project area of 9.82-acres (adjusted gross acres), the resulting net residential density is 26.9 du/ac, which is under the maximum density permitted in the MUO. Additionally, the self-storage facility meets all requirements of the MUO district including site size, setbacks, building height, floor area, building materials, and building articulation. The standards also require 24-hour on-site management, which will be provided. Under the HAA, a housing development project includes mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. The Project, as designed, meets the HAA’s definition of a housing development project, therefore the self-storage facility is no longer a discretionary approval per the HAA. The City must approve qualifying housing projects unless findings are made that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact, upon the public health or safety, as defined by the HAA and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. This was explained to the Planning Commission at the May 21, 2025 hearing for the Project.
“Specific adverse impact” is defined in State law as “a significant quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” State law further explains that: “It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety … arise infrequently.” Guidance issued by the State on the HAA further explains that neighborhood character does not constitute a specific, adverse impact based on the above criteria. (HCD Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory, dated Sept. 15, 2020, p. 13 [“An example of a condition that does not constitute a specific, adverse impact would be criteria that requires a project to conform with “neighborhood character.” Such a standard is not quantifiable and therefore would not meet the conditions set forth under the HAA.”]) Furthermore, the findings of fact were made in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-009.
Fails to Protect and Promote Health, Safety, Welfare, and Enhance the Value of Surrounding Residential Property
The Appellant contends that the Project is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City of Chino’s General Plan, which emphasizes the preservation of small-town character, and preservation of residential neighborhoods. The inclusion of the self-storage facility is seen as incompatible with the underlining commercial zoning and detrimental to property values, scenic views, and community aesthetics. The Appellant is requesting specific findings be made as to why the inclusion of the storage facility is, or is not, compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood and why it is necessary under Measure Y.
The Project site is located in the MUO district, which allows self-storage facilities as a conditionally permitted use, subject to development standards outlined above in “Mass and Scope.” Under the HAA a housing development project includes mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. The Project, as designed, meets the HAA’s definition of a housing development project, therefore the self-storage facility is no longer a discretionary approval per the HAA. Under the HAA, the City’s discretion is significantly limited, and the City must approve all portions of a qualifying housing project unless findings are made that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, as explained above. Again, guidance issued by the State on the HAA further explains that neighborhood character does not constitute a specific, adverse impact based on the above criteria. Furthermore, the findings of fact were made at the time the Planning Commission approved the Project, as reflected in Exhibit B.
Incompatible with Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B)
The Appellant states that the 10.52-acre project site (as noted earlier, the adjusted gross area of the Project site is 9.82 acres) exceeds the 10-acre threshold identified under Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B) and that the City has not provided adequate evidence that the site is feasible for lower-income housing. The Appellant is again requesting explanation as to how and why the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood.
The project site was included in the City’s Housing Element, which identified 91 sites to meet lower-income housing needs and was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This certification confirms the project site meets the requirements of §65583.2(c)(2)(B). Additionally, the HAA limits the review of housing projects to the adopted objective standards and has issued guidance confirming neighborhood character is not an adequate reason to deny a housing project.
Storage Facility Will Not Create a Desirable High Quality Neighborhood
The Appellant claims that the proposed four-story, industrial style self-storage facility is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and goals in Chino’s Housing Element. The Appellant contends the Planning Commission should have clarified how the standard limiting the size of self-storage facilities to 25% of the gross floor area for residential and non-residential uses was established. The Appellant further requests the City Council explain how this standard was determined.
The project site is located in the MUO district, which was adopted through a formal amendment to the East Chino Specific Plan (ECSP). As part of the amendment process, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance on March 6, 2023, where it was requested that self-storage be added as a use in the MUO. The provisions were brought back to the Planning Commission on March 20, 2023, where the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the MUO, with requested changes regarding self-storage. The City Council then approved the Ordinance on April 8, 2023. Under the MUO, self-storage facilities are allowed as a conditionally permitted use, subject to the established standards in the MUO. During the public hearing process, there were no objections from the public to restrict self-storage facilities within the MUO district. This is an adopted standard and no further explanation is required to demonstrate applicability of the standard.
Project Building Heights are in Conflict with Prior City Workshops
The Appellant contends that the Project’s building heights and density are inconsistent with the direction provided during a City Council workshop prior to the adoption of the MUO district. The Appellant further states the intent of Measure Y was to meet RHNA standards while providing affordable housing, not to allow self-storage facilities surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The Appellant is again requesting an explanation as to how and why the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood.
The Project, as approved by the Planning Commission, meets all applicable requirements of the MUO district, the Zoning Code and the ECSP. As previously stated, the Project is considered a housing project under the HAA, and the HAA limits the review of housing projects to the adopted objective standards and has issued guidance confirming neighborhood character is not an adequate reason to deny a housing project.
Questionable and Suspicious Financial Feasibility Report
The Appellant references a financial feasibility report prepared by Keyser Maston Associates, which was prepared and amended during the adoption of the MUO district, claiming the report was flawed when allowing a higher base density than what is referenced under the Housing Element. The Appellant again requests explanation as to how and why the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood.
The financial feasibility report was prepared to determine the base density and affordability range for projects in the MUO based on market conditions, including the cost to develop a site. As such, the report was a tool in developing standards under the MUO district that were adopted by the City Council on April 8, 2023. Furthermore, the request to provide findings on the Project as to why the self-storage facility is compatible and beneficial with the neighborhood is preempted by the HAA, as previously discussed.
Loss of Sales Tax Revenue
The Appellant states that the inclusion of the self-storage facility into the project will negatively impact the City of Chino due to self-storage facilities not being a sales tax generator. Additionally, the Appellant asserts the self-storage facility is a discretionary approval, subject to the requirement of a SCUP.
As previously stated, the Project is considered a housing project under the HAA, and the HAA limits the review of housing projects to the adopted objective standards. Generation of sales tax is not an objective standard under the HAA and cannot be factored into any decision.
Appeal 2 - PL24-0080 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20634)
The Appellant argues that the Planning Commission's approval of the Project was procedurally flawed. Specifically, he claims the agenda packet lacked the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) exhibits, failed to include public comments from neighborhood meetings, and the Director of Development Services did not respond to a prior appeal submitted on May 20, 2025, appealing the Director of Development Services recommendation for the Planning Commission to approve the Project. The Appellant also raises four areas of concern, further discussed below, asserting PL24-0080 (TTM 20634) should be denied.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission packet for the May 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was published and made available to the public on the City’s website on May 16, 2025. The published packet included all project plans, including TTM 20634. The staff report also stated that a tentative map was proposed as part of the Project and findings of fact were made in support of TTM 20634. The staff report did identify that two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the project, however there is no requirement to address comments raised during the neighborhood meeting process. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Appellant submitted an appeal of the Director of Development Services’ recommendation to approve the Project. It should be noted that recommendations are not an appealable action based on the Zoning Code and the Appellant was notified of this on May 22, 2025.
The proposed Tentative Tract Map is Not Consistent with Applicable General and Specific Plans as Specified in Section 65451 of the Government Code
The Appellant argues that the proposed TTM is inconsistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65451 and does not align with the General Plan and ECSP. The Appellant specifically requests findings be made explaining how and why the subdivision and the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and state standards for affordable housing.
The Subdivision Ordinance outlines 11 findings that must be made in CMC Section 19.02.080. Findings of fact were made for TTM 20634 as part of Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-009, which is the approving resolution. Government Code Section 65451 does not apply to this project as this section of the Government Code references required contents of a specific plan. As previously mentioned in the report, self-storage facilities are allowed in the MUO, subject to established MUO standards that were adopted through a formal amendment to the ECSP.
The Subdivided Site Density is Inconsistent with General Plan
The Appellant states that the proposed subdivision of the 10.52-acre site (9.82 adjusted gross acres), particularly the concentration of 264 units on a 5.02-acre lot exceeds the 30 du/ac cap set by Chino’s General Plan and Zoning Code. The resulting density of over 52 du/ac is only permissible under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), but there is no indication that the Applicant has formally applied for or qualified for such a bonus. Without compliance with SDBL requirements, the Appellant argues, the Project exceeds allowable limits and is therefore inconsistent with City planning documents and State law. The Appellant specifically requests findings be made explaining how and why the subdivision and the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and State standards for affordable housing.
The Project is consistent with the City of Chino’s General Plan and Zoning Code density standards and does not require use of the SDBL. Per Section 20.09.090.E.1.a. of the Zoning Code, horizontal mixed-use developments are permitted within the MUO district. This allows a mix of uses (residential, commercial, and self-storage) on separate parcels within the same project area. Since the Project is designed as a horizontal mixed-use development, density is calculated based on the total residential unit count over the entire net project area of 9.82 acres, not just the 5.02-acre residential parcel. Based on this approach, the proposed 264 residential units equate to a density of 26.9 du/ac, which is well within the 30 du/ac limit established by the General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, the Project complies with local density requirements on its own and does not rely on or invoke the provisions of the SDBL. Additionally, findings of fact were made in support of TTM 20634 as discussed earlier in this staff report.
The Subdivided Sites are not Physically Suitable for the Type of Development
The Appellant claims that the proposed subdivision of the 10.52-acre site (9.82 adjusted gross acres), specifically the allocation of 264 residential units on 5.02-acre parcel, is physically and legally unsuitable for the intended development. The key concerns include inadequate infrastructure capacity, insufficient parking and transit access, and conflict with the Zoning Code. The Appellant is requesting findings be provided addressing how and why subdividing the property into five lots and the inclusion of the self-storage facility is or is not compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and State standards for affordable housing.
As part of the review process, technical studies were prepared for the project and an Addendum to the City of Chino General Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA and approved by the Planning Commission with the Project. The Addendum addressed the availability of public utilities, including sewer, water, and dry utilities and determined that the City’s current infrastructure is adequate. Public improvements to be installed with the Project include storm drain and street improvements. The Project meets all development standards as required in the Zoning Code and ECSP, even with the subdivision. Additionally, findings of fact were made in support of TTM 20634 as discussed earlier in this staff report.
The Subdivided Sites are not Physically Suitable for the Proposed Density of Development
The Appellant asserts that the 10.52-acre (9.82 adjusted gross acres) project site exceeds the 10-acre threshold identified under Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B) and that the City has not provided adequate evidence that the site is feasible for lower-income housing. Additionally, the Appellant argues the City must make a General Plan Consistency finding per Government Code Section 66473.5 and also make the inverse of the seven “negative findings in Government Code Section 66474. The Appellant specifically requests findings of facts be made pursuant to CMC Section 19.01.110.D.5.
The project site was included in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, which identified 91 sites to meet lower-income housing needs and was certified by HCD. This certification confirms the project site meets the requirements of §65583.2(c)(2)(B). Additionally, findings of fact were made in support of TTM 20634 as discussed earlier in this staff report, pursuant to CMC Section 19.02.080.
Appeal 3 - Objection to and Appeal of the Mixed-Use Development by Applicant Orbis Schaefer LLC. Violations and Inconsistencies in Zoning Code Standards
In the third appeal received, Appellant raises three primary areas of concern (set out in two sections) that the Project is not meeting parking standards, building separation and setbacks.
Zoning Code, Section 20.18.030 - Number of Parking Spaces Required
The Appellant states that the City misclassified the commercial component of the Project as a “shopping center” and applied a parking ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet, while contradicting Zoning Code §20.18.030(C), which requires parking to be calculated separately for different uses (e.g., retail, restaurant, outdoor dining).
The commercial component of the Project meets the definition of a shopping center under Section 20.24.020, which includes commercial sites with at least three separate businesses that share common pedestrian and parking areas. According to Zoning Code Section 20.18.030.A, shopping centers under 300,000 square feet in floor area are subject to a unified parking requirement of four parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. This standard resulted in 112 parking spaces being required for the commercial and self-storage portion of the Project. The Project exceeds the minimum parking requirement and provides 143 parking spaces.
Zoning Code, Section 20.09.090 for Building Separation and Setbacks
The Appellant raises two points of contention for the Project regarding building separation and building setbacks. The Appellant cites Table 20.09-7 of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum 15-foot separation between buildings. The Appellant claims the site plan shows approximately seven feet between the 13,800 square foot commercial building and the 132,438 square foot self-storage facility. Additionally, the Appellant notes again in Table 20.09-7, note 2 “the upper story above 40 feet shall be setback an additional seven feet from the interior property line if the project is adjacent to a residential zoning district”. This concern is specific to the 264-unit apartment building.
Regarding building setbacks, a 15-foot building separation is required when there are two separate buildings. The 13,800 square foot multi-tenant portion of the building is attached to the self-storage facility and is defined as one building; therefore, a 15-foot building separation is not required. As far as building setbacks, the parcel to the north has an underlining land use designation of General Commercial (GC) per the ECSP with a MUO. The additional seven-foot setback for upper stories exceeding 40 feet from the interior property line does not apply since the Project is not adjacent to a residential zoning district.
Appeal 4 - Housing Accountability Act
In addition, the Appellant contacted the City on May 29, 2025, objecting to the letter provided to the City Attorney’s office by Allen Matkins after the close of business on Friday, May 16, 2025, on behalf of the Applicant. The letter cited restrictions the HAA places on denying a housing project. In his correspondence, the Appellant noted that further objections and comments would be submitted after he reviewed this correspondence. On June 6, 2025, after the close of the 10-day appeal period, the Appellant provided additional objections to the May 16, 2025 letter. Specifically, the Appellant noted that the Project did not fall within the protections of the HAA due to the percentage of affordable units being less than 13 percent, which is noted in Government Code Section 65589.5, and that the City has a legal obligation to post the letter received by the Applicant and to rescind the Planning Commission approval until a 60-day period expired. It should be noted that since the objections were submitted after the close of the 10-day appeal period for the Project, they cannot be considered as part of the appeal application. However, staff is providing a response to the objections for City Council reference.
Response to argument that the Orbis project must provide 13 percent of the total units for lower income households
In response to the argument that the project must provide 13 percent of the total units for lower income households: The HAA explains that the definition of mixed-income household project, describing the 13% affordability requirement is applicable where a development application is pursued under the builder’s remedy provisions. The HAA further explains, at Subsection 65589.5(f)(6)(G), that if a city has a local affordable housing requirement that is greater than the amount referenced in Subsection (h)(11)(A), then it can apply that higher requirement to a mixed-income project (as to housing for mixed-income households as defined in Subsection (h)(3)(C)) subject to meeting the specified requirements there. Because the reference to Subsection (h)(11)(A) is the provision defining a builder’s remedy project, this doesn’t apply here because the City has a certified housing element. As such, this is not a builder’s remedy project. Instead, the analysis ends with the options described in Subsection (h)(2). That Subsection provides the definition of what constitutes a “housing development project.” If it meets any description in the list under Subsection (h)(2), including “(h)(2)(A) Residential units only," “(h)(2)(B) Mixed use developments”, “(h)(2)(C) Transitional housing”, etc., the project is subject to the protections under the HAA. This project falls under Subsection (h)(2)(B), which provides, “Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i) At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use.”
Since this project meets the definition under Subsection (h)(2)(B), the 13 percent reference in Subsection (h)(3)(C) does not apply and the City may not compel the applicant to meet this requirement. This is supported by the Sept. 15, 2020, HCD HAA Technical Assistance Advisory, which provides the following explanations at Appendix A: “What types of housing development project applications are subject to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)? The HAA applies to both market rate and affordable housing development projects. (Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1073.) It applies to housing development projects that consist of residential units and mixed-use developments when two-thirds or more of the square footage is designated for residential use. It also applies to transitional housing, supportive housing, farmworker housing, and emergency shelters. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d) and (h)(2).)”
Legal obligation to post
The Appellant argues the City violated the law by not posting the May 16, 2025, letter from the applicant’s attorney on the City’s website within five days (letter attached hereto as Exhibit D). That subsection describes a notice by an applicant to a local agency explaining that the local agency has failed to cease actions that are effectively disapproving the proposed housing project inconsistent with the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). That is not what the letter from Orbis’ attorney is arguing since staff recommended approval of the project.
Neither Orbis nor its attorney have taken the position that the City has failed to cease actions leading to the disapproval of the project. In fact, Orbis had seen the staff report recommending approval of the project when its attorney wrote the letter. Instead, Orbis’ attorney simply explained in his letter that the City’s Planning Commission cannot apply discretionary criteria in its evaluation of the project. He explained that the Planning Commission is bound by the limited bases to disapprove the project per the Housing Accountability Act (i.e. that the project would create specific, unmitigable adverse impact to health or safety”). The last paragraph of Orbis’ attorney’s letter makes it clear that they are not taking any position that the City has taken any course of action that is effectively disapproving the project.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Staff Report Packet
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-009
Exhibit C - Appeal Application
Exhibit D - May 16, 2025 Letter from Applicant’s Attorney
Resolution No. 2025-048