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
Conduct a Public Hearing; 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.
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.
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. 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
Resolution No. 2025-058