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 Chino Gateway Terminal Project.
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
1) Conduct a Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-058, denying the appeal and thereby upholding the approval of PL24-0097 (Special Conditional Use Permit), PL24-0098 (Site Approval) and PL24-0120 (Special Conditional Use Permit), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval.
body
FISCAL IMPACT
If the project is developed, the City will receive one-time revenues in the form of permit and 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
On August 15, 2024, Gateway Terminal LLC (the “Applicant”) submitted a Site Approval (SA) (PL24-0098) and two Special Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) (PL24-0097 and PL24-0120) applications to construct the Chino Gateway Terminal Project (“the Project) consisting of a 158,548 square foot industrial warehouse building and a 3,540 square foot food and beverage building with an outdoor dining area, located on 7.35 acres of land within the Light Industrial (M1) zoning district at the southwest corner of Schaefer Avenue and Oaks Avenue. The site is the current location of Gateway Karis Church that will be relocated to the College Park community once their new church building is constructed at the northwest corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Satterfield Avenue. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum to the City of Chino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008091064) for the Project was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.
On July 16, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project. Prior to the meeting, staff received a letter from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), claiming the Addendum prepared for the Project does not fall within the scope of the 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) and that new significant impacts or mitigation measures have emerged. Therefore, SAFER claims a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration should have been prepared for the Project. Since the letter was received after the staff report publication, staff introduced the letter at the Planning Commission meeting, which SAFER did not attend. During the deliberation, the Commission asked staff if the EIR Addendum is sufficient for the Project. Staff explained that the EIR Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this type of project pursuant to CEQA. Following deliberation, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012, approving the Project subject to departmental conditions of approval, with the addition of a condition requiring the applicant to reinforce the outdoor dining area with protective bollards. The full Planning Commission staff report packet is included as Exhibit A and Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012, including the condition added by the Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit B.
On July 23, 2025, SAFER (the “Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, reiterating the same objections to the EIR Addendum and claiming that new significant impacts or mitigation measures require the preparation of a new EIR or Negative Declaration. SAFER provided no additional evidence or supporting documentation with the appeal other than what was originally submitted in the letter received prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the appeal application is included as Exhibit C.
On September 16, 2025, prior to the scheduled City Council hearing on the appeal, SAFER submitted additional materials that were not included in their original appeal (see Exhibit D). These materials expanded upon their prior assertions and argued that the City’s reliance on the Addendum to the City of Chino GPEIR was insufficient under CEQA. At the City Council hearing, the Applicant requested a continuance of the item to the October 21, 2025, City Council meeting to allow time to respond to the issues raised in SAFER’s supplemental letter. The City Council voted unanimously to approve the request.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Environmental Review and CEQA Compliance
On July 6, 2010, the City of Chino (the “City) certified the 2010 GPEIR to guide future development within the City’s planning area in accordance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site was included in the planning area analyzed in the GPEIR and was evaluated at full build out under the current zoning designation of M1, which allows for a variety of less intensive industrial uses.
As mentioned, an Addendum to the City of Chino GPEIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA. The purpose of the Addendum is to determine whether the Project would result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those identified in the GPEIR. As the lead agency under CEQA, the City of Chino is responsible for conducting this evaluation and determining the appropriate environmental document. As part of the process, the applicant submitted numerous technical studies including a Health Risk Assessment, Biology Report, Arborist Report, Cultural Resources and Historical Significance Assessment, Geotechnical Study, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Drainage Study, Noise Survey, Traffic Impact Analysis, Water Demand Analysis, and Sewer Capacity Analysis. Based on the review of the technical studies submitted by the applicant, the City concluded that the Project would not have any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously disclosed in the GPEIR. As a result, the Addendum was determined to be the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, and no further environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines.
SAFER’s Appeal
SAFER’s appeal presents vague and unsupported claims that new information, significant environmental impacts and/or mitigation measures may have emerged since the 2010 GPEIR was certified and therefore claims that a new EIR or Negative Declaration is required. However, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, additional environmental documentation is only required if the Project would result in: 1) new significant impacts; 2) substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts; or 3) new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the GPEIR certification.
The Addendum and the Planning Commission’s decision were based on comprehensive technical analysis that evaluated the Project’s environmental impacts. The Addendum provided: 1) a detailed summary of relevant General Plan policies for each environmental topic addressed in the GPEIR; 2) the level of impact for each environmental topic identified in the GPEIR; and 3) an evaluation of the Project’s impacts compared to those analyzed in the GPEIR.
The Addendum appropriately compared the impacts of the Project with those anticipated from full General Plan buildout. This is backed by the numerous technical studies that evaluated potential impacts and concluded that no additional mitigation would be required for the Project. Based on this analysis, the Planning Commission found no evidence that the Project would result in new or more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the GPEIR. As documented in the Addendum, the Project would not result in any new significant impacts, nor would it cause a substantial increase in the severity of existing impacts beyond those addressed in the GPEIR. The Project’s potential impacts are equal or less than those evaluated in the GPEIR. Additionally, there have been no substantial changes in the Project’s conditions or location that would lead to new or more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, no new information has been identified that would require further CEQA review under Section 15162. In conclusion, SAFER’s appeal fails to present any substantial evidence or justification to support its claims or to warrant further CEQA review.
The Addendum and all supporting technical studies are available for public review on the City’s website at: <https://www.cityofchino.org/591/Environmental-Documents>.
SAFER’S Supplemental Letter
On September 16, 2025, the City received a supplemental letter from SAFER identifying four main areas of concern, accompanied by supporting documents. In this letter, SAFER repeats its objection to the City’s use of an Addendum to the GPEIR as the environmental review document for the Project. SAFER claims that new information has become available since certification of the GPEIR that discloses new significant environmental impacts and identifies new feasible mitigation measures not previously analyzed. Staff, in consultation with LSA Associates, Inc., thoroughly reviewed all claims and supporting evidence brought forth by SAFER. The supplemental information provided does not offer substantial evidence of new significant environmental impacts, changed conditions, or feasible mitigation measures that were not previously considered in the GPEIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no additional environmental review document is required, and the Addendum remains the appropriate CEQA document for this Project. Based on SAFER’s supplemental letter, LSA Associates, Inc. has updated the Addendum to include updated technical studies as part of the appendices to the Addendum. Errata changes to the Addendum are located in Appendix N.
The analysis below covers the four main areas of concern identified by SAFER in the supplemental letter, followed by a staff response.
CEQA Procedural Concerns
SAFER questions the legal standards used to review the Project, the use of tiering under CEQA, and whether an Addendum to the City’s GPEIR is the appropriate environmental document. The Addendum was prepared under the City’s program-level GPEIR, consistent with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This means it is reviewed under a highly deferential standard based on substantial evidence and is not a tiered EIR under Section 15152 of the Guidelines. As stated earlier, the purpose of the Addendum is to determine whether the Project would result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those identified in the GPEIR. A series of technical studies were prepared and reviewed by staff. The technical studies concluded the Project would not have any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously disclosed in the GPEIR. After thorough review, the concerns raised do not present new information that would require further CEQA review beyond what was already provided in the Addendum and its supporting studies. Therefore, these concerns do not justify preparing a new EIR or Negative Declaration.
Biological Resources
SAFER raises concerns over a range of biological resources but primarily focuses on the Project’s potential impacts to special-status wildlife species, wildlife movement corridors, and the adequacy of the biological studies conducted. SAFER asserts that the Biological Resources Assessment included in the Addendum is either lacking and does not fully disclose, analyze, or mitigate significant impacts to special-status species and therefore requires the preparation of a new EIR or Negative Declaration. Staff and LSA Associates Inc. have reviewed these concerns in detail and determined that the issues raised do not constitute new information requiring additional CEQA review beyond that provided in the Addendum and supporting Biological Resources Assessment. While the comments provided by SAFER appear to be credible, the analysis provided in the Addendum meets industry standards, and SAFER’s comments tend to overstate potential impacts or misrepresent the existing evaluation. SAFER has not submitted reliable evidence to support their claims. LSA Associates, Inc has prepared detailed, point-by-point responses to SAFER’s biological resource concerns, which are included as Exhibit E - LSA Response to SAFER Supplemental Letter, the response letter has also been incorporated Appendix M of the Addendum document. Additional technical information supporting the Addendum has been prepared as part of an update to the Biological Resources Assessment dated March 25, 2025, and is included in Appendix D4 of the Addendum.
Air Quality and Health Risk
SAFER expresses concern over cumulative air quality and health risks, specifically, focusing on cumulative air quality and health risk impacts due to the proximity of the project to existing warehouses and assert that residents in the surrounding communities already experience higher than average cancer rates due to long term exposure to air pollution. SAFER also raises concern regarding Valley Fever and emissions from equipment such as fire pumps, emergency generators, and battery storage systems. The Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment included in the Addendum adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the Project, including the concerns brought forth in the supplemental letter from SAFER. Staff and LSA Associates, Inc. have determined that SAFER’s comments do not identify any new or previously unaddressed impacts. Therefore, no further CEQA review is required beyond the Addendum and supporting technical studies. A detailed response letter has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. and is included as Exhibit E - LSA Response to SAFER Supplemental Letter.
Noise
SAFER raises concerns over construction and operational noise impacts, focusing primarily on construction noise, noise generated by trucks during project operation, HVAC noise, and characterization of the ambient noise environment and its use as a baseline condition for noise impacts. In response, LSA Associates, Inc. has prepared a supplemental noise analysis to the Addendum, which provides further noise modeling information including: 1) comparison of construction noise levels to existing ambient conditions, 2) analysis of operational noise at the project driveway closest to sensitive receptors; and 3) evaluation of nighttime truck operations and HVAC related noise. This supplemental analysis is included as Exhibit E - LSA Response to SAFER Supplemental Letter. Additional technical information supporting the Addendum has been prepared and incorporated into the Addendum. This information includes a sound plan for day and night noise (Appendix L2), construction noise calculations (Appendix L3), and a traffic noise analysis (Appendix L4). Based on this analysis, staff and LSA Associates, Inc. conclude that the noise concerns raised do not represent new significant environmental information requiring further CEQA review or the preparation of a new EIR or Negative Declaration.
Based on the additional technical analysis prepared, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s original decision to approve the Project.
Public Noticing
A 10-day notice for the appeal 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 September 6, 2025. A total of two freestanding signs were posted along each of the project’s street frontages with project information in accordance with Section 20.23.140.D.1 of the City’s Zoning Code. As the Project was continued from the September 16, 2025 City Council Meeting to the October 21, 2025 City Council meeting, project noticing requirements have been complied with. In response to the public notice, no comments have been received. The notice exceeds legal noticing requirements.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Staff Report Packet
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-012
Exhibit C - Appeal Application
Exhibit D - SAFER Supplemental Letter
Exhibit E - LSA Response to SAFER Supplemental Letter
Resolution No. 2025-058