Chino council upholds approval for Gateway Terminal after environmental appeal

The Chino City Council on Oct. 21 denied an appeal by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the Chino Gateway Terminal project, a proposal that includes a 158,548-square-foot industrial warehouse and a 3,540-square-foot food-and-beverage building at the southwest corner of Shafer and Oaks avenues.

SAFER had asked the council to require a new environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, arguing new information shows the project could cause significant biological, air-quality and noise impacts. The council voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation that an addendum to the city’s 2010 general plan environmental impact report (EIR) was the appropriate CEQA document and that SAFER’s supplemental materials did not present substantial new evidence requiring further review.

Staff and the project’s CEQA consultant told the council their addendum, supported by technical appendices, found no new or more severe environmental impacts and concluded the project complied with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. Senior Planner Kim Lee said the addendum considered air quality, health risk, noise and biological resources and that supplemental analyses confirmed impacts would not rise to the level of a new EIR.

SAFER’s attorney, Haley Uno of Lozo Jury LLP, urged the council to require a new initial study and a subsequent mitigated negative declaration or EIR. “Reliance on the addendum to the 2010 general plan EIR is improper because new information exists showing the project could result in new significant environmental impacts,” Uno said, citing expert findings the group submitted that identified potential harm to special-status wildlife, higher construction and truck noise, and air-quality and health-risk concerns.

Representatives for the developer disputed those claims. Henry Hong, speaking for the applicant, described the project program and said truck loading would be positioned to the south of the industrial building as far from nearby residences as practicable. Land-use attorney Stephanie de Herrera said the project’s technical appendices — including an air-quality assessment, noise analysis and biological resources study — support the addendum’s conclusions and argued the appellant’s expert reports were not applicable or were based on improper methodologies.

A supplemental noise memorandum and an updated biological resources assessment were cited by staff and the applicant as supporting the addendum. Staff also noted the project site is zoned M1 for light industrial and was included in the analysis underlying the 2010 general plan EIR.

Councilmembers asked clarifying questions during the hearing, including about battery energy storage systems and the sources for the acoustical firm’s higher noise projections; SAFER’s representative said she would follow up with technical specifics. After public comment, Councilmember Flores moved to deny the appeal; Mayor Pro Tem Burton seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

The council’s action preserves the Planning Commission’s prior approval of project entitlements identified in staff reports as PL20497, PL20498 and PL204112, subject to the department conditions of approval. No new environmental disclosure or a new EIR was ordered by the council.

The project team and city staff said the applicant and its consultants remain available to address technical follow-ups on topics raised by SAFER.