Attachment E - PC Report & Plans — Chino City Council, October 3, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

MEMORANDUM

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
..titl e PL20-0003 (Prezone/Annexation), PL20-0004 (Site Approval) and PL20-0005 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174)
..end LOCATION MAP

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 2
PROJECT NO.: PL20-0003 (Prezone/Annexation), PL20-0004 (Site Approval) and PL20-0005 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174)
APPLICANT: Golden Management Services, Inc.

REQUEST:

PL20-0003 (Prezone/Annexation) A recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to prezone approximately 56.87 acres of land (East End Annexation) from unincorporated San Bernardino County zoning designations of Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and RS-20M (Single Residential 20,000 square feet Industrial (M2) consistent wit
annexation of the East End Annexation site.

PL20-0004 (Site Approval) A request to construct three industrial buildings, totaling 63,900 square feet (Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project).

PL20-0005 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174) A request to subdivide 3.95 gross acres of land into three parcels for the future development of three industrial buildings (Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project).

LOCATION: The East End Annexation site is generally located south of Francis Avenue, west of East End Avenue, north of Philadelphia Street, and a small portion south of Philadelphia Street. APNs: 1013-261-17, 1013-271-01, -10, -11, -06, -13, -14, 1013-521-04, -05, -11, -14, - 15, -16, -18, 1013-531-04, -07, 1016-011-02, -03, -05, -06, -08, -09, -10, & -15, including the public right of way (to centerline) of public streets abutting the above listed parcels. The Philadelphia Street Industrial Project is located at the northwest corner of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street (APN: 1013-521-04).

RECOMMENDATION
..recommendation 1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-021, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project and East End Annexation; 2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution PC2023-022, recommending the City Council approve PL20-0003 (Prezone/Annexation) in conjunction with the proposed annexation of the East End Avenue Annexation site, based on the findings listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-022; and 3) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023, conditionally approving PL20-0004 (Site Approval) and PL20-0005 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval.
..body BACKGROUND
The applicant, Golden Management Services, Inc. submitted applications to the City to subdivide 3.59-acres of land into three parcels to construct three industrial buildings at the northwest corner of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street (Philadelphia Street Industrial Development The project site is
currently located in unincorporated San Bernardino County (County), within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence (SOI).
the property into the City of Chino to receive sewer services for the construction of the project.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of San Bernardino is tasked with processing annexations between the County and the City and has determined the logical boundary for the East End Annexation to include the properties generally located south of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 3
Francis Avenue, west of East End Avenue, north of Philadelphia Street, and a small portion south of Philadelphia Street.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
As an introductory note, the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the prezoning of the annexation area, and to approve the land use entitlements (Site Approval and Tentative Parcel Map) for the proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project. The Planning Commission is not being asked to make a recommendation regarding the decision to initiate annexation proceedings as this decision is solely within the purview of the City Council. However, this staff report includes information about the proposed annexation for context.

East End Annexation
Prezone/Annexation
The East End Annexation area is a total of 56.87 acres in size and is comprised of industrial zoned parcels. Existing uses on the parcels include vacant property, outdoor storage (vehicles, equipment, materials), a single-family residence, Scott Brothers Dairy, and various agricultural purposes. The current County zoning designation for the annexation area is mostly Commercial Industrial (IC) with two parcels zoned as RS-20M (Single Residential 20,000 square feet minimum), and one parcel zoned Regional Industrial (IR) (Exhibit A San Bernardino County Zoning). The properties to the south of the annexation area are generally developed with industrial buildings/uses. The properties to the east are primarily single-family residences. The property proposed for development is currently vacant with a County zoning designation of RS-20M.

Land Use
The proposed prezone and annexation is intended to transfer the East End Annexation area from the County to the City of Chino and establish M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (General Industrial) zoning for the properties (Exhibit B Proposed Prezone Map). This proposed prezoning is consistent with the City of Chino General Plan Map land use designations. The M1 zoning allows for a variety of industrial uses (manufacturing, warehousing, and storage) that produce relatively limited volumes of traffic, noise, odors, or pollutants. New buildings in the M1 zone are restricted in size to 50,000 square feet or less, unless approved with a Special Conditional Use Permit. The M2 zoning di allows
for a board range of manufacturing, warehousing and storage industrial uses.

The proposed prezoning of the East End Annexation area will only apply if the City Council approves the prezone application and when LAFCO records the certificate of completion for the annexation. In addition, the Site Approval and Tentative Parcel Map are contingent on the final recordation of the certificate of completion for the annexation by LAFCO.

Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis
A plan for service and fiscal impact analysis (PFS/FIA) (Exhibit C), as required by LAFCO, has been prepared for the proposed East End Annexation. The PFS/FIA analyzes costs associated with the City taking over servicing this area in relation to the anticipated revenue from property taxes, development impacts fees, vehicles license fees, sales tax, and other revenue sources.

The analysis considers two property tax share scenarios where the City receives half property tax share of 5.4% and full property tax share of 10.8% of the one percent property tax collected from property owners in the County. The two tax share scenarios were analyzed because at this PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 4
time the City estimates it will only receive half (5.4%) of the property tax share for annexed properties . The County
retains the other half (5.4%) of the full share. In the future, the City will try and negotiate with the County to obtain the full tax share (10.8%), but is uncertain if obtaining the full share will happen. Based upon the presumed revenues and expenditures, the annexation would result in an annual deficit of $2,200 per year under the half property tax share (5.4%) scenario and a surplus of $22,600 per year if the City can negotiate the full tax share (10.8%).

Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project
Site Approval and Tentative Parcel Map
Site Design
The proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project is comprised of three industrial buildings, totaling 63,900 square feet. Buildings 1 and 2 front onto East End Avenue, with loading facilities located to the rear of the building within a secured private yard area. Each building includes two dock high loading doors. Building 3 is located at the northwest corner of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street, with one dock high loading door located to the rear of the building. The City has worked with the applicant in designing the three industrial buildings so the scale and mass is compatible with the adjacent residential properties to the east, across East End Avenue. In addition, a 35-foot street side setback is provided for each building from East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street. Each private yard area is screened from public view by a 9-foot-high concrete tilt-up wall with metal gate, designed to match the architectural style of the building.

Access is provided to Building 1 from a single driveway off East End Avenue. The driveway is designed to accommodate both vehicular and truck traffic. Buildings 2 and 3 share a driveway off East End Avenue and a second driveway off Philadelphia Street with each driveway designed to accommodate both automobile and truck traffic. A reciprocal access agreement will be required for the shared driveway access for Buildings 2 and 3. Parking for each building is located adjacent to the office area as well as within the secured yard area, with each building meeting the minimum parking requirements.

Project statistics are as follows:

Item Proposed
Project Area - 3.59 acres
No. Lots - 3
Lot Area - Parcel 1 61,766 square feet
Parcel 2 45,650 square feet
Parcel 3 48,874 square feet
No. of Buildings - 3
Building Area - Building 1 26,700 square feet
Building 2 20,700 square feet
Building 3 16,500 square feet
Lot Coverage - Parcel 1 40%
Parcel 2 42%
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 5
Item Proposed
Parcel 3 31.7%
Landscape Coverage - Parcel 1 13.6%
Parcel 2 15.7%
Parcel 3 27.1%
Parking (proposed/required)- Building 1 44 proposed/38 required Building 2 30 proposed/30 required
Building 3 23 proposed/23 required
Landscaping
The project has an overall landscape coverage of 18.4%, which exceeds the minimum landscape coverage requirement of 10% in the M1 zoning district. Drought tolerant landscape design is provided throughout the development that is comprised of trees, shrubs and groundcover. Landscaping is primarily concentrated along street frontages and around the office areas. In addition, outdoor employee break areas are provided for each building along East End Avenue frontage that include tables, seating, enhanced paving and a shade structure.

Architecture
The proposed industrial development is designed with a contemporary architectural style consistent with new industrial development in the City. The buildings incorporate concrete tilt-up walls with a smooth painted finish that includes varying shades of gray. Horizontal and vertical reveals enhance the building elevations. Reflective glass set in clear anodized aluminum frames are concentrated at the street facing corners of each building and at the driveway entrances.

Four-foot offsets in the building walls are incorporated at the office area to further break up the massing of the buildings. Breaks in the roofline are also provided, primarily where the insets and offsets occur. Roof top equipment will be fully screened by the parapets.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174
A tentative parcel map is proposed to create individual lots for each industrial building. Lots will range in size from 45,650 square feet to 61,766 square feet. Each lot exceeds the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for the M1 zoning district. To ensure the buildings will maintain a uniform appearance and all common access points, shared parking, and maintenance areas are maintained, Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be required to be prepared and recorded with the final map.

Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on April 5, 2023, where staff and the applicant shared information about the annexation process and the proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project. Approximately 22 people attended the meeting. In general, the public was concerned about the existing and proposed truck traffic that would be generated from the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project, the existing truck storage facilities in the area and the recently proposed CarMax auto auction project application filed with the County.

Additional comments and concerns were raised regarding noise, pollution, operation of nonpermitted outdoor sales of food and commercial goods, the need for public improvements and the final design of the railroad crossing to the south just north of County Road.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 6
Staff answered the majority
was informed
which include a new traffic signal, sidewalk improvements, roadway widening, curb ramps, crosswalks, signage, striping, storm drains and undergrounding of utilities.

A traffic analysis was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers for the Philadelphia Street Industrial P
In response to the truck traffic concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting, the study was updated on June 20, 2023, to analyze the traffic impacts with the recently proposed project (i.e. CarMax) and to conduct new traffic counts within the East End Annexation area that was not known at the time when the original traffic analysis was conducted. The study resulted in the same conclusion as the original traffic analysis in that the project will not cause significant impacts.

PUBLIC NOTICING
A 20-day notice was mailed to all property owners within an expanded radius beyond the 300-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties that attended the neighborhood meeting or that requested a notice. In addition, a notice was published in the Chino Champion on June ial media platforms. A
freestanding sign was also posted on the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project site at the northwest corner of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street identifying the project and hearing date and time. In response to the public notice, no comments have been received. The notice exceeds legal noticing requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project by LSA Associates, Inc. (dated June 2023) that was circulated for a 20-day review period from June 28, 2023 to July 18, 2023. A link to the MND was provided to the Planning Commission electronically on July 12, 2023 to provide additional time for review. The MND identified potentially significant environmental impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources, which could occur as a result of the proposed project. However, mitigation measures have been identified that reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In accordance with state environmental law, the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies each environmental mitigation measure, the time in which it will be implemented and the responsible party for monitoring its lanning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023).

The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the MND. An approval of the tentative parcel map and site approval would be contingent on approval of the MND by the City Council.

Attachments:

San Bernardino County Zoning Map
Proposed Prezone Map
Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis
San Bernardino County Zoning (Exhibit A to Staff Report), Proposed Prezone Map (Exhibit B to Staff Report), Fiscal Impact Analysis (Exhibit C to Staff Report), Reso PC2023-021 (MND), PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2023
SUBJECT: PL20-0003 (PREZONE/ANNEXATION), PL20-0004 (SITE APPROVAL) AND PL20-0005 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174)
PAGE: 7
Exhibit A to PC2023-021 (Annexation Map & Legal), Exhibit B to PC2023-021 (Proposed Prezone Map), Exhibit C to PC 2023-021 (MND), Reso PC2023-022 (Prezone), Exhibit A to PC2023-022 (Annexation Map & Legal), Exhibit B to PC2023-022 (Proposed Prezone Map), PC Reso PC2023-023 (SA TPM), Exhibit A to PC2023-023 (Annexation Map & Legal), COA COVER SHEET, PLNG COAs East End Annexation, MMRP (Attach to PLNG COAs as Attachment A), Eng COAs - TM 20174 COAs_230706, FIRE COAs, 2019-067-00 Philadelphia Industrial Center Entitlement Package 2023-03-17
¯ LEGEND
Proposed Development
Proposed Annexation
Current City Boundary
Zoning Designations
Single-Family Residential (RS-20M)
Commercial Industrial (IC)
Regional Industrial (IR)

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ZONING
Date: 4/5/2023

FRANCIS AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST
¯ LEGEND
Proposed Development
Proposed Annexation
Current City Boundary
Zoning Designations
Light Industrial (M1)
General Industrial (M2)

PROPOSED PREZONE
Date: 6/21/2023

FRANCIS AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST
M1
M2
CHINO EEAA AND PSIC ANNEXATION: PLAN FOR

SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
Prepared for:

Golden Management Services Inc.

October 20, 2022
SUBMITTED BY:

T H E N A T E L S O N D A L E G R O U P , I N C .

Y O R B A L I N D A , C A • w w w . n a t e l s o n d a l e . c o m O : 7 1 4 . 6 9 2 . 9 5 9 6 • F : 7 1 4 . 6 9 2 . 9 5 9 7 Approved by Rob on 1/13/23 (see email)

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Property Tax Scenarios Considered in this Analysis ....................................................................................... 1 Summary Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the study ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 8 Planned Improvements .................................................................................................................................. 8 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax .......................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3: Public Facilities/Services Before and After Annexation .................................................................. 12 Chapter 4: City of Chino Fiscal Analysis Assumptions ...................................................................................... 14 Baseline Population and Employment ......................................................................................................... 14 City Revenue Data ........................................................................................................................................ 16 City Cost Data ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 5: Fiscal Impacts of Annexation Area .................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 6: Project One-Time Fees and Charges ............................................................................................... 23 Appendix A: Supporting Fiscal Documentation ................................................................................................ 24

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
1 Executive Summary
This report presents the plan for service and fiscal analysis of the proposed annexation of the East End Annexation Area (EEAA), including the 3.2-acre Philadelphia Street Industrial Center (PSIC) development, into the City of Chino. Whereas a specific development project is currently proposed for the PSIC, potential development within other portions of the EEAA is unknown at this time. However, since the City will require annexation of the overall EEAA as a single “project” for LAFCo purposes, this analysis evaluates the potential fiscal impacts of the specific land uses proposed for the PSIC and an assumed land use mix for the balance of the EEAA. In this regard, the analysis does not assume full buildout of the EEAA but considers estimated development within the 5-year forecast horizon required for LAFCo fiscal studies. Chapter 2 details the study’s land use assumptions.

In keeping with the LAFCo guidelines for reports of this type, the cost and revenue categories included reflect those associated with municipal revenues and functions that would be absorbed by the City upon annexation of the Project. For the City’s budget, this includes the categories listed below.

General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Revenues Property Taxes
VLF-Property Tax in Lieu
Property Transfer Tax
Off-Site Retail Sales and Use Tax
Proposition 172 Half Cent Sales Tax
Measure I 2010-2040 Half Cent Sales Tax
Franchise Fees
Transfers In: State Gas Tax
Transfers In: From Other City Funds
General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Costs General Government
Police Protection
Community Services
Community Development
Public Works: Street Maintenance
Public Works: Other Costs
Property Tax Scenarios Considered in this Analysis
Consistent with the City’s current discussions with LAFCo, this analysis considers two scenarios regarding the share of the 1% property tax levy that would accrue to the City’s General Fund:
“Half Share” Property Tax Scenario – assumes 5.4% of the 1% property tax levy accrues to City’s General Fund
“Full Share” Property Tax Scenario – assumes 10.8% of the 1% property tax levy accrues to City’s General Fund

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
2 Summary Conclusion
A summation of the annexation area’s projected annual recurring revenues and costs, for the categories listed above, is shown on Table E-1 below. Based on the conservative revenue assumptions used in this analysis (as described further below), the annexation area would:

Generate a small fiscal deficit ($2,200 per year) to the City under the “half share” property tax scenario; and
Generate a fiscal surplus of $22,600 per year under the “full share” property tax scenario.

Under more favorable revenue assumptions (see discussion of potential sales tax revenues below), the annexation area would potentially generate a significantly larger annual surplus for the City (even under the “half share” property tax scenario). TABLE E-1. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS AT BUILDOUT Annual Impact at Buildout
Property Tax Scenario
Half Share Full Share
Total Recurring Revenues $46,842 $71,665
Total Recurring Costs $49,024 $49,024
Annual Recurring Surplus/Deficit -$2,183 $22,641
Source: Table 5-3a and Table 5-3b.

Whereas most revenue sources associated with the project are reasonably predictable based on standard development assumptions, one key revenue item – sales tax – can vary widely for industrial buildings based on the specific tenant type(s) occupying the space. Some industrial businesses generate substantial sales tax revenue (due to “point of sale” business activities) while some industrial tenants generate little or no sales tax. Based on available data, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) estimates that existing industrial space in the combined Chino/Chino Hills area generates average taxable sales of $32.20 per square foot of building area.1 Given that specific tenants are not currently known for the PSIC or the overall EEAA, it is reasonable to expect that the tenant mix (and therefore the level of sales tax generation) for project would mirror the overall makeup of Chino’s industrial market. However, in order to remain analytically conservative (per direction from City staff), the fiscal analysis assumes that no sales tax revenue would be generated by the proposed project.

Based on estimated industrial sales tax generation in other Inland Empire cities, TNDG believes that it is highly likely that the proposed project would generate significant taxable sales. TNDG estimates industrial 1 This factor was derived from two sources: 1) total taxable sales during Calendar Year 2021 in the “All Other Outlets” (i.e., non-retail) sales category as reported by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and 2) total square feet of industrial buildings in Chino/Chino Hills as reported by Kidder Matthews (Q2 2022 industrial “Market Trends” report for the Inland Empire). Specifically, total taxable sales of $1,758,858,921 divided by a total industrial inventory of 54,627,425 square feet equals average taxable sales of $32.20 per square foot.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
3 taxable sales PSF in other key Inland Empire sub-markets as follows2: Corona ($53.24), Fontana ($14.19), Jurupa Valley ($20.33), Moreno Valley ($8.83), Ontario ($32.38), Perris ($9.12), Rancho Cucamonga ($21.51), Redlands ($7.08), Rialto ($40.77), Riverside ($32.55), and San Bernardino ($16.86). The weighted average for these 12 sub-markets is $25.11 per square foot.

As indicated by the above data, the potential exists for the project to substantially outperform the conservative “no sales tax” assumption used in this analysis. For example, if the project achieved taxable sales equivalent to the existing average for the 12 sub-markets noted above ($25.11 PSF), the project would generate a net fiscal surplus for the City of $41,600 per year under the half-share property tax scenario and $66,400 per year under the full-share property tax scenario. If the project achieved taxable sales equivalent to the existing average for the Chino/Chino Hills area ($32.20 PSF), the project would generate a net fiscal surplus for the City of $53,900 per year under the half-share property tax scenario and $78,800 per year under the full-share property tax scenario. Table E-2 below compares the net fiscal impact of the project under the various property and sales tax scenarios considered in this analysis.

TABLE E-2. COMPARISON OF NET FISCAL IMPACTS AT BUILDOUT

BY SALES TAX AND PROPERTY TAX SCENARIO
Taxable Sales Assumptions
Property Tax Scenario
Half Share Full Share
No Taxable Sales -$2,183 $22,641
Taxable Sales @ $25.11/square foot $41,573 $66,397
Taxable Sales @ $32.20/square foot $53,928 $78,752
Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG).
2 These estimates were derived using the same data sources used for Chino (as described in the previous footnote).

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
4 Chapter 1: Introduction
This report presents the plan for service and fiscal analysis of the proposed annexation of the East End Annexation Area (EEAA), including the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center (PSIC) development, into the City of Chino. The overall EEAA totals approximately 46.48 acres in the County of San Bernardino unincorporated area, adjacent to the city of Chino boundary and within the city’s sphere of influence. The PSIC site totals 3.2 acres and is a part of the larger EEAA. The PSIC property consists of mostly vacant land with an existing single-family residential structure (see Figure 1). The Project developer for the PSIC proposes to construct 60,000 square feet of industrial space on the property.

Purpose of the study
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for San Bernardino County requires a Plan For Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis (Analysis) be prepared when a jurisdiction is affected by a proposed change such as the annexation proposed for this Project. According to the San Bernardino LAFCO Policy and Procedure Manual (2020), the Analysis needs to address:

A. A description of the level and range of each service to be provided to the affected territory.

B. An indication of when the service can be feasibly extended to the affected territory.

C. An identification of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, water or sewer facilities, other infrastructure, or other conditions the affected agency would impose upon the affected territory.

D. The Plan shall include a Fiscal Impact Analysis which shows the estimated cost of extending the service and a description of how the service or required improvements will be financed. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall provide, at a minimum, a five (5)-year projection of revenues and expenditures. A narrative discussion of the sufficiency of revenues for anticipated service extensions and operations is required.

E. An indication of whether the annexing territory is, or will be, proposed for inclusion within an existing or proposed improvement zone/district, redevelopment area, assessment district, or community facilities district [does not apply to this analysis].

F. If retail water service is to be provided through this change, provide a description of the timely availability of water for projected needs within the area based upon factors identified in Government Code Section 65352.5 (as required by Government Code Section 56668(k)).

In keeping with the LAFCo guidelines, the cost and revenue categories included in this report reflect costs and revenues associated with municipal functions that would be absorbed by the City upon annexation of the Project. Within the City’s budget, this includes amounts for a broad range of General Fund-related activities plus specific functions associated with, primarily, the Public Works Department. The intent is to align cost categories with corresponding revenue sources, tabulating the effects on each due to the annexation. Additional discussion pertaining to the conceptual basis for the figures used in the analysis is provided in table footnotes.

Figures 1-1 and 1-2 below show Chino and the annexation area, respectively.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
5 FIGURE 1-1. REGIONAL LOCATION
Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; US Census; Open Street Map CC By 4.0

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
6 FIGURE 1-2. EEAA ANNEXATION AREA
Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; US Census; Open Street Map CC By 4.0; San Bernardino County GIS

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
7 Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 includes a description of the Project’s planned improvements and information pertaining to property taxes associated with the Project. Chapter 3 addresses conditions pertaining to public facilities/services before and after the proposed annexation. Chapter 4 derives cost and revenue projection factors from the City’s budget, for purposes of the fiscal impact forecasts. Chapter 5 summarizes the fiscal impacts related to the proposed annexation area. Chapter 6 presents the one-time fees and charges that would be paid to the City by the Project. Supporting fiscal documentation is shown in Appendix A.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
8 Chapter 2: Project Description
Planned Improvements
Within the PSIC portion of the EEAA, the Developer proposes to construct 60,000 square feet of industrial space on a 3.2-acre site. Whereas a specific development project is currently proposed for the PSIC, potential development for the balance of the EEAA is unknown at this time. However, since the City will require annexation of the overall EEAA as a single “project” for LAFCo purposes, this analysis evaluates the potential fiscal impacts of the specific land uses proposed for the PSIC and an assumed land use mix for the balance of the EEAA. In this regard, the analysis assumes that an additional 100,000 square feet of industrial space (i.e., over and above the PSIC Project) would be developed within the 5-year forecast horizon required by LAFCo. Thus, the analysis considers total EEAA development (including the PSIC) of 160,000 square feet of industrial space. See Table 2-1 for the assumed phasing of this development.

TABLE 2-1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Phasing of future development (5 years): Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Industrial Buildings (square feet) PSIC (Building 1) 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 PSIC (Building 2) 19,500 0 0 0 0 19,500
PSIC (Building 3) 15,500 0 0 0 0 15,500
EEAA 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Total 60,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 160,000
Cumulative 60,000 85,000 110,000 135,000 160,000
Acres Absorbed During Year 3.20 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33
Cumulative acres absorbed 3.20 4.53 5.87 7.20 8.53
Total Dwelling Units (beginning of year) 3 2 2 2 2
Dwelling Units Demolished During Year 1 0 0 0 0
Total Dwelling Units (end of year) 2 2 2 2 2
Cumulative Population by Year 7 7 7 7 7
New Employees per Year 40 17 17 17 17
Cumulative Employees per Year 40 57 73 90 107
Total Service Population by Year 27 35 44 52 60
Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; Developer
The indicated numbers of employees reflect an assumed employment density of one job per 1,500 square feet of industrial space. The “service population” numbers assume that on “daytime” employee is equivalent to 50% of a full-time City resident in terms of demand on public services.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
9 Table 2-2 below provides a summary of the public streets that would become the City’s maintenance responsibility upon annexation of the EEAA. The City-maintained streets would include existing streets currently maintained by the County, as well some additional lanes that would be developed at some future date. Per City staff, the new lanes would mostly likely be developed after the five-year timeframe for this analysis. However, in order to fully account for this potential cost, the analysis assumes that the new lanes would be operational by Year 5. The analysis assumes that any new internal streets (i.e., developed within individual business parks) would be privately maintained.

TABLE 2-2. PUBLICLY MAINTAINED INFRASTRUCTURE
CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Off-Site Roads to be Maintained by City
Street Segment Length
Existing Lanes
to be Annexed
Future Lanes
to be Developed
East End Avenue – from 660’
South of Philadelphia Street to
Philadelphia Street, west half
660’ 1 lane
(0.125 lane miles)
1 lane
(0.125 lane miles)
East End Avenue – from
Philadelphia Street to Francis
Avenue, west half (existing)
1,000’ 2 lanes
(0.379 land miles)
East End Avenue – from
Philadelphia Street to Francis
Avenue, west half (future
widening)
1,660’ 1 lane
(0.314 lane miles)
1 lane
(0.314 lane miles)
Philadelphia Street – county line
to channel, north half
460’ 1 lane
(0.087 lane miles)
1 lane
(0.087 lane miles)
Philadelphia Street – channel to
East End Avenue, full width
680’ 2 lanes
(0.258 lane miles)
2 lanes
(0.258 lane miles)
Francis Avenue – county line to
East End Avenue, south half
525’ 1 lane
(0.099 lane miles)
1 lane
(0.099 lane miles)
Totals 4,985’ 1.262 lane miles 0.883 lane miles
5-Year Projection Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
New Publicly Maintained Road Lineal Miles1 On-Site: New Internal Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Site: Subdivision's Share of New Off-Site Roads,
Lane-miles 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total New Road Lineal Lane-Miles 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative lane miles 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; Developer

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
10 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Table 2-3 shows the projected assessed valuation of the Project, and various property tax implications. The assessed valuation is based on a projected development value (including land and improvements) of $180 per square foot of industrial building area.

TABLE 2-3. PROJECTED ASSESSED VALUATION AND PROPERTY TAX CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Industrial Buildings (square feet)
PSIC 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,000
EEAA 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Total 60,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 160,000
Cumulative 60,000 85,000 110,000 135,000 160,000
Assessed Valuation
Assessed Value of Undeveloped
Land (beginning of year) $21,073,673 $19,609,906 $19,000,003 $18,390,100 $17,780,197 Assessed Value of New
Development $10,800,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Adjustment for Previous AV of
Developed Land ($1,463,767) ($609,903) ($609,903) ($609,903) ($609,903) Net Annual Change in Assessed
Valuation $9,336,233 $3,890,097 $3,890,097 $3,890,097 $3,890,097 Cumulative New Valuation (for
Property Tax calculations) $30,409,906 $34,300,003 $38,190,100 $42,080,197 $45,970,294 Projected Property Tax
Cumulative 1 Percent Tax Levy $304,099 $343,000 $381,901 $420,802 $459,703 City (half-share scenario) $16,421 $18,522 $20,623 $22,723 $24,824 City (full-share scenario) $32,843 $37,044 $41,245 $45,447 $49,648 Projected VLF-Property Tax In Lieu
Total Valuation for Purposes of
VLF-Property Tax In Lieu1 $9,336,233 $13,226,330 $17,116,427 $21,006,524 $24,896,621 Total Annual VLF-Property Tax
In Lieu2$6,478 $9,177 $11,875 $14,574 $17,273
Chino Valley Fire District Payment (cost to City 's General Fund) City "make whole" payment to
Fire District3$1,192 $1,345 $1,497 $1,650 $1,802
Notes:

1. See Table 4-2.

2. See Table 4-2.

3. Fire protection for the project area is currently provided by the Chino Valley Fire District, and the District will continue to serve the project area after annexation. Upon annexation, the City will be required to make the Fire District whole to

15.071154% of the 1% property tax. The Fire District’s existing share in this Tax Rate Area is 14.679153%. The difference (0.392001%) is reflected in this analysis as an added General Fund cost to the City.

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; Developer; San Bernardino County Assessor, Property Information Management System (PIMS), Year 2022 TaxRoll.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
11 Table 2-4 shows the assessed valuation of the Project site as it currently exists (as of Year 2022 Tax Roll).

TABLE 2-4. ESTIMATED EXISTING ASSESSED VALUATION OF ANNEXATION AREA CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Parcel Information Category Values
2022 Assessed Valuation:

EEA PSIC Total
Land $9,830,471 $2,165,840 $11,996,311
Improvement $9,091,362 $191,891 $9,091,362
Exemptions Homeowner $14,000 $0 $14,000
Special $0 $0 $0
Net Value $18,907,833 $2,357,731 $21,073,673
Acres (per Parcel Map) 43.28 3.20 46.48
Tax Rate Area(s)
61101,
61105,
61102 61102

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
12 Chapter 3: Public Facilities/Services Before and After Annexation Current and anticipated providers of government services related to annexation of the EEAA are shown on Table 3-1 on the next page. The primary service categories in which the provider will change with annexation are: General Government Services, Community Development, Police, and Health and Welfare.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
13 TABLE 3-1. CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED PROJECT SERVICE PROVIDERS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Service Current Service Provider Anticipated Service Provider General Government Services:

Finance San Bernardino County City of Chino
Human resources San Bernardino County City of Chino
Business registration San Bernardino County City of Chino Community Development:

Planning San Bernardino County City of Chino
Building & safety San Bernardino County City of Chino
Code compliance San Bernardino County City of Chino
Fire and Paramedic Chino Valley Fire District Chino Valley Fire District Sheriff/Police San Bernardino County Sheriff City of Chino Police Department
Library San Bernardino County Library San Bernardino County Library Parks and Recreation:

Local facilities City of Chino City of Chino
Regional facilities San Bernardino County San Bernardino County Animal Control IVHS service area IVHS contract
Street Lighting and Traffic Signals San Bernardino County City of Chino Landscape Maintenance N/A N/A
Water:

Domestic water Monte Vista Water District Monte Vista Water District Recycled water N/A N/A
Irrigation water N/A N/A
Water quality San Bernardino County City of Chino, Public Works, Environmental Division
Sewer Septic City of Chino
Transportation:

Freeways and interchanges Cal Trans Cal Trans
Arterials and collectors
City of Chino (south half of Philadelphia/east
half of East End); County
City / County (centerline of
Philadelphia/East End); City of
Chino (south half of Francis)
Local roads N/A - no existing local roads City of Chino Transit Omnitrans Omnitrans
Flood Control and Drainage:

Local facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Regional facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Utilities:

Cable/internet/telephone Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable Power SCE SCE
Natural gas So Cal Gas So Cal Gas
Schools Chino Valley Unified Chino Valley Unified
Solid Waste Management Waste Management (individual accounts) City of Chino Contract with Waste Management
Health and Welfare San Bernardino County Department of Public Health
San Bernardino County
Department of Public Health
Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; Various Websites

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
14 Chapter 4: City of Chino Fiscal Analysis Assumptions The general approach to conducting the fiscal impact assessment includes the following steps:

1. Establishing baseline population, employment, and similar conditions that apply to the annexing city, including a determination of appropriate city “service populations,” in this case a combination of residents and workers.

2. Compiling data on costs and revenues for relevant categories of city services from budget documents.

3. Determining and applying methods for projecting these costs and revenues within a process appropriate for the analysis of the Project-specific fiscal impacts.

The application of these three steps to this analysis is addressed in the rest of this chapter.

Baseline Population and Employment
Population and employment figures applied to this analysis are shown on Table 4-1. Notes accompanying the table describe the data sources and rationale applied to deriving the relevant figures.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
15 TABLE 4-1. CITY POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT ASSUMPTIONS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Variable Description Applied values
Population and Housing1 Total population 91,998
Household Population 87,854
Single Family Units 21,337
Multi-Family Units 6,266
Other Units 634
Total Housing Units 28,237
Occupied Housing Units 27,101
Average Citywide Household Size 3.24
Employment
Total Employment in the City2 41,165
Estimated Service Population3
Total Population 87,854
Estimated Effective Employment (at 50 percent of workers) 20,583 Estimated Daily Total Service Population 108,437
Notes:

1. Source is California Department of Finance (DOF), Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022.

2. The total City employment is from the "2022 City of Chino Spatial and Statistical Summary" published by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

3. The service population consists of the estimated resident population plus 50 percent of workers, to account for the estimated less frequent use of City services by this group.

Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2020-2022, Sacramento, California, May 2022; Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
16 City Revenue Data
Table 4-2 shows revenues for relevant line items in the City of Chino Budget, along with the factors that are derived for projecting the annexation area’s potential effects on these revenues.

TABLE 4-2. GENERAL FUND AND OTHER RELEVANT ACCOUNTS, RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS AND PROJECTION FACTORS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Revenue Source
Chino
Budget
Property Taxes $12,769,537 5.40% of City share of 1% levy Property Taxes $12,769,537 Full share scenario 10.80% of City share of 1% levy VLF - Property Tax In Lieu2
$12,019,000 $694 per $1,000,000 assessed
valuation
Property Transfer Tax $750,000 0.0% X $0.55 per $1,000 assessed valuation
Taxable Sales $0.00 per square foot

1.0% of sales tax
Use Tax $4,101,128 12.3% of sales tax
Proposition 172 (Half-Cent
Sales Tax)4
$1,100,000 $29.34 per $1,000 of City sales and
use tax
Measure I 2010-2040 (HalfCent Sales Tax)5
$2,240,422 $59.76 per $1,000 of City sales and
use tax
Franchise Fees $3,342,245 Service Population = 108,437 $30.82 per capita, service population Charges for Services $415,534 Service Population = 108,437 $3.83 per capita, service population Fines and Forfeitures $716,580 Service Population = 108,437 $6.61 per capita, service population Transfers In:

Gas Tax Fund $0 Population = 91,998 $0.00 per capita
General Fund: Transfers
in from Other Funds $4,052,245 Service Population = 108,437 $37.37 per capita, service population $17,323,282,962
$12,019,000
$693.81
$37,490,128
$1,100,000
$29.34
$37,490,128
$2,240,422
$59.76
Annual Projection Factors:

Figures and Units
City sales tax revenue
Use Tax as Percent of Sales Tax
Property Turnover and Valuation
Assumptions
Case Study
Half share scenario
Projection Basis1
Measure I Revenues for 2021-2022

4. See table below for calculation of estimate.

Citywide Sales & Use Tax FY 2021-2022
Proposition 172 Tax

5. See table below for calculation of estimate.

Total City Sales and
Use Tax = $37,490,128
Notes:

1. See Table 4-1 for explanation of service population.

2. See table below for calculation of estimate.

Citywide A.V. FY 2021-2022
VLF In-lieu FY 2021-2022
VLF per $1 million in new AV:

Sales and Use Tax $33,389,000
Citywide Sales & Use Tax FY 2019-2020
Proposition 172 Tax per $1,000 Sales and
Use Tax:

Measure I 2010-2040 Tax per $1,000 of
Sales and Use Tax:

Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; City of Chino Projected Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
17 City Cost Data
Table 4-3 shows costs for relevant line items in the City of Chino Budget, along with the factors that are derived for projecting the annexation area’s potential effects on these costs, for use in a subsequent table.

TABLE 4-3. GENERAL FUND AND OTHER RELEVANT ACCOUNTS, RECURRING COST FACTORS AND PROJECTION FACTORS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Cost Category Chino
Budget Net Cost1 Projection Basis2 Annual Projection Factors: Figures and Units General
Government3$51,184,891 $38,388,668 See Table 4-4 17.5% of direct line costs Police
Protection $42,984,745 $40,927,380 Service population = 108,437 $377.43 per service population Community
Services $8,279,109 $8,279,109 Service population = 87,854 $94.24 per capita Development
Services4$12,085,926 $208,838 Service population = 108,437 $1.93 per service population Public Works:

Street
Maintenance5$5,151,976 n/a Lane-Miles of Streets = 670 $7,690 per lane-mile Public Works
Administration $294,496 $294,496 Service population = 108,437 $2.72 per service population Notes:

1. Generally, assumed to be the difference between general tax-based funds and funds from other sources.

2. Estimated service population is described in notes on Table 4-1

3. The general government overhead rate is estimated on Table 4-4.

4. Net Development Services costs include reductions for projected one-time revenues. See Appendix Table A-1.

5. Includes Budget figures for Asphalt Maintenance, Residential Street Overlay, ROW maintenance, and Street Sweeping.

Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; City of Chino, Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Projected Budget Table 4-4 (on the next page) shows the derivation of the estimate of the general government overhead rate, used to calculate the estimate of the General Government cost factor on Tables 5-3a and 5-3b.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
18 TABLE 4-4. CALCULATION OF CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD RATE CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Funds
Projected
FY 2021-2022
Expenditures
General
Government
Non-General
Government
General Government
Administration, General Fund Expenditures Legislative $696,536 $696,536 City Attorney $45,000 $45,000
City Manager $886,559 $886,559
City Clerk $522,407 $522,407
Community Promotion $316,646 $316,646
State of the City $52,217 $52,217
Community Services Corps $7,100 $7,100
Finance Dept. (less payments to Fire District) $5,381,425 $5,381,425 Human Resources Department $77,560 $77,560
Internal Service Funds (Non-General Funds) 610 - Central Services $3,327,339 $3,327,339 630 - Liability Insurance $3,635,079 $3,635,079
640 - Employee Benefits $26,332,109 $26,332,109
650 - Building Management $4,815,231 $4,815,231
660 - Equipment Management $5,089,683 $5,089,683
General Government Total $51,184,891 $51,184,891
All Funds Total $271,143,133 Non-General Government $219,958,242 Current General Government Overhead Rate 23.3%
Adjusted Overhead Rate, at % of total = 75% 17.5%
Overhead Amount $38,388,668
Notes:

1. General government costs for the Project are not expected to increase on a one-to-one basis.

Therefore, an overhead rate adjustment is used, set at 75 percent.

Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; City of Chino Projected Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
19 Chapter 5: Fiscal Impacts of Annexation Area
A summation of the annexation area’s projected annual recurring revenues and costs, for the categories listed above, is shown on Table 5-1 below. Based on the conservative revenue assumptions used in this analysis (as described further below), the annexation area would:

Under more favorable revenue assumptions (see discussion of potential sales tax revenues below), the annexation area would potentially generate a significantly larger annual surplus for the City (even under the “half share” property tax scenario). TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS AT BUILDOUT Annual Impact at Buildout
Property Tax Scenario
Half Share Full Share
Total Recurring Revenues $46,842 $71,665
Total Recurring Costs $49,024 $49,024
Annual Recurring Surplus/Deficit -$2,183 $22,641
Source: Table 5-3a and Table 5-3b.

Whereas most revenue sources associated with the project are reasonably predictable based on standard development assumptions, one key revenue item – sales tax – can vary widely for industrial buildings based on the specific tenant type(s) occupying the space. Some industrial businesses generate substantial sales tax revenue (due to “point of sale” business activities) while some industrial tenants generate little or no sales tax. Based on available data, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) estimates that existing industrial space in the combined Chino/Chino Hills area generates average taxable sales of $32.20 per square foot of building area.3
Given that specific tenants are not currently known for the PSIC or the overall EEAA, it is reasonable to expect that the tenant mix (and therefore the level of sales tax generation) for project would mirror the overall makeup of Chino’s industrial market. However, in order to remain analytically conservative (per direction from City staff), the fiscal analysis assumes that no sales tax revenue would be generated by the proposed project.

Based on estimated industrial sales tax generation in other Inland Empire cities, TNDG believes that it is highly likely that the proposed project would generate significant taxable sales. TNDG estimates industrial 3 This factor was derived from two sources: 1) total taxable sales during Calendar Year 2021 in the “All Other Outlets” (i.e., non-retail) sales category as reported by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and 2) total square feet of industrial buildings in Chino/Chino Hills as reported by Kidder Matthews (Q2 2022 industrial “Market Trends” report for the Inland Empire). Specifically, total taxable sales of $1,758,858,921 divided by a total industrial inventory of 54,627,425 square feet equals average taxable sales of $32.20 per square foot.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
20 taxable sales PSF in other key Inland Empire sub-markets as follows4: Corona ($53.24), Fontana ($14.19), Jurupa Valley ($20.33), Moreno Valley ($8.83), Ontario ($32.38), Perris ($9.12), Rancho Cucamonga ($21.51), Redlands ($7.08), Rialto ($40.77), Riverside ($32.55), and San Bernardino ($16.86). The weighted average for these 12 sub-markets is $25.11 per square foot.

TABLE 5-2. COMPARISON OF NET FISCAL IMPACTS AT BUILDOUT

BY SALES TAX AND PROPERTY TAX SCENARIO
Taxable Sales Assumptions
Property Tax Scenario
Half Share Full Share
No Taxable Sales -$2,183 $22,641
Taxable Sales @ $25.11/square foot $41,573 $66,397
Taxable Sales @ $32.20/square foot $53,928 $78,752
Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG).
4 These estimates were derived using the same data sources used for Chino (as described in the previous footnote).

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
21 TABLE 5-3A. DETAILED PROJECTED RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS “HALF SHARE” PROPERTY TAX SCENARIO
CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Category
Annexation Area
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
% of
Total
(Yr. 5)
General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Revenues Property Taxes $16,421 $18,522 $20,623 $22,723 $24,824 53.0% VLF-Property Tax in Lieu $6,478 $9,177 $11,875 $14,574 $17,273 36.9% Property Transfer Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
On-Site Sales and Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Proposition 172 Half Cent Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Measure I 2010-2040 Half Cent Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Franchise Fees $832 $1,089 $1,346 $1,603 $1,860 4.0%
Charges for Services $103 $135 $167 $199 $231 0.5%
Fines $178 $233 $289 $344 $399 0.9%
Transfers In: State Gas Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Transfers In: From Other City Funds $1,009 $1,320 $1,632 $1,943 $2,255 4.8% Total Recurring Revenues $25,022 $30,477 $35,932 $41,387 $46,842 100.0% General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Costs General Government $3,609 $4,165 $4,721 $5,276 $7,017 14.3% Police Protection $10,191 $13,336 $16,481 $19,626 $22,772 46.4% Community Services $660 $660 $660 $660 $660 1.3%
Community Development $52 $68 $84 $100 $116 0.2%
Public Works: Street Maintenance $9,704 $9,704 $9,704 $9,704 $16,494 33.6% Public Works: Other Costs $73 $96 $119 $141 $164 0.3%
Chino Valley Fire District (tax adjustment) $1,192 $1,345 $1,497 $1,650 $1,802 3.7% Total Recurring Costs $25,481 $29,373 $33,265 $37,157 $49,024 100.0% Annual Recurring Surplus/Deficit -$459 $1,104 $2,666 $4,229 -$2,183 Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.98 1.04 1.08 1.11 0.96
Sources: Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
22 TABLE 5-3B. DETAILED PROJECTED RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS “FULL SHARE” PROPERTY TAX SCENARIO
CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Category
Annexation Area
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
% of
Total
(Yr. 5)
General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Revenues Property Taxes $32,843 $37,044 $41,245 $45,447 $49,648 69.3% VLF-Property Tax in Lieu $6,478 $9,177 $11,875 $14,574 $17,273 24.1% Property Transfer Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
On-Site Sales and Use Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Proposition 172 Half Cent Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Measure I 2010-2040 Half Cent Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Franchise Fees $832 $1,089 $1,346 $1,603 $1,860 2.6%
Charges for Services $103 $135 $167 $199 $231 0.3%
Fines $178 $233 $289 $344 $399 0.6%
Transfers In: State Gas Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Transfers In: From Other City Funds $1,009 $1,320 $1,632 $1,943 $2,255 3.1% Total Recurring Revenues $41,443 $48,999 $56,554 $64,110 $71,665 100.0% General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts, Annual Recurring Costs General Government $3,609 $4,165 $4,721 $5,276 $7,017 14.3% Police Protection $10,191 $13,336 $16,481 $19,626 $22,772 46.4% Community Services $660 $660 $660 $660 $660 1.3%
Community Development $52 $68 $84 $100 $116 0.2%
Public Works: Street Maintenance $9,704 $9,704 $9,704 $9,704 $16,494 33.6% Public Works: Other Costs $73 $96 $119 $141 $164 0.3%
Chino Valley Fire District (tax adjustment) $1,192 $1,345 $1,497 $1,650 $1,802 3.7% Total Recurring Costs $25,481 $29,373 $33,265 $37,157 $49,024 100.0% Annual Recurring Surplus/Deficit $15,962 $19,626 $23,289 $26,953 $22,641 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.63 1.67 1.70 1.73 1.46
Sources: Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3.

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
23 Chapter 6: Project One-Time Fees and Charges
Table 6-1 below provides a preliminary estimate of one-time development impact fees that the EEAA annexation would generate for the City of Chino and the Chino Valley Unified School District.

TABLE 6-1. ONE-TIME IMPACT AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEE PAYMENTS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Impact Fees
Unit
Measure Price Quantity Amount
City of Chino Law Enforcement Facilities, Industrial Square feet $0.05 160,000 $8,000 Fire Protection Facilities, Industrial Square feet $0.04 160,000 $6,400 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Square feet $2.31 160,000 $369,600 Storm Drain Collection, Industrial Square feet $0.52 160,000 $83,200 Water Storage and Distribution, Industrial1Square feet $0.54 160,000 $86,400 Sewage Collection System, Industrial Square feet $0.10 160,000 $16,000 General Facilities, Industrial Square feet $0.06 160,000 $9,600 Public Use Facilities, Industrial Square feet $0.00 160,000 $0 Capital Impact Administration Charge Percentage 12% $69,504 School Fee
Chino Valley Unified School District Square feet $0.64 160,000 $102,400 Total, Impact Fees $751,104

CHINO EAST END ANNEXATION AREA (EEAA) AND PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL CENTER (PSIC) DEVELOPMENT: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Natelson Dale Group Inc.
24 Appendix A: Supporting Fiscal Documentation
TABLE A-1. GENERAL FUND NET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COST FACTORS CHINO EEAA AND PSIC: PLAN FOR SERVICE AND FISCAL ANALYSIS Category Amount
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Total Development Services Expenditures $12,085,926
One-Time Processing Fees/Permits:

Building Permits/Code Enforcement Fees $4,976,645
Planning Fees $818,898
Development Fees/Permits $6,081,545
Total One-Time Revenues $11,877,088
Recurring Net Community Development Costs $208,838
Service Population1108,437
Citywide Net Cost Factor per Service Population for Community Development $1.93 B. PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
Public Works Administration $294,496
Service Population1108,437
Citywide Net Cost Factor per Service Population for Other Public Works $2.72 Note:

1. See Table 4-1.

Sources: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.; City of Chino Projected Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-021

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

CHINO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCL OF

THE CITY OF CHINO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ANNEXATION/PREZONE (PL20-0003), SITE APPROVAL
(PL20-0004) AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20174 (PL20-0005)

FOR THE PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND EAST END ANNEXATION.

WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), LSA Associates, Inc. has prepared the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project and East End Annexation Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), dated June 2023 for PL20-0003 (Prezone/Annexation), PL20-0004 (Site Approval), and PL20-0005 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174) ( Project ). The MND concludes the proposed Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Potentially significant effects were identified, and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure the effects remain at less than significant levels. The MND satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the MND was circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 28, 2023 to July 18, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project consists of a Prezone/Annexation, Site Approval and Tentative Parcel Map for properties generally located south of Francis Avenue, west of East End Avenue, north of Philadelphia Street, and a small portion south of Philadelphia Street (APNs: 1013-261-17, 1013-271-01, -10, -11, -06, -13, -14, 1013-521-04, -05, -11, -14, -15, -16, -18, 1013-531-04, -07, 1016-011-02, -03, -05, -06, -08, -09, -10, & -15) as fully described in Exhibits A and B ; and WHEREAS, prior to consideration and possible approval of the Project s applications, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed MND and any comments received during the public review process for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has completed its study of the MND and related materials; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the MND in compliance with State law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the California Government Code and Chino Municipal Code, entertained the written and oral report of staff, and took public testimony on the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Chino, California, does hereby FIND, DETERMINE, and RESOLVE as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-021

Page 2 of 3 ends

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.

B. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Chino adopt the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Project and East End Annexation Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit C ; and
C. Actions by the Planning Commission Secretary. The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed to attest as to the adoption of this Resolution as of the date set forth below and forthwith transmit a copy of this Resolution, by regular mail, to the Applicant at the address of record set forth in the Application.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JULY 2023.

PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-021

Page 3 of 3 ends

State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Chino Planning Commission at a meeting held on the 19th day of July 2023 and entered in the minutes of said Commission.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
Attachment: Exhibit A Annexation Map and Legal Description Exhibit B Proposed Prezone Map
Exhibit C Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation Project Mitigated Negative Declaration

¯ LEGEND
Proposed Development
Proposed Annexation
Current City Boundary
Zoning Designations
Light Industrial (M1)
General Industrial (M2)

PROPOSED PREZONE
Date: 6/21/2023

FRANCIS AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST
M1
M2
June 2023

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E

D E C L A R AT I O N

PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE

AND EAST END ANNEXATION PROJECT

CITY OF CHINO

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
June 2023

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E

D E C L A R AT I O N

PHILADELPHIA STREET INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE

AND EAST END ANNEXATION PROJECT

CITY OF CHINO

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

City of Chino
Development Services Department
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, California 91710
(909) 334-3253
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
Project No. GMS2201

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE......................................................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................... 1-2

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY ......................................................................... 1-2

2.0 PROJECT DETAILS ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.1 Prezone and East End Annexation ................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.2 Facility and Site Design ................................................................................................ 2-11

2.2.3 Infrastructure and Off-site Improvements ................................................................... 2-17

2.2.4 Construction ............................................................................................................... 2-17

2.2.5 Parking and Site Access ............................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity ............................................................................ 2-19

2.2.7 Landscaping ................................................................................................................ 2-19

2.2.8 Drainage ..................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2-22

2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ......................................................................... 2-22

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................................................. 3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................................ 3-4 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ................................................ 3-4

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................. 3-12

3.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 3-16

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 3-28

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 3-36

3.6 ENERGY ...................................................................................................................... 3-42

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................. 3-47

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 3-57

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................... 3-65

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................. 3-76

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................................... 3-90

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 3-93

3.13 NOISE ......................................................................................................................... 3-95

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................... 3-121

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 3-124

3.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................. 3-129

3.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 3-131

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 3-146

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 3-152

3.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................. 3-159

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................ 3-163

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................4-167

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-1

APPENDICES
A: AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR MODEL) B1: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
B2: SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
C: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND ARBORIST REPORT
D: CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
E: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
F: CHINO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SCREENING TABLES
G: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
H1: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
H2: HYDROLOGY REPORT
H3: OFFSITE DRAINAGE STUDY
I: NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
J: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity.............................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2: Project Site ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 3a: Site Photographs ............................................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 3b: Site Photographs............................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 3c: Site Photographs ............................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 3d: Site Photographs............................................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 5a: Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations ........................................... 2-14 Figure 5b: Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations ........................................... 2-15 Figure 5c: Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations ........................................... 2-16 Figure 6: Proposed Industrial Development Site Grading Plan ...................................................... 2-18 Figure 7: Proposed Industrial Development Site Landscape Plan .................................................. 2-20 TABLES
Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning...................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2.2.B: Building Footprint ..................................................................................................... 2-13 Table 3.3.A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................ 3-20 Table 3.3.B: Long Term Regional Operational Emissions ............................................................... 3-22 Table 3.3.C: Construction Localized Significance Threshold Evaluation ......................................... 3-24 Table 3.3.D: Long-Term Operational Localized Significance Threshold Evaluation ......................... 3-25 Table 3.4.A: Mature Trees on the Industrial Development Site ..................................................... 3-34 Table 3.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Industrial Development .......................... 3-43 Table 3.8.A: Long Term Operational GHG Emissions ..................................................................... 3-58 Table 3.8.B: Project Consistency with City of Chino CAP Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial Development and Public Facilities ......................... 3-59 Table 3.13.A: Exterior Noise Ordinance Standards ........................................................................ 3-98 Table 3.13.B: County of San Bernardino Stationary and Mobile Noise Standards .......................... 3-99 Table 3.13.C: Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results ..................................................... 3-100 Table 3.13.D: Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results ...................................................... 3-100 Table 3.13.E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 3-101 Table 3.13.F: Construction Noise Levels without Mitigation ........................................................ 3-103 Table 3.13.G: Construction Noise Levels with Mitigation ............................................................ 3-105 Table 3.13.H: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project .......................................... 3-106 Table 3.13.I: Near Term (2025) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project ........................... 3-107 Table 3.13.J: Daytime Stationary Noise Levels ............................................................................ 3-109 Table 3.13.K: Nighttime Stationary-Source Noise Levels ............................................................. 3-111 Table 3.13.L: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance ......................................................... 3-117 Table 3.13.M: Potential Construction Vibration Damage ............................................................ 3-118 Table 3.17.A: Existing (2020) Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................ 3-133 Table 3.17.B: Opening Year (2022) Intersection Levels of Service................................................ 3-134 Table 3.17.C: Recommended Improvements1 ............................................................................. 3-134

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT average daily traffic
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BACM Best Available Control Measure
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BAU business as usual
Bcf billion cubic feet
BFE base flood elevation
BMP Best Management Practice
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBERD California Built Environment Resources Directory

FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FWQMP Final Water Quality Management Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
GI General Industrial
gpd gallons per day
GPEIR General Plan Environmental Impact Report
GWh gigawatt hour
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IC Community Industrial
in/sec inches per second
IR Regional Industrial
SR-60 State Route 60
IS Initial Study
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh kilowatt hour

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Section 1.0 of this Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) describes the purpose, environmental authorization, the intended uses of the IS, documents incorporated by reference, and the processes and procedures governing the preparation of the environmental document.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Chino (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has primary responsibility for compliance with CEQA and consideration of the Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation Project (herein referred to as the “project”) The IS/MND is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose provides a discussion of the IS/MND’s purpose, focus, and legal requirements.

Section 2.0 Project Description provides a detailed description of the proposed project.

Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist includes a checklist and accompanying analyses of the project’s effect on the environment. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of the project’s environmental impact.

Section 4.0 References details the references cited throughout the IS/MND.

Appendices Include the technical studies prepared to support the analyses contained in the IS/MND.

1.2 PURPOSE
CEQA requires that the proposed project be reviewed to determine the environmental effects that would result if the project were approved and implemented. The City is the Lead Agency and has the responsibility for preparing and adopting the associated environmental document prior to consideration of approval of the proposed project. The City has the authority to make decisions regarding discretionary actions relating to implementation of the proposed project.

This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines,1and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA, as adopted by the City. The objective of the IS/MND is to inform City decision-makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, the public, and interested parties of the potential environmental consequences of the project. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387.

Provide the Lead Agency (City of Chino) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND);
Enable a Project Applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND or MND; Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one were required; Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; Provide a factual basis for findings in an ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment;
Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
Determine whether a previous prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.3 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
The City formally initiated the environmental process for the proposed project with the preparation of this IS/MND. The IS screens out those impacts that would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation, while identifying those issues that require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As identified in the following analyses, project impacts related to various environmental issues either do not occur, are less than significant (when measured against established significance thresholds), or have been rendered less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures. Based on these analytical conclusions, this IS supports adoption of an MND for the proposed project.

CEQA2 permits the incorporation by reference of all or portions of other documents that are generally available to the public. The IS has been prepared utilizing information from City planning and environmental documents, technical studies specifically prepared for the project, and other publicly available data. The documents utilized in the IS/MND are identified in Section 3.0 and are hereby incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Chino, Planning Division.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 20-day public review period. Written comments regarding this IS should be addressed to: 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.

2.0 PROJECT DETAILS
The Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation Project (project) is a proposal to subdivide 3.59 acres of land (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 1013-521-04) into three parcels and construct three light industrial warehouse buildings with office space; this is referred to as the Industrial Development Site. The project also includes annexation of approximately 56.87 acres, including the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, from San Bernardino County (County) to the City of Chino (City) and would include a zone change from San Bernardino County zoning designations Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to City of Chino zoning designations Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2); this is referred to as the East End Annexation detailed below in Section 2.2.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site consists of the 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and is within the Santa Ana del Chino Land Grant, as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ontario, California 7.5-minute quadrangle. Figure 1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity, shows the location of the project on a regional scale. The majority of the site (northern 85 percent) is located within Township 1 South, Range 8 West, while the southerly 15 percent of the site is located within Township 2 South, Range 8 West of the San Bernardino Base & Meridian (SBBM). Regionally, the project site is approximately 2.5 miles northwest from the center of City of Chino, 0.5 mile north of State Route 60 (SR-60) and 2 miles east of State Route 71 (SR-71). The site is accessed regionally from SR-60 and the Reservoir Street interchange, and from SR-71 and the Philadelphia Street interchange. As indicated in Figure 2: Project Site, the project site is adjacent to the west of East End Avenue between Francis Avenue to the north, Maxon Lane to the south, and the San Antonio Creek Channel to the west3in unincorporated San Bernardino County within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The 56.87-acre project site was previously utilized for orchard and row crop agriculture as early as the 1930s, by which time Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue proceeded in their current alignments through the site.4San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid-1950s.5 A single-family residential structure was constructed on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site (APN 1013-521- 04) within the East End Annexation area by 1964, and four additional ancillary buildings were added to the Industrial Development Site by 1972.6 Predominant agricultural activities on the project site began to cede to industrial development in the 1970s and 1980s. Offsite residential development within the City of Chino east of East End Avenue generally coincided with development of the project 3 One parcel (APN 1013-531-07) within the East End Annexation area is located adjacent to the west of the San Antonio Creek Channel and north of Philadelphia Street. 4
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. Aerial Photographs (1938, 1953, 1959). https://historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed April 15, 2022). 5 Ibid. 6
Ibid. Aerial Photographs (1964 and 1972).

SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Ontario (1981), CA
I:\GMS2201\GIS\MXD\ProjLocation_USGS.mxd (1/30/2023)
FIGURE 1
Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site
and East End Annexation Project
Project Location and Vicinity 0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
Project
Location
Ã142
Ã241
Ã90
Ã55
Ã39
Ã71
Ã60
Ã91
Ã57
§¨¦605
§¨¦5
§¨¦210
§¨¦15
§¨¦10
Project Vicinity
!
Compton St
Francis Ave Taft Ave
Philadelphia St
San
Bernardino
County
Los Angeles
County
1 2
3 4
5 7 6
8 SOURCE: Google Maps (2021), City of Chino (2022)
I:\GMS2201\GIS\MXD\Project_Site.mxd (3/7/2023)
FIGURE 2
Philadelphia Street Industrial Development
Site and East End Annexation Project
Project Site
LEGEND
Project Location
East End Annexation Area
Industrial Development Site
City of Chino General Plan Land Uses
RD 2 (1-2 DUs/Ac)
RD 4.5 (3-4.5 DUs/Ac)
GI - General Industrial
LI - Light Industrial
RS
! Photo Locations
City Boundary 0 250 500
FEET Note: Photo location viewpoints
are depicted in Figure 3a through 3d

3.59-acre Industrial Development Site are observed in aerial photographs through 2018, but as of 2022, only the single-family residential structure remains with 14 trees and scattered ruderal vegetation.8Figures 3a through 3d: Site Photographs provide photographs of the project site and surrounding land uses.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the following entitlement actions:

1. Prezone and Annexation (PL 20-0003) to annex approximately 56.87 acres of land from San Bernardino County with zoning designations of Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to the City of Chino and change the zone to Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2).

2. Site Approval (PL 20-0004) to allow construction of three industrial buildings totaling 63,900 square feet, associated infrastructure, parking, sidewalk, and other site improvements required by the City.

3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174 (PL 20-0005) to subdivide 3.59 gross acres of land into three parcels for development of three light industrial warehouse buildings with office space.

2.2.1 Prezone and East End Annexation
Annexation from San Bernardino County to City of Chino jurisdiction includes the entire 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, as determined by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to create logical boundaries that improve services therein and to create clear jurisdictional responsibilities (refer to Figure 2: Project Site).

The Industrial Development Site (APN 1013-521-04) is mostly undeveloped, except for one abandoned structure. The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) but is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan.9 Accordingly, the project would include a zone change of the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS20M) to Light Industrial (M1) as a municipal exercise to achieve consistency of land use development in accordance with the City of Chino’s existing General Plan Light Industrial land use designation of the site (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning). 7 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. Aerial Photographs (1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1992) https://historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed April 15, 2022). 8 Ruderal vegetation consists of species (often invasive) that are first to colonize disturbed lands. 9 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022).

IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 2-9 Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning
APN Existing Land Use
Existing Zoning
Designation
(San Bernardino
County)
Proposed Zoning
Designation
(City of Chino)
Existing Chino
General Plan
Land Use
Designation1
1013-521-04
(Industrial
Development
Site)
Abandoned single-family
residential structure and
vacant yard
Single-Family Residential
(RS-20M) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-05 Single-family residence with
ancillary building
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-06 Single-family residence with
ancillary building
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-15 Commercial & industrial
vehicle staging yard
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-03 Single-family residence Community Industrial (IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-08 M&J Pallet Recycling (light
industrial) facility
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-09 Single-family residence with
ancillary building
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-10
Single-family residence with
industrial vehicle staging
yard
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1016-011-02
Heavy equipment sales &
leasing facility and potential
single-family residence
Community Industrial
(IC)
General Industrial
(M2)
General Industrial
(GI)
1013-521-05 Single-family residence Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-521-14 Southwest Rebar industrial
materials sales facility
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-521-15 Southwest Rebar industrial
materials sales facility
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-521-16 Southwest Rebar industrial
materials sales facility
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-531-07 SteelCo USA steel distributor Regional Industrial (IR) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-521-18 Scott Bros. Dairy Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-271-06 Scott Bros. Dairy Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-271-14 Commercial & industrial
vehicle staging yard
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-271-13 Commercial & industrial
vehicle staging yard
Community Industrial
(IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-271-01 Agricultural supply facility Community Industrial (IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)
1013-261-17 Agricultural supply facility Community Industrial (IC) Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI)

City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2: General Plan Land Use Designations. Adopted July 2010. 1 The project does not include amendments to General Plan land use designations for any property within the East End Annexation area. APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number Similar to the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, the additional 53.28 acres of surrounding properties would include a zone change from San Bernardino County zoning designations Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to City of Chino zoning designation Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2) (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning). The Chino General Plan designation for the overall annexation area is Light Industrial (LI) and General Industrial (GI), and proposed build-out of the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site would be consistent with the City’s existing General Plan land use designations for the site and greater annexation area.

No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. Therefore, there would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects to the remaining

53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area is speculative at this juncture, but it is expected to be consistent with the City of Chino Light Industrial (LI) and General Industrial (GI) General Plan and zoning designations for the respective properties. A programmatic analysis for the change of land use designation and zone of the properties within the East End Annexation area is provided in this Initial Study, while future development of any property within the East End Annexation area would be subject to project-level CEQA review when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

The City of Chino will submit an application to LAFCO to annex the East End Annexation area into the City of Chino following approval of the project by the City Council. LAFCO will review this IS/MND as part of the administrative record during the Annexation Process.

2.2.2 Facility and Site Design
Buildout of the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site would consist of three modern industrial buildings approximately 35 feet in height. The three buildings include warehouse space, office space, and mezzanine space and range from 16,500 square feet to 26,700 square feet, totaling 63,900 square feet of warehouse space. Each office ranges from 2,000 to 4,000 square feet and total 9,000 square feet of office space for the three buildings. Each mezzanine ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet and total 4,000 square feet for the three buildings. The Industrial Development Site plan is presented as Figure 4: Proposed Industrial Development Site Plan. Table 2.2.B summarizes buildout of the Industrial Development Site.
1 2
2 4
4 4
6 6
6 7
9 9
1A6 ELECT. RM. ELECT. RM.

SOURCE: AO Architecture Design
FIGURE 4
Proposed Industrial Development Site Plan
Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site
and East End Annexa on Project
I:\GMS2201\G\Site_Plan.ai (9/28/2022) 0 50 100
FEET

Buildout of the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site would occur in accordance with City development standards prescribed for the light industrial zone, as codified in Section 20.07.040 of the City Municipal Code. Design elements of the Industrial Development Site include 35-foot landscaped setbacks along East End Avenue and minimum 32-foot landscaped setbacks along Philadelphia Street.

The three modern warehouse buildings would be designed with varied massing and landscaped areas to complement other industrial buildings in the project vicinity. The three buildings would include medium performance reflective glass with aluminum storefront frames and are designed with a consistent color scheme, which includes shades of neutral grey colors designed to blend uniformly with the surrounding industrial development in the area (refer to the proposed Industrial Development Site building elevations and colors shown in in Figures 5a through 5c. All landscaping is designed and would be installed in accordance with Sections 19.06.050 (Trees and landscaping) and

20.19.40 (Landscape design standards) of the City Municipal Code (refer to Figure 7: Industrial Development Site Landscape Plan).

The Industrial Development Site includes 8-foot-tall tubular steel perimeter fencing along the majority of the western site boundary and on-site 9-foot-tall concrete screen walls with metal rolling gates shielding the proposed loading docks from public view sheds. Light poles would be installed throughout the surface parking lots and along on-site pedestrian pathways. Additionally, the western site boundary would include a 4-foot retaining wall to stabilize a grade separation from the adjacent properties to the west.

The warehouse buildings would have security lighting located on the building façades. Additionally, streetlights would be installed along the project frontage of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street.

All lighting on the project site would comply with Section 20.10.090 (Outdoor lighting) of the City Municipal Code, which requires light shielding, functional and aesthetic design, and compatibility with surrounding uses.
10 AO-Architects Orange. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center. Master Plan. Sheet A0.0. March 2022.

Building 1 Color Elevations SOURCE: AO Architecture Design I:\GMS2201\G\Elevations.ai (9/28/2022) FIGURE 5a Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations Building 2 Color Elevations SOURCE: AO Architecture Design I:\GMS2201\G\Elevations.ai (9/28/2022) FIGURE 5b Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations Building 3 Color Elevations SOURCE: AO Architecture Design I:\GMS2201\G\Elevations.ai (9/28/2022) FIGURE 5c Proposed Industrial Development Site Building Elevations

2.2.3 Infrastructure and Off-site Improvements
Upon annexation of the East End Annexation area into the City of Chino, the Industrial Development Site would interconnect to the existing municipal stormwater infrastructure along Philadelphia Street and/or East End Avenue. The Monte Vista Water District11 and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)12 are responsible for the site's water and wastewater services. Additionally, the Industrial Development Site would include interconnection to existing municipal gas, electrical, and storm drains within the Philadelphia Street and/or East End Avenue right-of-way.

Buildout of the Industrial Development Site includes dedication of 19 feet of right-of-way along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue frontages and construction of the ultimate half width of these roadways pursuant to the City’s General Plan designation for a Secondary Arterial Street pursuant to Chapter 19.07 (Subdivision, Improvements, Dedications, and In-Lieu Fees) of the City Municipal Code (refer to Figure 6: Proposed Industrial Development Site Grading Plan). Additional off-site improvements include installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, streetlights, and trees along the Industrial Development Site frontage of Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. In addition, the project would include a four-way traffic signal with two-phase operation and crosswalk striping on all legs at the East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street intersection. Finally, the project includes reconfiguration of the existing utilities within the right-of-way dedication area by relocating them underground along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue pursuant to City Municipal Code Section

13.32.030 (Requirement to underground utility devices).

2.2.4 Construction
Construction activities would occur only on the Industrial Development Site (APN 1013-521-04) and include demolition of the existing residential structure and concrete pad and removal of existing onsite fencing and vegetation, including all trees currently on the property. Construction would also include excavation, grading, paving, construction of the three warehouse buildings and drive aisles/parking areas, and the installation of lighting, landscaping, and utility connections. During grading, on-site soils would be excavated and recompacted in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) to accommodate the proposed industrial buildings and drive aisles/parking areas.

Construction equipment parking and staging would occur on the Industrial Development Site.

Construction hours would conform to City standards and be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. According to the project conceptual grading plans, approximately 1,409 cubic yards of imported soil (fill) would be required for excavation, compaction, and rough grading.

Construction of the project is anticipated to commence in early 2023 and be completed in the winter of 2024, resulting in a total construction duration of approximately 12 months. Construction equipment anticipated to be used includes rubber-tired dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, excavators, graders, scrapers, cranes, forklifts, generators, welders, air compressors, and paving equipment. 11 Monte Vista Water District. Service Area Map. No date. https://www.mvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/985/Map-ofMVWD-Service-Area (accessed April 13, 2022). 12 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Service Area Map. No date. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html? layers=332812709cee4554b32bc6f31df1a9fe (accessed April 13, 2022).

SOURCE: Hu Zollars, Inc. I:\GMS2201\G\Grading_Plan.ai (9/28/2022) FIGURE 6 Proposed Industrial Development Site Grading Plan FEET 120 60 0

2.2.5 Parking and Site Access
Pursuant to Section 20.18.030 of the City Municipal Code, buildout of the Industrial Development Site with 54,900 square feet of warehouse (storage) space and 9,000 square feet of office space would require 91 parking spaces, and the project includes 97 spaces for the three warehouse buildings.

Building 1 would include 44 parking spaces, including two spaces for truck trailers. Building 2 would include 30 parking spaces, including one space for truck trailers. Building 3 would include 23 parking spaces, including one space for truck trailers. Additionally, five bicycle parking spaces would be constructed (two each for Building 1 and 2, and one for Building 3).

There is no existing vehicle or pedestrian access to the Industrial Development Site. Primary vehicle access to the site is proposed via three two-way driveways. Two of the entrances would be constructed along East End Avenue and the third entrance would be constructed along Philadelphia Street (refer to Figure 4: Proposed Industrial Development Site Plan). The proposed driveways would include landscape treatments to be reviewed and approved through the City’s general development review process. Entrances and exits to and from parking and loading facilities would be marked clearly with appropriate directional signage. All site access points and driveway aprons are designed and would be constructed to minimum 12-foot widths for one-way traffic and 20-foot widths for two-way traffic pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 20.18.050(L).

2.2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity
The Industrial Development Site is accessible from nearby public bus stops as well as other amenities along nearby major transportation corridors such as S. Reservoir Street (0.35 mile west of the site).

Bicycle access to the site is provided via Class III bikeways along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue, and buildout of the Industrial Development Site would further facilitate bicycle connectivity in the community via right-of-way dedication and half-width buildout of the roadways fronting the site and through construction of five designated bicycle parking spaces to secure equipment.

Pedestrian access to the Industrial Development Site is currently lacking but would be improved through the proposed off-site frontage improvements along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue, which would include sidewalks, street trees, and lighting to interconnect to the existing public sidewalk along the west side of East End Avenue north of the site and south side Philadelphia Street southeast of the site. A proposed network of on-site sidewalks conforming to the latest Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and City standards would facilitate pedestrian access to all buildings throughout the site and would interconnect with new on-site courtyards to encourage employees to be active (Figure 4: Proposed Industrial Development Site Plan).

2.2.7 Landscaping
Buildout of the Industrial Development Site would include landscaping through a combination of hedges and trees concentrated along the street frontages, driveway entrances, and common areas, as well as and dozens of additional trees throughout the site parking areas and drive aisles (Figure 7:

Proposed Industrial Development Site Landscape Plan). Enhanced landscaping would be installed on the project site frontage along Philadelphia Street pursuant to Section 19.06.050(C), which requires the applicant to prepare and submit a Street Tree and Landscape Plan to the City for review and

REGNESSAP GNI DAOL REGNESSAP GNI DAOL REGNESSAP GNI DAOL REGNESSAP GNI DAOL LEFT
TURN
NO
EAST END AVE.

2.2.8 Drainage
The majority of the Industrial Development Site consists of pervious surface area. Currently, storm water generally sheet flows in a southerly direction and drains off site onto Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue where it flows either west along Philadelphia Street into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel or south along East End Avenue prior to entering the municipal storm drain system along East End Avenue north of SR-60. The proposed project is expected to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the Industrial Development Site. Upon development of the site, storm water would be captured on site in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS618036, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 permit.

Stormwater runoff from on-site building rooftops and paved areas would surface flow into the drainage swales within the proposed landscaped areas and multiple on-site catch basins and be pretreated with inlet filters and grates before draining to two underground detention systems proposed beneath the on-site drive aisles in the western portion of the site west of the proposed warehouse buildings.13 The two underground detention systems would provide 14,403 cubic feet of water storage for infiltration. Any overflow from the underground detention systems would be routed to the existing 33-inch storm drain at Philadelphia Street through a storm-drain pipe prior to draining into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel at volumes that do not exceed the existing, predeveloped condition (refer to Figure 6: Proposed Industrial Development Site Grading Plan).

13 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Philadelphia and East End Industrial, HZ Project Number R310158.01. Ontario, California. February 24, 2021. (Appendix H1).

2.3 METHODOLOGY
The analysis in this IS/MND provides an environmental review of the project pursuant to CEQA. The details of this proposed project and associated actions have been characterized in this section and are also addressed in detail throughout Section 3.0 of this IS/MND. If the project is approved, the proposed development would be allowed without further discretionary approval, so long as the development complies with the City’s regulations and project-specific mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval.

2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City is expected to use this IS/MND in consideration of the proposed industrial warehouse uses and associated actions. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Prezone and Annexation (PL 20-0003);
Site Approval and Design Review (PL 20-0004);
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174 (PL 20-0005); and
Grading Permit.

Approvals from other regulatory agencies may also be required and are listed as follows:

State Water Resources Control Board: Applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.14
San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): The City of Chino will submit an application to LAFCO to annex the East End Annexation area into the City of Chino following approval of the project by the City Council. LAFCO will review this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of the administrative record during the Annexation Process.

Utility Providers: Connection permits.
14 Construction General Permit requirements are transferred to local agencies by way of the NPDES program. Since the City of Chino (lead agency) complies with the NPDES program guidelines, the State Water Resources Control Board is not a responsible agency or trustee agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project.

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

1. Project Title:

Philadelphia Street Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Chino
Development Services Department
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, California 91710

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Kim Le, Associate Planner
(909) 334-3330
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The project site consists of the 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and is within the Santa Ana del Chino Land Grant, as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ontario, California 7.5-minute quadrangle. Figure 1:

Project Location and Regional Vicinity shows the location of the project on a regional scale. The majority of the site (northern 85 percent) is located within Township 1 South, Range 8 West, while the southerly 15 percent of the site is located within Township 2 South, Range 8 West of the San Bernardino Base & Meridian (SBBM). Regionally, the project site is approximately 2.5 miles northwest from the center of City of Chino, 0.5 mile north of State Route 60 (SR-60) and 2 miles east of State Route 71 (SR-71). The site is accessed regionally from SR-60 and the Reservoir Street interchange, and from SR-71 and the Philadelphia Street interchange. As indicated in Figure 2:

Project Site, the project site is adjacent to the west of East End Avenue between Francis Avenue to the north, Maxon Lane to the south, and the San Antonio Creek Channel to the west14 in unincorporated San Bernardino County within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence (SOI).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Golden Management Services, Inc.
4900 Santa Anita Avenue, Suite #2C
El Monte, California 91731

6. Existing General Plan Designation:

City of Chino: LI – Light Industrial
City of Chino: GI – General Industrial 14 One parcel (APN 1013-531-07) within the East End Annexation area is located adjacent to the west of the San Antonio Creek Channel and north of Philadelphia Street.

7. Proposed General Plan Designation:

City of Chino: LI – Light Industrial (no change)
City of Chino: GI – General Industrial (no change)

8. Existing Zoning:

San Bernardino County: IR – Regional Industrial
San Bernardino County: IC – Community Industrial
San Bernardino County: RS-20M – Single-Family Residential

9. Proposed Zoning:

City of Chino: M1 – Light Industrial (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning) City of Chino: M2 – General Industrial (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning)

10. Description of Property, Surrounding Land Uses, and Setting:

The 56.87-acre project site was previously utilized for orchard and row crop agriculture as early as the 1930s, by which time Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue proceeded in their current alignments through the site.15 San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid1950s.16 A single-family residential structure was constricted on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site (APN 1013-521-04) within the East End Annexation area by 1964, and four additional ancillary buildings were added to the Industrial Development Site by 1972.17 Predominant agricultural activities on the project site began to cede to industrial development in the 1970s and 1980s. Offsite residential development within the City of Chino east of East End Avenue generally coincided with development of the project site during the 1970s and 1980s.18 The single-family residential structure and ancillary buildings on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site are observed in aerial photographs through 2018, but as of 2022, only the single-family residential structure remains with 14 trees and scattered ruderal vegetation.19 Figures 3a through 3d: Site Photographs provide photographs of the project site and surrounding land uses.

11. Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required:

The City is expected to use this IS/MND in consideration of the proposed industrial warehouse use and associated actions. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Prezone and Annexation (PL 20-0003);
Site Approval and Design Review (PL 20-0004);
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20174 (PL 20-0005); and
Grading Permit. 15 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. Aerial Photographs (1938, 1953, 1959). https://historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed April 15, 2022). 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. Aerial Photographs (1964 and 1972). 18 Ibid. Aerial Photographs (1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1992). 19 Ruderal vegetation consists of species (often invasive) that are first to colonize disturbed lands.

State Water Resources Control Board: Applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.21
San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): The City of Chino will submit an application to LAFCO to annex the East End Annexation area into the City of Chino following approval of the project by the City Council. LAFCO will review this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of the administrative record during the Annexation Process.

Utility Providers: Connection Permits

12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Yes. Please refer to Checklist Section 3.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources). Note:

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 21 Construction General Permit requirements are transferred to local agencies by way of the NPDES program. Since the City of Chino (lead agency) complies with the NPDES program guidelines, the State Water Resources Control Board is not a responsible agency or trustee agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is proposed along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue, which are major roadways in the City, and scenic vistas in the project vicinity consist of views toward the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Chino Hills to the south. Chino General Plan Goal CC-6 requires developers to preserve the City’s view corridors. In particular, the City encourages the siting of buildings along major roadways to create a strong street edge by placing development along street fronts to enhance the visual quality of the area, give better definition to a street, and provide a sense of security for pedestrians and separation from vehicle traffic.20 Development of the Industrial Development Site with three industrial buildings totaling 63,900 square feet, associated infrastructure, parking, sidewalk, and other site improvements required by the City is subject to approval of a development application by the City, which includes design review (PL 20- 0004) of the project. Section 20.17.080(C) and (D) of the City Municipal Code provide guidance and standards for the building massing and façade to ensure compatibility with the surrounding built environment and protection of scenic vistas. All project structures would be constructed up to 35 feet tall in accordance with Table 20.07-2 (Industrial Development Standards) of the M1 – Light Industrial Zone in which they are proposed. This would ensure the proposed structures are commensurate with the surrounding building heights, the closest of which is the Scott Bros. Diary facility featuring buildings taller than 35 feet on the adjacent property to the north of the proposed Industrial Development Site. Additionally, design of the project site would exceed all required setbacks, particularly along East End Avenue where the proposed 35-foot setbacks would be landscaped with a 20 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Chapter 5 – Community Character Element. Page CC-8. July 2010.

There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties. As part of any development application within the East End Annexation area, all future projects would be subject to design review by the various City departments in accordance with Chino General Plan Goal CC-6, as well as compliance with Section 20.17.080 of the City Municipal Code that provide guidance and design standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding built environment and protection of scenic vistas. Additionally, projects proposed within the East End Annexation area would be reviewed for compliance with Objective CC-3.2, Policy P8, which requires infill development to be consistent in scale and character with existing neighborhoods; Objective CC-6.1, Policy P1, which requires new development to be designed and sited to support views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Chino Hills, and Objective CC-6.1, Policy P2, which requires the City to preserve views of the surrounding environment through building design and orientation.

Through the City’s design review process on a project-specific level, proposed projects would be designed and developed commensurate with the surrounding uses, which are primarily industrial within the East End Annexation area.

Significance Conclusion: The approval of development plans occurs through the City’s general development review process; the City Development Services Department reviews all development plans through plan check as specified in Section 20.23.090 (Site approvals) of the City Municipal Code.

As part of this process, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in conformance with the requirements of the City to protect scenic vistas in accordance with General Plan Goals and Policies. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is located approximately 3.5 miles north of SR-142, which is an Eligible State Scenic Highway. No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. Multiple urban uses of varying types are located between the East End Annexation area and SR-142, which renders SR-142 well outside the view shed of the East End Annexation area.

Significance Conclusion: The project site is located 3.5 miles north of the nearest State Scenic Highway, and substantial distance and existing visual obstructions such as SR-60, SR-71, and commercial, industrial and residential development occur between [eligible] State scenic highway I-142 and the project site. Therefore, the project site is well outside the view shed of SR-142, and no impact associated with this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: As of July 1, 2021, the United States Census Bureau estimated the City’s population to be 92,975 persons and the City’s land area to be approximately 29.64 square miles.23 The project is located in an area with at least 1,000 persons per square mile and therefore meets the definition of Urbanized Area under Section 15387 of the CEQA Guidelines. Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is covered by ruderal vegetation24 consisting primarily of annuals bromes (Bromus sp.), ornamental trees, including one coast live oak tree, and resprouting tree stumps.25 These ruderal species dominate the project site as a result of seasonal weed abatement activities and other on-site disturbances. Furthermore, the on-site residence is in a decaying condition with boarded windows, and the entire site is surrounded with 21 City of Chino. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Page 4.1-5. January 25, 2010. https://cdn5-hosted. civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Plans/General/04.01_Aesthetics_PR.pdf (accessed June 17, 2022). 22 California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed June 17, 2022). 23 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts, Chino City, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ chinocitycalifornia/PST045219 (accessed June 17, 2022). 24 Ruderal vegetation is comprised of species (often invasive) that are first to colonize disturbed lands. 25 LSA Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project in the City of Chino Sphere of Influence. Page 2. June 14, 2022.

During construction, the presence of construction vehicles and equipment could temporarily degrade the visual quality of the Industrial Development Site by removal of vegetation, heavy equipment use, and storage, excavation, and the presence of other visible general construction activity. However, the presence of construction equipment and vehicles would be consistent with existing uses adjacent to the west already visible from the public view shed and from the residential uses to the east.

Additionally, construction on the Industrial Development Site would be temporary and would cease once construction is complete.

The project site frontage along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue lacks curb, gutter, sidewalks, or other improvements. Construction of the project would include improvements to both the Philadelphia Street and East End frontages and would include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscaped setbacks to improve the overall visual character of the project site from an underutilized and dilapidated property to a high-quality industrial development in accordance with General Plan Goal CC-1.

The Industrial Development Site would be developed in accordance with City development standards prescribed for the light industrial zone, as codified in Section 20.07.040 of the City Municipal Code.

Design elements of the Industrial Development Site include 35-foot landscaped setbacks along East End Avenue and minimum 32-foot landscaped setbacks along Philadelphia Street. All landscaping is designed and would be installed in accordance with Sections 19.06.050 (Trees and landscaping) and

20.19.040 (Landscape design standards) of the City Municipal Code. The site would be landscaped through a combination of hedges and trees along the site perimeter and include dozens of additional trees throughout the site.

Current views of the Industrial Development Site from public areas and the residential uses across East End Avenue to the east reveal an abandoned residence in a decaying condition with boarded windows and industrial activities such as the staging of heavy equipment and materials on the adjacent property to the west. Development of the Industrial Development Site would entail three modern warehouse buildings designed with varied massing and landscaped areas to add subtle variation to the overall structures and reduce the massive scale appearance of large buildings while complimenting other industrial buildings in the project vicinity. The three buildings would include medium performance reflective glass with aluminum storefront frames and are designed with a consistent color scheme, which includes shades of neutral grey colors designed to blend uniformly with the surrounding industrial development in the area. In accordance with General Plan Policy P1 under Objective CC-2.3, the proposed project would be developed in an architecturally pleasing fashion to reflect the overall appearance of a high-quality industrial development that would improve the existing condition of the site and enhance the sense of arrival to the City. Furthermore, truck dock doors would face toward existing industrial uses to the west, north, and away from the residentiallyzoned uses to the east and would be screened from any public or residential view shed by screen walls

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses, some of which have been designed, constructed, and operated prior to adoption of current development standards designed to ensure compatibility between differing land uses. The majority of properties composing the annexation area already conform to their respective land use designations per the City’s General Plan (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning), which are industrial. The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to achieve consistency with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property, but no change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project.

There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties. As part of any development application within the East End Annexation area, all future projects would be subject to design review by the various City departments in accordance with Objective CC-2.1, Policy P1, which requires high quality infill development, as well as Objective CC-3.2, Policy P8, which requires infill development to be consistent in scale and character with existing neighborhoods. Through the City’s design review process on a project-specific level, proposed projects would be designed and developed commensurate with the surrounding uses, which are primarily industrial within the East End Annexation area, to ensure community character is maintained in accordance with Chino General Plan Goal CC-1 and that future development within the East End Annexation area creates a high-quality entryway that signals a transition into the City in accordance with Chino General Plan Objective CC-2.3.

As part of this process, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in conformance with the City’s General Plan Goals and Polices to ensure a high-quality development compatible with the surrounding community. Due to the existing dilapidated condition of the Industrial Development Site and generally industrial nature of the East End Annexation area, impacts to visual character of the project site and its surroundings would be less than significant from construction and operation of the project.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

Industrial Development Site: Currently, nighttime lighting is produced by surrounding industrial and residential properties, street lighting, and vehicles on adjacent roadways. The Industrial Development Site would include three warehouse buildings with operational and security lighting and passenger vehicle and truck trips that would incrementally increase ambient nighttime illumination in the area.

To reduce impacts from light or glare, on-site lighting would be shielded such that it would minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 20.10.090 (Outdoor lighting) and General Plan Policy P5 under Goal CC-1.1. The applicant must submit a lighting plan to be reviewed by the City’s Development Review Committee to ensure lighting would not substantially affect daytime or nighttime views in the project area.

Glare can also be produced during the daytime and is usually associated with reflective building materials, such as glass, stainless steel, aluminum, and photovoltaic panels. The three buildings would include medium performance reflective glass with aluminum storefront frames and are designed with a consistent color scheme, which includes shades of neutral grey colors designed to blend uniformly with the surrounding industrial development in the area. Building materials proposed on the Industrial Development Site are reviewed through plan check as specified in Section 20.23.090 (Site Approvals) of the City Municipal Code and are selected to minimize reflective glare onto neighboring properties.

Additionally, photovoltaic systems that may be installed in the future would likely be roof mounted, screened by the parapet, and not visible from street level.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses, some of which have been designed, constructed, and operated prior to adoption of current development standards designed to ensure compatibility between differing land uses. The majority of properties composing the annexation area already conform to their respective land use designations per the City’s General Plan (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning), which are industrial. The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to achieve consistency with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project because no development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except the Industrial Development Site. Anticipating the type of lighting and potential for glare on properties within the East End Annexation area without site-specific development applications is speculative.

Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties. Furthermore, the City would review each development application for consistency with applicable development standards of the zone(s) in which future projects are proposed to minimize light spillover onto adjacent properties and to reduce glare from future development proposals pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 20.10.090 (Outdoor lighting) and General Plan Policy P5 under Goal CC-1.1.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Most of the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site is undeveloped.

However, as classified by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP),26 the Industrial Development Site is designated as “Urban and Built-up Land” and therefore does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. “Urban and Built-up Land” is land occupied by structures with a building density of approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.27 26 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/DLRP/CIFF/, (accessed April 14, 2022). 27 California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ fmmp/Pages/ Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx (Accessed April 15, 2022).

Significance Conclusion: The East End Annexation area, including the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, there is no development application for any property within the 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, which is mostly developed consistent with the City General Plan designations for Light Industrial (LI) and General Industrial (GI) land uses. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The City of Chino General Plan designates the Industrial Development Site as Light Industrial,29and the San Bernardino County zoning designation is Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) (refer to Table 2.2.A). Neither the Industrial Development Site nor any property in the vicinity is utilized for agricultural use. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a zone change for the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (LI) in order to bring the site into conformance with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. Furthermore, the Industrial Development Site is not under a Williamson Act contract.30
East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses and is zoned as such (refer to Table

2.2.A). The majority of properties composing the annexation area already conform with their respective land use designations per the City’s General Plan. The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to conform with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property. There 28 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/DLRP/CIFF/, (accessed April 14, 2022). 29 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 14, 2022). 30 City of Chino. City of Chino Williamson Act Map. Williamson Act. https://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibp cajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcityofchino.org%2FDocumentCenter%2FView%2F322%2FWi lliamson-Act-Map---Revised-June-9-2021-PDF&clen=1549951&pdffilename=Williamson%20Act%20Map%20-%20 Revised%20June%209 %2C%202021%20%28PDF%29.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).

Significance Conclusion: The 3.59-acre industrial development site is not designated, zoned, or currently utilized for any agricultural use; nor is the site under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, there is no development proposed for any parcel within the balance of the East End Annexation area (53.28 acres), none of which are designated, zoned, or currently utilized for any agricultural use.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is designated Light Industrial in the City’s General Plan31 and would include a zone change from the San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) once the property is annexed into the City of Chino. Accordingly, the Industrial Development Site is not zoned or otherwise designated for forest or timberland uses.

East End Annexation: The majority of parcels composing the East End Annexation area are already developed with industrial uses and zoned accordingly (refer to Table 2.2.A). The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to conform to the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property and overall East End Annexation area. None of the parcels composing the East End Annexation area are zoned or otherwise designated for forest or timberland uses.

Significance Conclusion: None of the parcels composing the 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, are zoned or otherwise designated for forest or timberland uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause a rezoning of forest or timberland uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
Discussion of Effect: 31 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022).

East End Annexation: No forest land occurs within the East End Annexation area, which is comprised of parcels already developed primarily with industrial uses (refer to Table 2.2.A).

Significance Conclusion: The 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, does not contain any forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is currently undeveloped with one abandoned structure on site and is surrounded by industrial development. No Farmland or forest land occur on site or adjacent properties.32
East End Annexation: No Farmland or forest land occurs within the East End Annexation area, which is comprised of parcels already developed primarily with industrial uses (refer to Table 2.2.A).

Significance Conclusion: The 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, does not contain any Farmland or forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. 32 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ DLRP/CIFF/, (Accessed April 14, 2022).

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions, such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The current regional air quality plan is the Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on December 2, 2022.33 The 2022 AQMP incorporates current scientific, technological, and planning assumptions and updated air pollution emission inventory methodologies for various air pollution source categories. The 2022 AQMP addresses new and changing Federal requirements, implements new technology measures to reduce air pollution, and continues the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) legacy of developing economically sound and flexible regulatory compliance approaches.

The 2022 AQMP incorporates local General Plan land use assumptions and regional growth and population projections developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to estimate stationary and mobile source emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. Consistency34 with the AQMP is affirmed when a project: (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation; and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans.

Consistency of the proposed Industrial Development Site with the AQMP is evaluated below.

Indicator 1: As detailed in the discussion of Section 3.3 Threshold b below, the development of the Industrial Development Site would result in short-term construction and long-term operational 33 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2022. 34 Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Therefore, the development of the Industrial Development Site would not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation.

Indicator 2: The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) and is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan.35 As such, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed industrial development would exceed the 2022 AQMP’s growth assumptions.

With respect to determining the proposed project consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based, in part, on assumptions in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) regarding population, housing, and growth trends, as well as assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. According to SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment are forecast to increase by approximately 34,400 residents, 9,900 households, and 7,400 jobs, between 2016 and 2045 and would total approximately 121,300 residents, 33,100 households, and 57,400 jobs by 2045.36 As detailed in the City’s General Plan, the City estimated approximately 141,067 residents, 38,814 households, and 83,255 jobs in the City and its Sphere of Influence by 2025,37 which clearly exceed the estimates generated by SCAG for the same time period and through 2045. Since the City’s General Plan incorporates existing and anticipated development in the Sphere of Influence when projecting future population, housing, and jobs in the City, the projections in the AQMP for future development in the City of Chino include population, housing, and jobs associated with buildout of the Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area with industrial uses.

As discussed in Section 3.14 Population and Housing, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition) rates for Land Use 150 – “Warehousing,” development of the Industrial Development Site with approximately 63,900 square feet of industrial uses, of which approximately 9,000 square feet would be office space and 4,000 square feet would be mezzanine space, with a FAR of 0.41, would generate approximately 22 employees.38 This increase would only represent approximately 0.3 percent of the City’s employment growth according to SCAG and would be within the parameters of expected growth in the City according to the General Plan. In addition, 35 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations.

Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-LandUse-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 36 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed January 2023). 37 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Project Description. Table 3-1 Estimated Development Under the General Plan and Focused Growth Plan. Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 38 Average 1.71 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet gross floor area and average 5.05 daily vehicle trips per employee.

1.71 ÷ 5.05 = 0.339 employee per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. 0.339 × 63.9 = 22 employees.

Based on the consistency analysis presented above, development of the proposed Industrial Development Site would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area (53.28 acres) is already developed primarily with industrial uses. Similar to the Industrial Development Site, the annexation action of the East End Annexation area would include a zone change from San Bernardino County zoning designations Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to City of Chino zoning designation Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2) (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning).

However, as detailed above, the City estimated approximately 141,067 residents, 38,814 households, and 83,255 jobs in the City and its Sphere of Influence by 2025,39 which clearly exceed the estimates generated by SCAG for the same time period and through 2045. Since the City’s General Plan incorporates existing and anticipated development in the Sphere of Influence when projecting future population, housing, and jobs in the City, the projections in the AQMP for future development in the City of Chino programmatically include population, housing, and jobs associated with buildout of the Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area with industrial uses. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the East End Annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to demonstrate consistency at the project level with the applicable AQMP as development applications are submitted to City Staff for review.

Significance Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The SCAQMD’s 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated updates establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of emissions generated.

According to the Handbook, any project in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) with daily emissions that 39 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Project Description. Table 3-1 Estimated Development Under the General Plan and Focused Growth Plan. Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022).

The Basin is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the PM10 standard. The Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of an ambient air quality standard. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Development of the Industrial Development Site would generate short-term and long-term emissions of air pollutants, respectively, during construction and operation of the proposed warehouse. These emissions are summarized below based on the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) runs prepared for the Industrial Development Site (Appendix A). The CalEEMod calculations include both on-site and off-site construction activities as described in Section 2.3.

Short-term (Construction) Emissions: Short-term emissions would result from construction-related activities such as excavation and grading, machinery and equipment emissions, vehicle emissions40 from construction employees, etc. Emissions during grading and construction activities would vary as 40 This analysis assumes an average construction worker trip length of 18.5 miles one-way per default values in CalEEMod.

Exhaust gas and particulate emissions generated by construction equipment engines; Fugitive dust from soil disturbance during site preparation, grading, and excavation activities; and Reactive organic compounds that evaporate during site paving and architectural coating (e.g., painting of new structures).

The construction analysis includes estimating the construction equipment that would be used during each construction phase, the hours of use for that construction equipment, the quantities of earth and debris to be moved, and on-road vehicle trips (worker, soil hauling, and vendor trips).

Construction of the Industrial Development Site is anticipated to commence in early 2023 and be completed in the winter of 2024, resulting in a total construction duration of approximately 12 months, which was included in CalEEMod. In addition, approximately 1,409 cubic yards of imported soil (fill) would be required for excavation, compaction, and rough grading, which was also included in CalEEMod. In addition, this analysis assumes the use of Tier 2 construction equipment.

Table 3.3.A identifies the maximum daily emissions associated with construction activities and indicates no criteria pollutant emission thresholds would be exceeded from construction of the Industrial Development Site. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 3.3.A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Project Construction Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 1.2 40.0 29.9 0.1 9.0 5.0
Grading 0.9 24.9 20.0 <0.1 4.1 2.2
Building Construction 0.8 19.5 17.0 <0.1 1.1 0.8
Paving 0.6 12.4 12.0 <0.1 0.9 0.6
Architectural Coating 20.7 1.1 1.4 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Peak Daily 21.5 40.0 29.9 0.1 9.0 5.0
SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2023). (Appendix A).

Note: Maximum emissions of VOCs occurred during the overlapping building construction and architectural coating phases.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
The construction calculations prepared for the Industrial Development Site assume that dust control measures would be employed to reduce emissions of fugitive dust during site grading. Adherence to Rule 403, including the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs), is a standard requirement for any construction activity occurring within the Basin. Among the requirements under this rule, fugitive dust must be controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. These measures may include, but are not limited to:

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

As detailed in Table 3.3.A, emissions generated during construction of the Industrial Development Site would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional construction emissions. Therefore, construction of the Industrial Development Site would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (AAQS).

Long-term (Operational) Emissions: Operation of the proposed Industrial Development Site would result in an incremental increase in regional criteria pollutant emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with area sources, energy sources, stationary sources, and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, hearths, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas and electricity consumption for heating and lighting. Mobile sources consist of vehicle trips associated with a project.

Stationary sources include the use of a process boiler.

Operation of the Industrial Development Site would result in net increases in area-, energy-, stationary-, and mobile-source emissions. The area- and energy-source emissions would come from many sources, including the use of consumer products, landscape equipment, general energy, and solid waste. Calculation of emissions from these sources is based on CalEEMod defaults and assumes compliance with Title 24 and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).41 Mobile-source emissions were calculated based on the proposed project’s trip generation estimates, which assume the Industrial Development Site would generate approximately 139 average daily trips, including 112 passenger car trips, 7 two-axle truck trips, 6 three-axle truck trips, and 14 four or more-axle truck trips. In addition, stationary-source emissions would be associated with use of a process boiler. Long-term operational emissions associated with the project are summarized in Table 3.3.B. 41 The project would be designed, constructed, and operated under the more stringent 2022 California Building Code.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
VOC = Volatile organic compounds
As shown in Table 3.3.B, operation of the proposed warehouse uses would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, operation of the Industrial Development Site would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis: Vehicular trips associated with the proposed industrial development would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality impacts could occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed industrial development. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating with extremely high traffic volumes at unacceptable levels of service. However, the project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Appendix B1), Supplemental TIA (Appendix B2), and Section 3.17 of this Initial Study indicate the project would not result in any significant level of service change or intersection delay with the implementation of the recommended improvements designed to address level of service. Therefore, the project would not generate CO “hot spots.”
The cumulative impacts analysis is based on projections in the regional AQMP. As detailed in Section

3.3 (Threshold a), the proposed project is consistent with growth assumptions in the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the City of Chino General Plan, and SCAQMD’s AQMP. Additionally, the proposed project as an industrial use with up to 63,900 square feet of warehousing does not meet SCAQMD’s criteria to be defined as a significant project.

No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions would contribute to existing cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the

Due to the nonattainment status of the Basin, the primary air pollutants of concern would be NOX and ROGs, which are ozone precursors, and PM10 and PM2.5. As detailed in Table 3.3.B, long-term emissions were calculated for NOX, ROG, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 expected to be generated through operation of the Industrial Development Site, and project-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Without any exceedance in air quality emissions thresholds, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant air quality impacts.

Significance Conclusion: Since the proposed development of the Industrial Development Site would not exceed any air quality emissions thresholds, the industrial development would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant air quality impacts. Short-term and long-term cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June 2003 and updated it in July 2008,42 recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project site of up to 5 acres that are not expected to result in an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for CO, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the Industrial Development Site, the appropriate SRA is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley area (SRA 33).

Sensitive receptors include residences, daycare centers, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality. The nearest sensitive receptors are a single-family residential property (APN 1013-521-05) adjacent to the west of the Industrial Development Site, single-family residential 42 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. June 2003, Revised July 2008.

Table 3.3.C indicates the on-site construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for the nearby residences. Therefore, construction of the Industrial Development Site would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

Table 3.3.C: Construction Localized Significance Threshold Evaluation On-Site Emissions Sources
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction Equipment 39.9 28.3 8.8 5.0 LST 270 2,193 16 9
Emissions Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2023). (Appendix A).

Note: Source Receptor Area: Southwest San Bernardino Valley (SRA 33), 5 acres, 25 meters (82 feet) distance CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = local significance threshold
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
By design, the localized impacts analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions detailed in Table 3.3.D assume all area, energy, and stationary source emissions would occur on site and 5 percent of the project-related new mobile sources, which is an estimate of the amount of project-related on-site vehicle travel, would occur on site. Considering the total trip length included in CalEEMod, the 5 percent assumption is conservative. Table 3.3.D indicates the localized operational emissions would not exceed the LSTs on site and at nearby residences.

Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a locally significant air quality impact. 43 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. June 2003, Revised July 2008. Page 3-3.

Note: Source Receptor Area: Southwest San Bernardino Valley (SRA 33), 5 acres, 25 meters (82 feet) distance.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = localized significance threshold
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Tables 3.3.C and 3.3.D identify the on-site construction and operational emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively. Although project-level NOX emissions would generate ozone (O3) precursor emissions, these levels would not exceed any established SCAQMD daily emission thresholds of significance for construction and operation of the Industrial Development Site. As detailed in Table

3.3.D, the peak NOX emissions from operation of the Industrial Development Site would be approximately 0.6 pounds per day. Due to the size of the proposed warehouse facilities, the level of emissions is not sufficiently high to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a Basin-wide level. On a regional scale, the quantity of emissions from the Industrial Development Site is incrementally minor. The SCAQMD has not identified an accurate method to quantify health impacts from small projects; however, due to relatively small size of the proposed development and due to the fact that the industrial development would not exceed the LST or daily pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD, it is speculative to assign any specific health effects to small projectrelated emissions. However, based on this localized analysis, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operation.

Significance Conclusion: As detailed in Tables 3.3.B and 3.3.D., construction and operational emissions would not exceed LST thresholds. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts to sensitive receptors from substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact

Industrial Development Site: Construction of the Industrial Development Site would generate limited odors over the short term, mainly from fumes emanating from gasoline and diesel powered construction equipment and architectural coating, asphalt laying, and paving activities. These odors would be temporary and are expected to be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site.

SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust must be controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Additionally, Title 13, Section 2449(d)(D) of the California Code of Regulations requires operators of off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled dieselfueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) to limit vehicle idling to five minutes or less.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, and Title 13, Section 2449(d)(D) of the California Code of Regulations require the project applicant to implement standard control measures to limit fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. These temporary emissions are expected to be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Therefore, operation of fueled equipment during construction would not adversely affect a substantial number of people.

The painting of buildings and structures or the installation of asphalt surfaces may also create odors.

SCAQMD Rule 1113 outlines standards for paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the application of asphalt. Adherence to the standards identified in these SCAQMD rules is required for all construction projects in the City to reduce emissions and objectionable odors.

Land uses generally associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project is a proposed light industrial warehouse development that does not include uses that would generate long-term objectionable odors. During operation of the Industrial Development Site, freight trucks entering/exiting and loading/unloading at the site, as well as temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with occupation of the site, could generate potential odors. As a matter of State policy, medium and heavy-duty freight vehicles accessing the Industrial Development Site must comply with the SCAQMD’s and CARB’s regulations pertaining to particulate filter requirements, idle time limits, smoke opacity, greenhouse gas emissions, and NOX emissions standards.44 Furthermore, refuse generated by the proposed warehouse facilities would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. 44 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Regulations & Other Commitments. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/facility-based-mobile-source-measures/regs-commitments#Trucks%20- %20Existing%20State (Accessed June 30, 2022).

Significance Conclusion: Compliance with mandated regulatory policies designed to reduce emissions from construction equipment and materials and medium and heavy-duty freight vehicles, in conjunction with removal of solid waste (refuse) at regular intervals, would ensure the project would not involve short-term or long-term emissions or sources of odors that could affect a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plan?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is an infill site surrounded by urban development. The site is bounded by East End Avenue to the east, Philadelphia Avenue to the south, and primarily industrial development to the west and north. The site was previously utilized for orchard and row crop agriculture as early as the 1930s, by which time Philadelphia Street and East

The Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory of the Industrial Development Site included a literature review and field survey to determine the existence or potential occurrence of candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and animal species and critical habitats on or in the vicinity of the site (Appendix C). The results of the literature search indicate the Industrial Development Site is not within designated critical habitat of any species. Attachment A of Appendix C contains tables that identify special-status plant and animal species previously documented or that may potentially occur in the vicinity of the Industrial Development Site, and also include each species’ probability of occurrence within the proposed construction footprint.50
To determine the potential for threatened, endangered, or candidate plant and animal species to occur on the Industrial Development Site, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by qualified LSA Biologists on May 13, 2022 (refer to Appendix C). The survey revealed there are no sensitive natural communities on the site. The Industrial Development Site does not provide suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, or candidate plant and/or animal species because of its small size and isolation from open habitats due to surrounding dense urban development combined with a history of regular and intense disturbance.51 Furthermore, the trees on and in proximity to the Industrial Development Site also harbor hawks and large owls that prey on burrowing owl and make the site undesirable for this species.52 Ongoing soil disturbance and the resulting competitive exclusion by invasive non-native plants limit the potential for native flora to occur or to host threatened, endangered, or candidate species on the Industrial Development Site.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the 45 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. Aerial Photographs (1938, 1953, 1959). https://historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed April 15, 2022). 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. Aerial Photographs (1964 and 1972). 48 Ibid. Aerial Photographs (1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1992). 49 Ruderal vegetation consists of species (often invasive) that are first to colonize disturbed lands. 50 LSA Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project in the City of Chino Sphere of Influence. Attachment A: Tables. June 14, 2022. (Appendix C). 51 Ibid. Page 3 through Page 5. 52 Ibid. Page 5.

Significance Conclusion: Due to the project site’s previous and current disturbances, the Industrial Development Site lacks habitat suitable to harbor candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and animal species with potential to occur at the site. The balance of the East End Annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses, and no physical development is proposed except on the Industrial Development Site. All threatened, endangered, or candidate species with potential to occur on the project site have a low probability of inhabiting the site due to lack of suitable habitat from the substantial disturbances (former and current) on site and the site’s isolated position relative to open space areas where suitable habitat may occur. Impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and their habitats would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site has been previously developed. No riparian or sensitive natural community is located on site.53 East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area has been previously developed. San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid-1950s. No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project.

Significance Conclusion: No California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Communities of Concern or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat is located within the project limits. Therefore, the project would have no effect on any riparian habitat or protected natural community. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site has been previously developed. No federally-protected wetlands occur on site.54
East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area has been previously developed. San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid-1950s. No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project.

Significance Conclusion: No federally protected wetlands, riparian area vernal pools, coastal zones or similar features occur on the project site. Therefore, no impact to any such feature would result from the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Development of the Industrial Development Site would not affect wildlife movement or nursery sites because the site is infill and located within an urbanized area, 54 LSA Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project in the City of Chino Sphere of Influence. Page 3, Page 4, and Attachment A: Tables. June 14, 2022. (Appendix C).

The Industrial Development Site contains 14 trees that provide suitable nesting habitat for common bird species.55 The on-site residential building proposed for demolition also provides suitable nesting habitat for common bird species. As identified in Section 3.4 (Threshold a), the project site has been previously developed, and the trees on and in proximity to the Industrial Development Site harbor hawks and large owls that prey on burrowing owl, which make the site undesirable for this species.56 However, because the Industrial Development Site may contain nesting birds on the on-site trees and residential structure, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is prescribed to ensure a qualified biologist conducts a pre-construction survey for nesting birds if construction activities occur during nesting bird season in accordance with Sections 3503–3801 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 If demolition or ground disturbance is proposed during nesting bird season (February 15 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist) within 72 hours prior to start of work pursuant to Sections 3503–3801 of the California Fish and Game Code. If the survey indicates nesting birds are present, an appropriate buffer to be established by the project Biologist shall be marked off around the nest(s), and no demolition or construction activity shall occur in that area during nesting activities. Demolition and/or construction may resume within the established buffer when the project Biologist determines the nest is no longer occupied and all juveniles have left the nest. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Development Services Director or designee.

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area has been previously developed. San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid-1950s. No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project.

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site contains 14 trees. The City’s tree preservation ordinance codified in Municipal Code Section 20.19.040(F) states that “Mature trees shall not be removed without prior written approval of the Director of Development Services or his designee.” Mature Trees are defined as oak trees with trunks more than 8 inches in diameter at breast height, other trees with trunks more than 10 inches in diameter at breast height, and multi-trunk trees with a total circumference of 38 inches or more at breast height. The ordinance specifies replacement requirements for any Mature Trees to be removed.

All trees on the project site will be removed. There is no opportunity for preservation and protection of any of the trees on the site due to conflict with project components, such as the proposed warehouse buildings, parking lots, and drive aisles. Relocation of any of the mature trees would substantially compromise their viability and thus would not guarantee their preservation.57 The sitespecific Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory shows locations of Mature Trees on the Industrial Development Site and provides information and replacement requirements for these trees according to criteria specified in the ordinance.58 Pursuant to City Municipal Code Section

20.19.040(F), the project applicant would replace each mature tree in accordance with Table 3.4.A below. East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project.

20.19.040(F), future development proposals within the East End Annexation area would require an inventory of on-site trees and evaluation by a certified arborist for trees ten inches or larger in diameter proposed for removal to determine the feasibility of preservation or replacement value.

Significance Conclusion: Adherence to the City’s tree preservation ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Section 20.19.040(F) is required for all development as a matter of regulatory policy and enforced as a routine action by the City to preserve protected trees. Through compliance with Municipal Code Section 20.19.040(F), impacts associated with conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting on-site biological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is not within any adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or any other regional planning areas identified by the USFWS, CDFW, or the City.59
East End Annexation: San Antonio Creek, a natural north-south drainage flowing generally along the western site boundary, was channelized via a concrete box channel in the mid-1950s. The County of San Bernardino Riparian Plant Conservation Ordinance (Section 88.01.080 -- Riparian Plant Conservation) prohibits removal of vegetation within protected riparian areas or within 200 feet of the bank of a stream or river. However, no physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site located 275 feet east of San Antonio Creek, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. No change in physical baseline conditions would occur within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area as a result of the project, which would annex the site into the jurisdiction of the City and thus nullify the County of San Bernardino Riparian Plant Conservation Ordinance.

Significance Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted local or regional conservation plans. No impact to adopted habitat conservation plans would occur. No mitigation is required. 59 LSA Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Inventory for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project in the City of Chino Sphere of Influence. Page 6 and Attachment A: Tables. June 14, 2022. (Appendix C).

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The industrial development site was subject to a cultural resources investigation comprising archival research, cultural resources records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), examination of the California Built Environment Resources Directory (CBERD), which includes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Resources (CPHI), and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Industrial Development Site (Appendix D).60
Archival research conducted in September 2021 revealed two cultural resource investigations within

0.5 mile of the Industrial Development Site; however, neither of those investigations include the 3.59- acre site.61 In addition to investigative reports, the SCCIC provided data on cultural resources within

0.5 mile of the Industrial Development Site and indicated no cultural resources are documented on the 3.59-acre site.62
An intensive pedestrian survey of the Industrial Development Site conducted on July 7, 2021, identified one residence located at 12040 East End Avenue (APN 1013-521-04). The structure is a 3,500-square-foot California Ranch style residence built in 1964 and was owned by the Nagano Family from 1964 until 2017. The Nagano Family grew flowers, fruits, and vegetables on the property and operated a flower business until 1978. The property was sold following the death of Mrs. Nagano in 2017.63 The residence was evaluated pursuant to CEQA criteria for historical significance (CEQA 60 Duke CRM. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project, City of Chino, County of San Bernardino California. Page 1. September 22, 2021. (Appendix D). 61 Due to the COVID-19 emergency, the SCCIC is able to provide only the data that has been digitized as of March 1, 2020. 62 Duke CRM. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project, City of Chino, County of San Bernardino California. Pages 1 and 2. September 22, 2021. (Appendix D). 63 Ibid. Pages 3 and 20.

Significance Conclusion: The cultural resources investigation conducted for the Industrial Development Site did not identify any historical resources on the 3.59-acre site. Additionally, there is no development proposed on any property within the remaining 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, which is already developed. Therefore, the project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: As stated in Section 3.5 (Threshold a) above, the Industrial Development Site was subject to a cultural resources investigation comprising archival research, a cultural resources records search at the SCCIC, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the site (Appendix D).

Archival research did not identify the presence of archaeological resources on the Industrial Development Site. The records search indicated two cultural resource investigations were conducted within 0.5 mile of the site; however, neither of those investigations include the 3.59-acre site. An intensive pedestrian survey of the Industrial Development Site identified one on-site residence determined to have no historical significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) (See discussion of effect in Section 3.5(a)).

In accordance with State law, the project would be required to comply with Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5 and [California] Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2 California Environmental Quality Act-Archeological Resources, which enable the City to require the project applicant to make reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected significant or unique archaeological resource. Penal Code Section 622 Destruction of Sites, establishes as a misdemeanor the willful injury, disfiguration, defacement, or destruction of any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private or public lands. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307 states that no person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeological, or historical interest or value. Furthermore, CCR Section 1427 recognizes that California’s archaeological resources need to be preserved and that 64 Duke CRM. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project, City of Chino, County of San Bernardino California. Page 4. September 22, 2021. (Appendix D).

Although archival research and the pedestrian survey did not identify archaeological resources on the Industrial Development Site, the proposed project must comply with all applicable regulations protecting archaeological resources and would be conditioned to cease excavation or construction activities if archaeological resources are identified during excavation through Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Chino (City) shall verify that the following note is included on all grading plans:
“If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted, and the City shall be notified. Notification shall be made within 24 hours of any such discovery. If the resources are determined to be of pre-contact (i.e., Native American) origin, all Native American tribes who have expressed an interest in the project through the Assembly Bill 52 process pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2 (interested Native American Tribes) shall be contacted for input. The City shall, in good faith, consult with interested Native American Tribes for the remainder of the project.

Construction personnel shall not collect or move any suspected archaeological materials or further disturb any soils within the 100- foot exclusionary buffer, but construction activity may continue on other portions of the project site. As deemed necessary by the City, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery. As determined by the qualified archaeologist and interested Native American Tribes should the discovery be determined not to be significant, the resource shall be recorded on a California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523, and no further recovery effort shall be required. However, all subsequent ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by an archaeologist and, if requested, by interested Native American Tribes at the discretion of the City. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the project applicant and City for dissemination to interested Native American Tribes, as requested. In the event the discovery is determined to be significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall apply.”
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino’s Development Services Director or designee.

The archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to Native American tribal representatives (i.e., those who have expressed an interest in the project through the Assembly Bill 52 process pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2) for review and comment.

Ground-disturbing work may continue on other parts of the project site while historical [or unique archaeological] resource mitigation occurs.

The project archaeologist, the project applicant, the City of Chino’s Development Services Director or designee, and interested Native American tribal representatives shall confer regarding the appropriate disposition of the discovered resource(s). Disposition may include curation with a certified scientific or educational repository in accordance with current professional repository standards. However, if an agreement on the disposition of cultural resources cannot be reached, the resource(s) shall be reburied on the project site in an area not subject to further ground disturbance, with appropriate recordation on the California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms. Work shall not resume within the 100-foot exclusionary buffer without City authorization, and all subsequent ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored at the discretion of the City.

All cultural resources, including the locations from which they are recovered and to which they may be reburied, shall remain confidential pursuant to the California Code of Regulations Section 15120(d). A final report containing the significance and treatment of findings shall be prepared by the project archaeologist and submitted to the City of Chino’s Development Services Director or designee and interested Native American Tribe(s). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Development Services Director or designee.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre industrial development site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. Accordingly, there would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future

Significance Conclusion: Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, development on the Industrial Development Site would be conditioned to cease activities if archaeological resources are identified during ground-disturbing activities pursuant to applicable regulatory policies designed to protect archaeological resources. Project impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: There is no evidence human remains occur on the Industrial Development Site. If human remains are encountered on the Industrial Development Site, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during earthmoving activities would be followed in accordance with State law. Consistent with the requirement of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered, work within 200 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the San Bernardino County Coroner notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has determined origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Chino shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Implementation of State law and Mitigation Measure TCR-3 would ensure human remains are protected if discovered on the site during project construction activities. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials shall be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. Additionally, Section 7052 of the California Health and Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed generally with industrial uses. Accordingly, there would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future development within the balance of the East End Annexation area (53.28 acres) would be required to comply with CEQA, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98 with regards to human remains on a project- and site-specific basis.

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site’s consumption of energy during construction and operation is calculated via CalEEMod, as detailed in Appendix A.

Construction. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the project would require approximately 12 months to construct. Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transport of building materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, utility installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. However, energy usage on the Industrial Development Site during construction would be temporary.

The CalEEMod output for energy consumption incorporates project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 431.2, Title 13-Section 2449 of the CCR, and California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program regulations, which include implementation of standard control measures for equipment emissions and materials recycling. Adherence to these regulations, including the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM), is a standard requirement for any construction or ground disturbance activity occurring within the Basin.

BACMs include, but are not limited to, requirements that the project proponent utilize only low-sulfur fuel having a sulfur content of 15 parts per million by weight or less; ensure off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) limit vehicle idling to five minutes or less; register and label vehicles in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into fleets; and retire, replace, or repower older engines or install Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). Additionally, the construction contractor would recycle/reuse at least 65 percent of the construction material and use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient and recycled and

Operation. Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. Electricity and natural gas consumption was estimated for the Industrial Development Site using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod.

CalEEMod divides building electricity and natural gas use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24 (e.g., space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation). Non-Title 24 uses include all other end uses (e.g., appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses). Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, CalEEMod considers lighting as a separate electricity use category. For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or non-Title 24, with Title 24 uses including building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include cooking and appliances.

In addition, the Industrial Development Site would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (automobiles, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased, from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020.65 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021.66 Using the USEPA gasoline fuel economy estimates for 2020, the California diesel fuel economy estimates for 2021, and the traffic data from the project traffic analyses, the Industrial Development Site would result in the annual consumption of 19,511 gallons of gasoline and 23,785 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table 3.6.A presents the energy use of the proposed industrial development.

Table 3.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Industrial Development Land Use
Electricity Use
(kWh/year)
Natural Gas
(therms/year) Gasoline (gallons/year)
Diesel
(gallons/year)
Three warehouse buildings
totaling 63,900 square feet 1,115,176 17,538 19,511 23,785 Parking Lot 70,593 — —
Total 1,185,769 17,538 19,511 23,785
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2023) (Appendix A).
kWh = kilowatt hours 65 United States Department of Transportation. “Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.dot.gov/bts/bts/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed November 2022).
66 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Medium and Heavy-Duty Truck Prices and Fuel Economy 2013–2026.

Website: efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=206180 (accessed October 2022).

Also shown in Table 3.6.A, proposed uses on the site would demand a total of 17,538 therms of natural gas per year. Total natural gas consumption in San Bernardino County in 2021 was 561 million therms (561,360,617 therms).68 Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual natural gas consumption in San Bernardino County by less than 0.01 percent.

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the CCR, known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CBC went into effect in January 2023. Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (also referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen Code) in 2010 as part of the State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption from residential and nonresidential buildings. The CALGreen Code covers the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. The City has adopted both the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.45 (Climate Action Plan Implementation) of the City Municipal Code pertaining to energy conservation standards in effect at the time of construction. The projected energy use of the industrial development is representative of a worst-case, overestimated scenario because the estimates are based on CalEEMod default rates that assume compliance with the 2019 edition of Title 24/CBC. The industrial development would comply with the current 2022 CALGreen Code requirements and Title 24 efficiency standards, which would further improve energy efficiency during operation.

In addition, the industrial development would result in energy usage associated with consumption of motor vehicle gasoline and diesel fuel for project-related trips. Based on the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix B2), the proposed industrial development use would generate approximately 139 average daily trips, including 112 passenger car trips, 7 two-axle truck trips, 6 three-axle truck trips, and 14 four+-axle truck trips. CalEEMod estimates annual vehicle miles traveled for operation of the industrial development to be 637,813 and assumes approximately 70.1 percent of trips would be gasoline-fueled and 29.9-percent of trips would be diesel-fueled based on the estimated truck trips. As indicated above, using the USEPA gasoline fuel economy estimates for 2020, the California diesel fuel economy estimates for 2021, and the traffic data from the project traffic analyses, the proposed project would result in the annual consumption of 19,511 gallons of gasoline and 23,875 gallons of diesel fuel. 67 California Energy Commission. 2022. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ elecbycounty.aspx (accessed January 2023). 68 California Energy Commission. 2022. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby county.aspx (accessed January 2023).

However, progressive improvements to freight trucks (e.g., more efficient engines and improvements to aerodynamic features) and new automobiles purchased and operated by patrons and employees driving to and from the Industrial Development Site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards applied throughout the State. As such, the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with operation of the industrial development would increase throughout the life of the project as fuel efficiency of vehicles continues to improve in order to meet the State’s 2030 GHG emission reduction goals pursuant to Senate Bill 32 and beyond. In addition, purchase and use of electric passenger vehicles is expected to increase as the price and efficiency of electric passenger vehicles improve, reducing the number and use of fossil fuel-dependent vehicles on the road. Employees of the proposed industrial development would also benefit from improved transportation to the site, as the improvements to public transportation would result in an expanded network of municipal buses, bicycle infrastructure, and rideshare programs. The long-term operation of the industrial development would see a decrease in fuel consumption per mile due to continuous improvements to vehicles and transportation infrastructure, which would demand less energy consumption through the life of the project.

August 2016. 70 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. Table 4-23. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed July 5, 2022). 71 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/ laws/eisa (accessed July 5, 2022). 72 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Transportation. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. August 24, 2018. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-08-24/pdf/2018-18418.pdf (accessed July 5, 2022).

Significance Conclusion: Increasingly stringent electricity, natural gas, and fuel efficiency standards combined with compliance with the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.45 (Climate Action Plan Implementation) of the City Municipal Code and improved alternative transportation infrastructure throughout the region would ensure operation of the industrial development would demand only the energy required, and impacts from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?

Industrial Development Site:
i. The Industrial Development Site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972 or as defined the State of California, Department of Conservations, Geological Survey. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Chino-Central Avenue Fault is the only active fault in the Chino area, however this fault is a subsurface fault that is not expected to rupture, therefore it is not mapped according to the Alquist-Priolo Act.73 In addition, there is no evidence of any faults or faulting activity on the Industrial Development Site.74 As such, the risk of ground rupture due to fault displacement beneath the site is low. ii. The Industrial Development Site is located within a seismically active region. There are several active faults with the Southern California region, with a number of faults traversing the San Jacinto Valley and Temecula Valley. 75 The major regional faults with the potential to affect the industrial development site include the Sierra Madre, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Faults.

The nearest active fault in proximity to the Industrial Development Site is the Chino-Central Avenue Fault located less than 1.25 mile from the site and is capable of producing a Magnitude 7.0 earthquake. Other active faults in the region are expected to produce lower seismic activity due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or the Industrial Development Site’s greater distance to other faults.76 Due to the presence of active and inferred faults in proximity to the Industrial Development Site, the site is expected to experience occasionally moderate to severe ground-shaking, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. The extent of ground-shaking associated with an earthquake is dependent upon the size of the earthquake and the geologic material of the underlying area. State law requires the design and construction of new structures comply with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, which address general geologic, seismic (including ground shaking), and soil constraints for new buildings.

Accordingly, design and construction of the Industrial Development Site would be required to adhere to 2022 CBC requirements to reduce any potential impacts from seismic related activity.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans of the industrial development. The plans must be prepared in conformance the current CBC and applicable City standards as prescribed through Mitigation Measure GEO-1. 73 City of Chino, Chino General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Pages 4.6-3 through 4.6-4. January 2010. 74 California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. CGS Earthquake Zones (ca.gov) (accessed April 18, 2022). 75 Ibid. 76 NorCal Engineering. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Warehouse Development, Chino California. Page 5. October 14, 2019 (Appendix E).

Additionally, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the recommendations cited in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation are incorporated into project plans and/or implemented as deemed appropriate by the City. Geotechnical recommendations include, but are not limited to, removal of existing vegetation, structural foundations, floor slabs, irrigation lines, utility lines, and any other surface and subsurface improvements that would not remain in place for use with the new development.

Remedial earthwork, overexcavation, and ground improvement shall occur to depths specified in the Geotechnical Investigation to provide a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath the structural footings/foundations, as well as proper surface drainage devices. Retaining wall parameters shall be in accordance with the Geotechnical Investigation to protect against lateral spreading and landslides. Additionally, Type II cement according to the latest CBC specifications shall be utilized for the construction of building foundations and additional sulfate tests shall be performed at the completion of site grading to ensure that graded conditions are consistent with the recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation to protect concrete, steel, and other metals from corrosive soils. Verification testing must be performed upon completion of ground improvements to confirm that the
compressible soils have been sufficiently densified. The structural engineer must determine the ultimate thickness and reinforcement of the building floor slabs based on the imposed slab loading.

As necessary, the City may require additional studies and/or engineering protocols to meet its requirements. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Director of Building or designee.
iii. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water-laden soils are subject to shaking, causing the soils to lose cohesion. A relatively shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions in conjunction with a source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, may facilitate soil mass distortion such as liquefaction. Upon review of local groundwater maps, the Geotechnical

Significance Conclusion:

Industrial Development Site:
i. There are no on-site active faults within the Industrial Development Site, therefore less than significant impacts related to fault-rupture would occur on the site and no mitigation is required.
ii. Given the location of the Industrial Development Site, there is potential for strong seismic ground shaking. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, post-construction differential movements of shallow foundations designed and construction in accordance with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the CBC and measures identified in the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) are expected to strengthen the existing fill to support a new fill, structural foundations, and grade slabs. Impacts from seismic groundshaking would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 77 NorCal Engineering. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Warehouse Development, Chino California. Page 10. October 14, 2019 (Appendix E).

East End Annexation: There is no development application for any property within the 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, which is already developed. Future development within the balance of the East End Annexation area would be required to comply with CEQA, the latest CBC, and applicable City standards with regards to direct rupture of earthquake faults, seismic ground shaking, liquefication, and/or landslides on a project- and site-specific basis. Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is mostly vacant and undeveloped except for one abandoned structure. Soils mapped on site include Grangeville fine sandy loam soils, which are formed from alluvial deposition associated with flood plains at slopes between zero and two percent.78 According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the soils in Chino, including those of the Industrial Development Site, generally do not exhibit high erosion potential.79 Development on the Industrial Development Site would disturb surface soils and make them susceptible to erosion or loss of topsoil. Short-term erosion effects during the construction phase would be prevented through required grading permits and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) intended to reduce soil erosion.80 Refer to Section 3.10(a) for additional information.

Compliance with storm water regulations include minimizing storm water contact with potential pollutants by providing covers and secondary containment for construction materials, designating areas away from storm drain systems for storing equipment and materials, and implementing good housekeeping practices at the construction site. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit site-specific, detailed grading plans to the City in accordance with Chapter 13, Section 25-405 (Permits required-Industrial activities) of the City Municipal Code to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste.

Operation of the industrial development would be subject to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which incorporates measures to capture excess stormwater runoff and prevent soil erosion to downstream water courses from the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces 78 Duke CRM. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report. Page 2. September 22, 2021. (Appendix D). 79 City of Chino, Chino General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Page 4.6-19. January 2010. 80 Pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and Chapter 13, Sections 20 and 25 of the City Municipal Code.

The WQMP is required to be incorporated by reference or attached to a project’s SWPPP as the PostConstruction Management Plan.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 21065, there would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End Annexation would be subjected to comply with Chapter 13, Sections 20 (Wastewater Discharge Regulations) and 25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) of the City Municipal Code to prevent erosion and loss of topsoil to downstream water courses during project-specific construction and operation.

Significance Conclusion: Adherence to the BMPs contained in the SWPPP and WQMP in accordance with Chapter 13, Sections 20 (Wastewater Discharge Regulations) and 25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) of the City Municipal Code would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is mostly flat and surrounded by development. There is no evidence of landslides and/or slope instabilities on the site. As detailed in Section 3.7 (Threshold a)(iii) and (iv) above, the Industrial Development Site is not located in an area considered susceptible to liquefaction or landslides. In addition, the property’s deep groundwater table and flat topography would reduce potential impacts from landslides, slope instabilities, lateral spreading, and/or liquefaction at the Industrial Development Site.

The project site is located within Central Management Zone-1 (Areas of Subsidence Concern) of the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program: Management Zone 1 Subsidence Management Plan.81 The City implements a process of design review to ensure site-specific geotechnical investigations are prepared to ensure appropriate design standards are implemented based on the type of development proposed on specific soils. Pursuant to Objective SAF-1.1, Policies P2 and P3, the project must include adequate investigation of all geological hazards including subsidence. Pursuant to Standard Condition of Approval 3.6, a geotechnical investigation was conducted to determine the adequacy of building engineering for the local soil condition, including structural damage from potential subsidence.82
81 Chino Basin Watermaster. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program: Management Zone 1 Subsidence Management Plan. Figure 2-2. October 2007. 82 City of Chino. Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Chino General Plan Draft EIR. Page 4.6-20, January 2010.

IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 3-53 The site-specific geotechnical investigation indicates the upper 1 foot of soils may not be suitable for structure support as they presently exist and would require remedial grading.83 Shrinkage, bulking, and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of soil compaction achieved during construction. Variations in the in-situ density of existing soils and the degree to which fill soils are compacted would influence earth volume changes. A shrinkage factor of between 10 and 20 percent should be expected as soil is removed and replaced as compacted fill, and the subsidence factor is approximately 0.2 foot.84
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure overexcavation and establishment of a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil is prepared beneath any proposed structural footings/foundations. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, post-construction differential movements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the CBC and measures identified in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E), are within the tolerable limits of post-construction static and differential settlements of 0.75 inch and less than 0.25 inch, respectively.85
East End Annexation: The project site is located within Central Management Zone-1 (Areas of Subsidence Concern) of the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program: Management Zone 1 Subsidence Management Plan.86 However, no physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 21065, there would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments on the remaining acres of the East End Annexation in the future would be subjected to comply with CEQA with regards to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefication, or collapse. Pursuant to Objective SAF-1.1, Policies P2 and P3 of the City General Plan, the project must include adequate investigation of all geological hazards including subsidence. Pursuant to Standard Condition of Approval 3.6, all future developments within the East End Annexation area would be required to include site-specific geotechnical investigations to ensure appropriate design standards are implemented based on the type of development proposed on specific soils.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the analysis above, compliance with Objective SAF-1.1, Policies P2 and P3 of the City General Plan, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefication, or collapse would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 83 NorCal Engineering. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Warehouse Development, Chino California. Pages 8 and 9. October 14, 2019 (Appendix E). 84 Ibid. Page 10. 85 Ibid. Page 11. 86 Chino Basin Watermaster. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program: Management Zone 1 Subsidence Management Plan. Figure 2-2. October 2007.

Industrial Development Site: Expansive soils generally have a substantial amount of clay particles, which can give up water (shrink) or absorb water (swell). The change in the volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The amount and types of clay present in the soil influence the extent or range of the shrink/swell. The occurrence of clayey soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. Expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and they can occur along hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins.

Soils on site generally consist of silty sands with an expansion index of 3,87 which has a potential expansion classification of “Very Low” and considered to be non-expansive.88 Therefore, the Industrial Development Site is not located on expansive soil.

Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End Annexation in the future would be subjected to comply with CEQA with regards to expansive soil.

Significance Conclusion: The Industrial Development Site is not located on expansive soil that would create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation is not required.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact
Discussion of Effects:

Industrial Development Site: Development of the Industrial Development Site would connect to the municipal wastewater collection and conveyance facilities owned and operated by the City. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed to the regional sewer system, which is owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Authority. Therefore, septic tanks would not be necessary and are not proposed as part of the industrial development.

Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End 87 Ibid. Page 37 of PDF. 88 Ibid. Page 18.

Significance Conclusion: The proposed project would not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, so there would be no impact relative to septic system or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation is not required. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: According to the project-specific Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report (Appendix D), the Industrial Development Site is underlain by young alluvial-fan deposits (Qyf3) ranging in age from Holocene to late Pleistocene.89 Generally, Holocene sediments are too young to yield paleontological resources; however, these sediments are underlain by old alluvial sediments on the site, which are known to yield significant paleontological resources elsewhere in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties.

In accordance with State law, the industrial development would be required to comply with Penal Code Section 622 Destruction of Sites, which establishes as a misdemeanor the willful injury, disfiguration, defacement, or destruction of any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private or public lands. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307 states that no person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeological, or historical interest or value. Furthermore, California Code of Regulations Section 1427 recognizes that California’s archaeological resources need to be preserved and that every person, not the owner thereof, who willfully injures, disfigures, defaces, or destroys any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private lands or within any public park or place, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

No fossils were observed during the archaeological survey of the property. However, disturbance of subsurface sediments from past agricultural and residential activities on the Industrial Development Site does not preclude the potential for paleontological resources to be encountered if excavation activities reach Pleistocene-age sediments below the ground surface. The proposed industrial development must comply with all applicable regulations protecting paleontological resources and would be conditioned to cease excavation or construction activities if paleontological resources are identified during execution through Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to commencement of any grading activity on the Industrial Development Site, the applicant shall retain a paleontological monitor that would work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (defined as an individual with a B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated competence in paleontological research, fieldwork, 89 Duke CRM, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report. Page 2. September 22, 2021.

If during such ground disturbance activities, a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor shall temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts, and shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared the area.

In consultation with the qualified paleontologist, the monitor shall assess the nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant, it shall be mapped, documented, removed, and the area cleared to allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

If the discovery is found to be significant, the qualified paleontologist shall notify the applicant and City immediately. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which would likely include full-time monitoring, salvage excavation, scientific removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research to identify and categorize the find, curation of the find in a local qualified repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.

Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End Annexation in the future would be subjected to comply with CEQA and State law to protect paleontological resources.

Significance Conclusion: With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: For land use projects, this analysis incorporates to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions per year. Therefore, the industrial development would be considered to have a significant impact on the environment if it would generate 3,000 or more MT CO2e per year.

The industrial development would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during on-site construction activities (e.g., site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew). Additionally, long-term operation of the industrial development would generate GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Overall, the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions.

Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction activities associated with the Industrial Development Site would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Based on CalEEMod outputs, the Industrial Development Site would generate 346.0 MT CO2e per construction.

The SCAQMD does not provide a separate GHG significance threshold for construction emissions, rather their guidance specifies that construction emissions should be amortized over 30 years (a typical project lifetime), added to the project operational emissions, and that total compared to the GHG significance threshold. When amortized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 11.5 MT CO2e per year.

GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 3.8.A shows the estimated operational GHG emissions for the proposed project. Appendix A provides additional calculation details.

Table 3.8.A: Long Term Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
Operational Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percentage of
Total
Area Sources <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1
Energy Sources 379.0 <0.1 <0.1 381.0 41
Mobile Sources 323.0 <0.1 <0.1 333.0 36
Waste Sources 7.1 0.7 0.0 24.7 3
Water Sources 29.6 0.5 <0.1 45.1 5
Stationary Sources 142.0 <0.1 <0.1 142.0 15
Total Project Operational Emissions 925.8 100
Amortized Construction Emissions 11.5 -
Total Annual Emissions 937.3 -
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 - Exceed? No - Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2023). (Appendix A).

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT/yr = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As discussed above, a project would have less than significant GHG emissions if it would result in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Based on the analysis results, the Industrial Development Site would result in approximately 937.3 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, operation of the Industrial Development Site would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment.

There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed

Significance Conclusion: Development of the Industrial Development Site would result in an increase of 937.3 MT CO2e per year, which is less than the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects. Therefore, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The City of Chino 2020-2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted on November 17, 2020, to help the City meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels pursuant to Senate Bill 32.90 The CAP identifies two approaches to determine a project’s consistency with the CAP. One approach is through the use of GHG Screening Tables91 and the second approach is by demonstrating that the project would reduce GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below the business as usual (BAU) baseline for the project. This analysis uses the first approach by utilizing the CAP’s GHG Screening Tables. Projects that obtain at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the CAP Update. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Table 3.8.B. shows the Industrial Development Site’s consistency with the CAP’s Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial Development and Public Facilities (Appendix F).

Table 3.8.B: Project Consistency with City of Chino CAP Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial Development and Public Facilities Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project
Points
Reduction Measure Energy: Exceed Energy Efficiency Standards in New Commercial Units Building Envelope
Insulation 2019 Title 24 Requirements (walls R-16; roof/attic R-32) Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls R-15, roof/attic R-38) Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation R-13, roof/attic R38) Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam insulated walls R-18 or higher, roof/attic R-38 or higher)
0 points
9 points
11 points
12 points
9 90 City of Chino. Chino 2020-2030 Climate Action Plan. Page 3. Adopted November 17, 2020. 91 The Screening Tables are a menu of point derived options that provide predictable GHG reductions for new development to implement. If a project commits to enough options within the GHG Screening Tables to achieve 100 points, the proposed project has committed to reducing its fair-share contribution of GHG reductions and is considered consistent with the Chino 2020-2030 CAP.

0.22 SHGC)
0 points
4 points
5 points
4 Cool Roofs Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance,

0.75 thermal emittance)
Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar
reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance)
7 points
8 points 8
Air Infiltration Minimizing leaks in the building envelope is as important as the insulation properties of the building. Insulation does not work effectively if there is excess air leakage.

Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (QII or equivalent)
Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 7 points
6 points
0 Thermal Storage
of Building
Thermal storage is a design characteristic that helps keep a constant temperature in the building. Common thermal storage devices include strategically placed water filled columns, water storage tanks, and thick masonry walls.

Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood, or other insulating materials)
Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood, or other insulating materials)
Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood, or other insulating materials)
2 points
4 points
14 points
0 Indoor Space Efficiencies
Heating/Cooling
Distribution
System
Modest Duct insulation (R-6 required)
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8)
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct Leakage or equivalent)
0 points
5 points
6 points 5
Space
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
2019 Title 24 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (SEER 13/75% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF)
Improved Efficiency HVAC (SEER 14/78% AFUE or 8 HSPF)
High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 15/80% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF)
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/82% AFUE or 9 HSPF)
0 points
4 points
5 points
7 points
4 Commercial
Heat Recovery
Systems
Heat recovery strategies employed with commercial laundry, cooking equipment, and other commercial heat sources for reuse in HVAC air intake or other appropriate heat recovery technology. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data
documenting the energy savings.

TBD
0 Water Heaters 2019 Title 24 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor)
High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor)
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy Factor)
Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction)
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 0 points
8 points
10 points
11 points
2 points
5 points
10 IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 3-61 Daylighting Daylighting is the ability of each room within the building to provide outside light during the day reducing the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

All peripheral rooms within building have at least one window or skylight
All rooms within building have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.)
All rooms daylighted
0 points
1 point
1 point
1 Artificial Lighting Efficient Lights (25% of in-unit fixtures considered high efficiency. High efficiency is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures; 50 lumens/watt for 15-40 watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40 watt)
High Efficiency Lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficiency)
Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficiency)
5 points
7 points
8 points
9 Appliances Energy Star Commercial Refrigerator (new)
Energy Star Commercial Dishwasher (new)
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washer
2 points
2 points
2 points
0 Miscellaneous Commercial Building Efficiencies
Building
Placement
North/south alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings optimizes conditions for natural heating, cooling, and lighting.
4 points
4 Shading At least 90% of south-facing glazing will be shaded by vegetation or overhangs at noon on June 21st.
6 points 0
Other This allows innovation by the applicant to provide design features that increase the energy efficiency of the project not provided in the table. Note that engineering data will be required documenting the energy efficiency of innovative designs and point values given based upon the proven efficiency beyond Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards.

TBD 0
Existing
Commercial
Buildings
Retrofits
The applicant may wish to provide energy efficiency retrofit projects to existing commercial buildings to further the point value of their project. Retrofitting existing commercial buildings within the City is a key reduction measure that is needed to reach the reduction goal. The potential for an applicant to take advantage of this program will be decided on a case-by-case basis and shall have the approval from the City of Chino Planning Department. The decision to allow applicants to participate in this program will be evaluated based upon, but not limited to the following:

Will the energy efficiency retrofit project benefit low income or disadvantaged communities?
Does the energy efficiency retrofit project provide co-benefits important to the City?
Point value will be determined based upon engineering and design criteria of the energy efficiency retrofit project.

TBD 0
Reduction Measure Energy 3- All Electric Buildings
Commercial/Industrial Renewable Energy Generation
Photovoltaic Solar Photovoltaic panels installed on commercial buildings or in collective arrangements within a commercial development such that the total power provided augments:
30 percent of the power needs of the project
40 percent of the power needs of the project
50 percent of the power needs of the project
8 points
12 points
16 points
16 IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 3-62 60 percent of the power needs of the project
70 percent of the power needs of the project
80 percent of the power needs of the project
90 percent of the power needs of the project
100 percent of the power needs of the project
19 points
23 points
26 points
30 points
34 points
Wind Turbines Some areas of the City lend themselves to wind turbine applications. Analysis of the areas capability to support wind turbines should be evaluated prior to choosing this feature.

Wind turbines as part of the commercial development such that the total power provided augments:
30 percent of the power needs of the project
40 percent of the power needs of the project
50 percent of the power needs of the project
60 percent of the power needs of the project
70 percent of the power needs of the project
80 percent of the power needs of the project
90 percent of the power needs of the project
100 percent of the power needs of the project
8 points
12 points
16 points
19 points
23 points
26 points
30 points
34 points
0 Off-site
Renewable
Energy Project
The applicant may submit a proposal to supply an off-site renewable energy project such as renewable energy retrofits of existing residential or existing commercial/industrial. These offsite renewable energy retrofit project proposals will be determined on a case-by-case basis accompanied by a detailed plan documenting the quantity of renewable energy the
proposal will generate. Point values will be based upon the energy generated by the proposal.

TBD
0 Other
Renewable
Energy
Generation
The applicant may have innovative designs or unique site circumstances (such as geothermal) that allow the project to generate electricity from renewable energy not provided in the table. The ability to supply other renewable energy and the point values allowed would be decided based upon engineering data documenting the ability to generate electricity.

TBD
0 Reduction Measure Water 1-3: Exceed Water Efficiency Standards Commercial Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping
Only moderate water using plants
Only low water using plants
Only California Native landscape that requires no or only supplemental irrigation
0 points
2 points
3 points
5 points
3 Water Efficient
Irrigation
Systems
Low precipitation spray heads< .75”/hr or drip irrigation Weather based irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use)
1 point
3 points 3
Storm Water
Reuse Systems
Innovative on-site storm water collection, filtration, and reuse systems are being developed that provide supplemental
irrigation water and provide vector control. These systems can greatly reduce the irrigation needs of a project. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the water savings.

TBD
0 Commercial Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 2 points 0 Toilets Water Efficient Toilets/Urinals (1.5 gpm)
Waterless Urinals (note that commercial buildings having both waterless urinals and high efficiency toilets will have a combined point value of 6 points)
3 points
3 points 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm) 2 points 2

TBD
0 Reduction Measure OnRoad: Alternative Transportation Options Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Mixes of land uses that complement one another in a way that reduces the need for vehicle trips can greatly reduce GHG emissions. The point value of mixed-use projects will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

TBD
0 Local Retail Near
Residential
(Commercial
only Projects)
The point value of residential projects in close proximity to local retail will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

TBD
0 Preferential Parking
Parking Provide reserved preferential parking spaces for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero emission vehicles.

Provide larger parking spaces that can accommodate vans used for ride-sharing programs and reserve them for vanpools and include adequate passenger waiting/loading areas.
1 point
1 point 1
Signal Synchronization and Intelligent Traffic Systems
Signal
Improvements
Techniques for improving traffic flow include: traffic signal coordination to reduce delay, incident management to increase response time to breakdowns and collisions, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide real-time information regarding road conditions and directions, and speed
management to reduce high free-flow speeds.

Synchronize signals along arterials used by project.

Connect signals along arterials to existing ITS.
1 point/signal
3 points/signal
0 Increase Public Transit
Public Transit The point value of a project’s ability to increase public transit use will be determined based upon a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) demonstrating decreased use of private vehicles and increased use of public transportation.

Increased transit accessibility (1–15 points)
TBD
0 Reduction Measure: Adopt and Implement a Bicycle Master Plan to Expand Bike Routes around the City Sidewalks Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street (required) Provide pedestrian linkage between commercial and
residential land uses within 1 mile
1 point
3 points 4
Bicycle Paths Provide bicycle paths within project boundaries Provide bicycle path linkages between commercial and other land uses
Provide bicycle path linkages between commercial and transit 1 point
2 points
5 points
0 Reduction Measure: Reduce Waste to Landfills

The following recycling features will help the City fulfill this goal:

Provide separated recycling bins within each commercial building/floor and provide large external recycling collection bins at central location for collection truck pick-up
Provide commercial/industrial recycling programs that fulfills an on-site goal of 80% diversion of solid waste
Recycle construction waste
2 points
5 points
4 points
6 Other GHG Reduction Feature Implementation
Other GHG
Emissions
Reduction
Features
This allows innovation by the applicant to provide commercial design features that the GHG emissions from construction and/or operation of the project not provided in the table. Note that engineering data will be required documenting the GHG reduction amount and point values given based upon emission reductions calculations using approved models, methods, and protocols.

TBD
0 Total Points Earned by Commercial/Industrial Project 103 Source: Compiled by LSA through consultation with the Project Applicant (January 2023).

As shown in Table 3.8.B., the proposed industrial development would obtain at least 100 points and therefore would be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the CAP Update. Therefore, the industrial development would be consistent with the Chino 2020-2030 CAP and no additional analysis of the industrial development’s GHG emissions impacts is required.

Additionally, as detailed in Section 3.6 (Threshold b), compliance with the latest edition of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code for energy and water conservation is required for all development projects as a matter of City and State policy. Through implementation of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code, the industrial development would not conflict with site- and project-specific GHG reduction goals administered by the State and City.

Significance Conclusion: As detailed in the analysis and discussion above, the project is consistent with the Chino 2020-2030 CAP and the latest edition of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Construction of the industrial development has the potential to create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and other materials.

Additionally, demolition of existing residential structure would involve disposal of lead-based materials (LBM) and asbestos-containing materials (ACM), as indicated in Appendix G, which must be disposed of in accordance with the federal, State, and local (San Bernardino County Department of Public Health and SCAQMD) regulations.

The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be regulated by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the Chino Valley Independent Fire District, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Additionally, the United States Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by truck and rail on State highways and rail lines, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR.

The Industrial Development Site contains a subsurface septic system located east of the residential structure and would be encountered during rough grading and other ground-disturbing activities. The discovery of septic tanks or similar sewage disposal facilities and subsequent abandonment requires a permit from the San Bernardino County Building and Safety Division pursuant to California Plumbing Code Section 722, which stipulates specific conditions for the safe removal of remnant sewage and componentry, backfilling, and inspection from the San Bernardino County Building & Safety Division.

Through compliance with California Plumbing Code Section 722, which is required for all development projects that encounter septic systems to be abandoned and removed as a matter of regulatory policy, removal of septic systems would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

One residential structure (12040 East End Avenue; APN 1013-521-04) proposed for demolition was constructed prior to 1978.92 Structures constructed prior to 1978 may contain LBM as well as ACM incorporated into various construction components including paint, roof tiles, and thermal insulation.

The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requires that all workers be properly protected when working with materials containing lead levels at or above 0.6 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 600 parts per million (ppm) in accordance with Title 8, CCR Section 1532.1 (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Cal/OSHA] Construction Safety Orders, Lead). The Federal Environmental Protection Agency defines ACM as a material containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined by polarized light microscopy, while Title 8, CCR Section 1529 (Asbestos) defines asbestos-containing materials as any manufactured construction material that contains more than one-tenth of 1 percent asbestos by weight. The SCAQMD and San Bernardino County Department of Public Works-Solid Waste Management Division require Asbestos Notification for proposed abatement activities and disposal tickets from an SCAQMD-approved disposal facility prior to demolition.

According to the project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix G), the existing structure that predates restrictions on using LBM and ACM may contain LBM and ACM at levels that may require abatement.93 Therefore, Cal/OSHA and the San Bernardino County 92 Odic Environmental. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Page 2. November 5, 2018 (Appendix G). 93 Ibid. Page 17.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 An asbestos-containing materials (ACM) survey and lead-based materials (LBM) survey shall be completed for demolition of all structures constructed prior to 1978. A qualified California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Certified Site Surveillance Technician shall conduct the ACM survey. A qualified California Department of Public Health Lead Inspector Assessor shall conduct the LBM survey. If the ACM survey reveals no detectable asbestos levels pursuant to Title 8, CCR Section 1529, no further ACM survey or remedial work is required. If the LBM survey reveals no detectable lead levels pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 29, Section 1926.62 and Title 8, California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, no further LBM survey or remedial work is required. However, if a detectable level of asbestos is identified within structures proposed for demolition, Mitigation Measure HAZ2 shall apply. Furthermore, if a detectable level of lead is identified within structures proposed for demolition, Mitigation Measure HAZ3 shall apply. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Development Services Director or designee, and/or Building Division, or designee.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Prior to the demolition of any structure identified to contain ACM, the project applicant shall retain a Certified Asbestos Consultant to abate ACM from the demolition site. An Asbestos Notification shall be prepared and submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for approval before any asbestos abatement may commence. The Certified Asbestos Consultant shall provide a construction and demolition plan with disposal tickets from a San Bernardino County Department of Public Works-Solid Waste Management Division-approved disposal facility and SCAQMD air clearances prior to final inspection, and an asbestos report shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Development Services Director or designee, and/or Building Division, or designee.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 Prior to the demolition of any structure identified to contain LBM, the project applicant shall retain a California Department of Public Health Lead Inspector Assessor to abate LBM from the demolition site. The Lead Inspector Assessor shall provide a construction and demolition plan with disposal tickets from a San Bernardino County Department of Public Works-Solid Waste Management Division-approved disposal facility and South Coast Air Quality Management District air

Operation. Similar to construction of the industrial development, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during warehouse operation would be regulated by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the Chino Valley Independent Fire District, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Additionally, transport of hazardous materials by truck and rail on State highways and rail lines would be regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety as described above.

These regulations inherently safeguard life and property from the hazards of fire/explosion arising from the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances, materials, and devices, as well as hazardous conditions due to the use or occupancy of buildings.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End Annexation in the future would be subjected to comply with CEQA and applicable local, State, and Federal regulations for the treatment and disposal of hazardous materials.

Significance Conclusion: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 require the project to comply with applicable regulations for the treatment and disposal of hazardous materials to ensure impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: A project-specific Phase I ESA was prepared in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard E1527-13 for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental conditions (REC), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC), and historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC) on the Industrial Development Site (Appendix G).

An REC means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a

The Phase I ESA includes federal, State, and local records reviews, interviews with persons occupying [and adjacent to] the Industrial Development Site, and an on-site inspection of the Industrial Development Site. According to the Phase I ESA, no RECs, CRECs, or HRECs occur on the Industrial Development Site, nor do any such environmental conditions within one mile of the site pose a substantial environmental hazard to the Industrial Development Site or its occupants.94 As stated in Section 3.9 Threshold a above, the residential structure on the Industrial Development Site was constructed prior to 1978 and therefore may have LBM and ACM incorporated into various construction components including paint, roof tiles, and thermal insulation. Therefore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 are prescribed to ensure pre-demolition surveys of the structures at the site for ACM and LBM and suitably licensed and experienced contractors shall abate confirmed ACM and LBM prior to structure demolition in accordance with applicable regulatory standards.

A Vapor Intrusion Condition (VIC) can occur if volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present in the vadose zone or in groundwater beneath a property at concentrations such that vapor could intrude into, and accumulate in, an overlying structure at concentrations hazardous to human health. A Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) can occur if VOCs from an off-site source migrate beneath a property.

The Phase I ESA did not evaluate the potential presence of VICs and/or VECs; however, the Phase 1 ESA “did not identify any indication that a significant release of chemicals of concern (COCs) that has occurred from historical/current use of the Property or nearby sites”.95 Based on the absence of documentation indicating solvent use at or around the Industrial Development Site, a VIC and/or a VEC at the site appears unlikely.

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25507, a business shall establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture 94 Odic Environmental. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Page 2 and 37. November 5, 2018 (Appendix G). 95 Ibid. Page 33.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre industrial development site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Further CEQA action on site-specific physical developments in the remaining acres of the East End Annexation in the future would be subjected to comply with CEQA and local, State, and Federal regulations to ensure the impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are less than significant.

Significance Conclusion: Health and Safety Code Section 25507 and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 require the project to comply with applicable regulations for the treatment and disposal of hazardous materials to ensure impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: There are no existing schools within a 0.25-mile radius of the Industrial Development Site and there is no evidence to suggest any schools are proposed within 0.25 mile of the site.96, 97According to the School Boundary Maps of the Chino Valley Unified School District, the nearest school in proximity to the Industrial Development Site is Lyle S. Briggs Fundamental School at 11880 Roswell Avenue, approximately 0.32 mile northeast of the Industrial Development Site.98 Furthermore, any transport of hazardous materials associated with construction of the proposed industrial development would be in accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), which regulates the transport of hazardous materials and waste and requires carriers to register with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Only Cal/OSHA licensed Hazardous Materials Substances Removal contractors, and/or California State Registered Asbestos Abatement Contractors registered by the Division of Occupational Health and Safety in accordance with the California Administrative Code, Title 8, and article 2.5 and the SCAQMD Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 40, Part 763, subpart E would transport hazardous materials off site, as detailed in Section 3.9 Threshold A. 96 Pomona Unified School District. My School Locator. https://locator.decisioninsite.com/?StudyID=136503 (accessed July 5, 2022). 97 Chino Valley Unified School District. Boundaries/Maps. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/domain/5297 (accessed July 5, 2022). 98
Ibid.

Significance Conclusion: Since no schools are located or proposed within 0.25 mile of the Industrial Development Site, and any transport of hazardous materials associated with construction of the proposed project would be in accordance with applicable regulatory policy, impacts related to an accidental release of hazardous materials or emissions of hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 are listed on the “Cortese List” (named after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it), which is maintained by the California DTSC. The Industrial Development Site is not on any list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.99
East End Annexation: No property within the East End Annexation area is on any list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.100 In addition, no physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre industrial development site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. 99 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=7&cmd=search&business_name=&main_street_name= &city=&zip=&county=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&npl=&funding=&reportti tle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&reporttype=CORTESE&federal_superfund =&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective _action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical _pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&ocieerp=&hwmp=False&permi tted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&school_district=&or derby=county (accessed July 5, 2022). 100 Ibid.

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is located approximately 7.3 miles northwest of the Ontario International Airport (ONT) within the ONT Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONTLUCP).101 The Industrial Development Site is not within an ONTLUCP Safety Zone or Noise Impact Zone.102 Although the Industrial Development Site is located within the ONTLUCP Overflight Notification Zone for Real Estate Transaction Disclosures and within the ONT Airspace Protection Zone for structural heights greater than 200 feet above grade,103 recording of an overflight notification is not required for nonresidential development unless the project is a mixed-use development containing residential uses on the same property pursuant to Overflight Policy O1d (Nonresidential Exception).104 Also, the height of the proposed warehouse buildings would not exceed 35 feet. Therefore, the industrial development would not conflict with ONT operations, and notification is not required.

Additionally, the Industrial Development Site is located approximately 6 miles northwest of the Chino Airport, a general aviation airport owned and operated by the San Bernardino County Department of Airports. According to the Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan,105 the Industrial Development Site is located outside the Chino Airport Influence Area.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre industrial development site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed with industrial uses. There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Similar to the Industrial Development Site, the East End Annexation area is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONTLUCP)106, and is within the ONTLUCP Overflight Notification Zone for Real Estate Transaction Disclosures and within the ONT Airspace Protection Zone for 101 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Chapter 2: Procedural and Compatibility Policies. Map 2-1:

Airport Influence Area. April 19, 2011. 102 Ibid. Map 2-2: Safety Zones, and Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones. 103 Ibid. Map 2-4: Airspace Protection Zones, and Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones. 104 Ibid. Page 2-31. 105 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. Compatibility Map, Chino Airport. Map CH-1.

Adopted September 2008. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/ 13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf (accessed July 5, 2022). 106 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Chapter 2: Procedural and Compatibility Policies. Map 2-1:

Airport Influence Area. April 19, 2011.

Significance Conclusion: Impacts related to airport hazards for people working on the project site would be reduced to less than significant impact. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site:

Construction. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Typical City requirements include prior notification of any lane or road closures with sufficient signage before and during any closures, flag crews with radio communication when necessary to coordinate traffic flow, etc. The warehouse developer would be required to comply with these requirements, which would maintain emergency access and allow for evacuation if needed during construction activities.

Operation. Access to and from the Industrial Development Site is available via Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. Implementation of the proposed industrial development would increase the number of trucks operating near the site and would generate an increase in the amount and volume of traffic on local and regional roadway networks. In accordance with the California Fire Code, the project applicant is required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to maintain appropriate emergency/evacuation access to and from the Industrial Development Site as codified in Chapter 15.32 (Fire Code) and Chapter 19.06.040 (Street design and improvements) of the City Municipal Code.

Entrances and exits to and from parking and loading facilities would be marked with appropriate directional signage. All site access points and driveway aprons are designed and would be constructed to adequate widths for public safety pursuant to City Municipal Code Chapter 19.06.040. Off site, the industrial development would dedicate 19 feet of right-of-way along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue frontages and construct these roadways to the ultimate half-width per the General Plan standard for a Secondary Arterial Street. Additional off-site improvements would include installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, streetlights, and trees along the Industrial Development Site frontage of Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. (Figure 6 details the infrastructure and off-site improvements). 107 Ibid. Map 2-4: Airspace Protection Zones, and Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones.

Significance Conclusion: Compliance with applicable construction activity requirements would ensure that short-term impacts related to emergency access and evacuation would be less than significant.

Mitigation is not required.

Proper site design and compliance with standard and emergency City access requirements would allow for evacuation if necessary during ongoing warehouse operations. Therefore, long-term impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in the Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).108 Although the City is not located in a fire hazard zone, the Industrial Development Site and vicinity are located in areas identified by the City to be areas at moderate risk of a wildfire event.109 San Bernardino County and Chino are subject to seasonal wind events including times during the fall when Santa Ana Wind conditions are prevalent.

Santa Ana Wind conditions in the area of the Industrial Development Site typically blow from a northeast to southwest direction (an offshore flow). Wildfires have been recorded to occur in such Santa Ana Wind events sometimes leading to uncontrolled spread of wildfires. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the San Bernardino County Fire Department have taken these conditions and the locations of Fire Hazard Severity Zones into consideration when determining potential impacts associated with wildfire spread within the City of Chino and surrounding cities. If such a conflagration110 driven by winds were to get out of control, the City’s CVIFPD and San Bernardino County Fire Department have procedures in place to respond to such an emergency and evacuate residents and employees as needed.111 Additionally, the industrial development would be required to comply with the City’s Weed Abatement Program to reduce fire risk. 112 108 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed April 14, 2022). 109 City of Chino, Chino General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Figure 4.7-1. January 2010 110 Conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a great deal of land or property. 111 Chino Valley Fire District. 2018 Master Plan Update. Page 20. July 19, 2018. 112 City of Chino, Chino General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Page 4.7-5. January 2010.

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is not within a VHFHSZ in the LRA.113 However, the East End Annexation area is located in an area identified by the City to be at moderate risk of a wildfire event.114
No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59- acre industrial development site, and the balance of the annexation area is relatively flat and already developed with industrial uses. There would be no potential for physical environmental effects or reasonable indirect environmental effects to the remaining 53.28 acres of surrounding properties under the proposed annexation action. Future development within the annexation area would be required to comply with local regulations, including the City’s Weed Abatement Program, to deter the risk of wildfires and would be subject to CEQA review when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: In consideration of the Industrial Development Site’s location in a developed area of the City and compliance with wildland fire safety policies, including the City’s Weed Abatement Program, it is not expected that the project would expose people or structures to significant loss or injury from wildland fires. Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation is not required. 113 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed April 14, 2022). 114 City of Chino, Chino General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Figure 4.7-1. January 2010.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede substantial groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on or off site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. For the City of Chino, including the Industrial Development Site, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is responsible for implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan.

Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established through the Federal Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to

The City adopted Chapter 13.25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) of the Municipal Code requiring preparation and adoption of a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

The WQMP identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure that water quality of receiving waters is not degraded due to project implementation. Projects in the City of Chino are required to prepare and submit to the City for review a Preliminary WQMP for land use permit approvals. A Final WQMP must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading/building permits.

Under existing conditions, the majority of the Industrial Development Site consists of pervious surface area. Storm water generally sheet flows in a southerly direction and drains off site onto Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue where it flows either west along Philadelphia Street into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel or south along East End Avenue prior to entering the Municipal storm drain system along East End Avenue north of SR-60.115 Development of the Industrial Development Site is expected to increase the amount of impervious surface area substantially due to the three proposed warehouse buildings, surface parking lot, and drive aisles. However, the proposed industrial development is expected to generally maintain the existing drainage pattern. Upon development of the site, all runoff would be captured on-site in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0033, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS618033, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 permit.

Impervious surfaces would drain to adjacent landscaping, where feasible, for impervious area dispersion, while the majority of runoff from the site would be infiltrated via two underground detention systems located beneath the on-site drive aisles in the western portion of the site. Any overflow from the underground detention systems would be routed to the existing 33-inch storm drainpipe at Philadelphia Street prior to draining into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel at volumes that do not exceed the existing, pre-developed condition.116 Runoff from the Industrial Development Site drains from Philadelphia Street west into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel or from East End Avenue south into the Municipal storm drain system along East End Avenue north of SR-60. From there, runoff drains to the San Antonio Creek Channel, which drains to Chino Creek Reaches 2, 1A and 1B, then to Santa Ana River Reach 3. To address potential water contaminants, the industrial development is required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local water quality regulations. As mentioned above, all development projects that would disturb more than one acre of land in the City are required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce water pollution impacts from construction and operation of the 115 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Philadelphia and East End Industrial, HZ Project Number R310158.01. Ontario, California. February 24, 2021. (Appendix H1). 116 Ibid. Page 3-1.

The industrial development would include two Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A and B) to manage storm water runoff. DMA A would manage runoff from 2.45 acres of the Industrial Development Site, and DMA B would manage runoff from 1.5 acres of the site,117 and direct flows into two proposed subterranean infiltration systems west of the proposed warehouse buildings prior to discharge into a 33-inch storm drain at Philadelphia Street that connects to the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel.

According to the project-specific WQMP (Appendix H1), the proposed infiltration chamber BMP must be sized with a design capture volume (DCV) of at least 14,273 cubic feet of runoff in order to adequately manage the 2.45 acres of DMA A and 1.5 acres of DMA B pursuant to the NPDES MS4 Permit.118 In order to treat identified pollutants of concern,119 the proposed infiltration chamber BMP would be designed and constructed to capture approximately 14,403 cubic feet of runoff and include gravity separators to remove pollutants greater or equal to 2.4 millimeters (mm) in size, oil, grease, and other deleterious material prior to entering the infiltration chamber systems in order to maintain effective infiltration rates.120 With adequate DCV and pretreatment, the infiltration chambers BMP would treat “first-flush” runoff121 from the Industrial Development Site and ensure post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration would not exceed pre-development conditions by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow pursuant to the NPDES MS4 Permit.

Standard Conditions: The following Standard Conditions (compliance with Chapter 13.25 [Stormwater Drainage System Regulations] and City MS4 Permit) are regulatory requirements implemented as a routine action by the City to ensure compliance with SARWQCB water quality standards. 117 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Philadelphia and East End Industrial, HZ Project Number R310158.01. Ontario, California. February 24, 2021. (Appendix H1). Page 4-14. 118 Pursuant to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0033, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS618033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the hydrologic performance standard for the proposed bioretention basin is a flow duration curve of the post-development DMA not to exceed that of the pre-development, naturally occurring, DMA by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow. 119 The project-specific priority pollutants of concern are copper, lead, indicator bacteria, COD, and pH pursuant to Section

3.3(d) of the Clean Water Act and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Refer to Appendix H1 for additional information. 120 Ibid. Page VII-33. 121 “First-flush” runoff is the initial surface runoff of storm water along impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, and is typically more concentrated with pollutants compared to the remainder of a storm event.

The Final SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. Requirements include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/ waste management, management of non-storm water discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/ repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management HandbookConstruction. The Final SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations and, as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters.

A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.

Standard Condition HYD-2 The project applicant shall comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Storm Water permit requirements, including the Chapter 13.25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) of the Chino Municipal Code. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Final Water Quality Management Plan (FWQMP) for the project. The FWQMP shall include submission to the State Water

An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed
impervious areas.

Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited to using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to the storm water detention/retention chamber system that would be developed on site as part of the project design.

Measures to address potential storm water contaminants. These may include measures to cover or control potential sources of storm water pollutants at the project site.

A Final Storm Water Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan for the project site, which shall include periodic inspection and maintenance of the storm water drainage system. Persons responsible for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall be identified. This plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits for the project.

Implementation of Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2 would occur pursuant to Chapter 13.25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) and the City’s MS4 Permit to ensure development of the Industrial Development Site does not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water capacity.

Significance Conclusion: Through compliance with Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts to water quality standards and discharge requirements would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

Industrial Development Site: The Monte Vista Water District (MVWD)122 would supply water to the Industrial Development Site via groundwater supplies from the Chino Basin. To supplement its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin, the District is constructing a treatment facility and planning to construct an additional treatment facility by 2024 to remove pollutant contamination within basin wells.123 The MVWD also purchases treated imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), which provides State Water Project (SWP) water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Additionally, the MVWD receives entitlement water from the San Antonio Water Company(SAWCo) and includes groundwater from local adjudicated groundwater basins and surface water within the San Antonio Creek Watershed.124 Finally, the MVWD purchases recycled water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) to supplement its groundwater supply.125 On March 28, 2022, the California Governor issued Executive Order N-7-22, which encourages all Californians and water agencies to restrict water usage, recommends urban water suppliers such as the MVWD to implement stage 2 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, restricts new and expansion of existing groundwater wells, and promotes projects that facilitate groundwater recharge.126 MVWD customers currently are not subject to these restrictions, but are required to comply with restricted uses of drinking water pursuant to District Ordinance 33, which include the following:127 All ratepayers limit outdoor watering to only Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.

All ratepayers repair all leaks within 7 days of discovery.

No excess runoff from outdoor watering.

No hosing down driveways, sidewalks, buildings, or parking lots.

No washing vehicles without a shut-off nozzle.

No using water in fountains or other water features without recirculation. 122 Monte Vista Water District. Service Area Map. https://www.mvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/985/Map-of-MVWDService-Area (accessed April 18, 2022). 123 Monte Vista Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 6-32. chrome-extension://efaidn bmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.mvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/350/2020-Urban-Water-ManagementPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed July 10, 2022). 124 Ibid. Pages 3-2 through 3-3. 125 Ibid. Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4;Page 6-32. 126 State of California, Executive Department. Executive Order N-7-22. March 28, 2022. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/March-2022-Drought-EO.pdf (accessed July 1, 2022). 127 Monte Vista Water District. Water Supply Shortage Declaration. https://www.mvwd.org/374/Water-Supply-ShortageDeclaration (accessed July 1, 2022).

According to the MVWD Urban Water Management Plant (UWMP), the MVWD anticipates to have sufficient water supplies to meet demand through the year 2045 under normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year conditions.128 Additionally, MVWD customer compliance with District Ordinance 33 would further reduce water demands within the Water District. The MVWD models each scenario based on the land use and zoning designations of each local jurisdiction it serves. The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) but is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan.129 According to SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment are forecast to increase by approximately 34,400 residents, 9,900 households, and 7,400 jobs, between 2016 and 2045 and would total approximately 121,300 residents, 33,100 households, and 57,400 jobs by 2045.130 However, the City estimated approximately 141,067 residents, 38,814 households, and 83,255 jobs in the City and its Sphere of Influence by 2025,131 which clearly exceed the estimates generated by SCAG for the same time period and through 2045. Since the City’s General Plan incorporates existing and anticipated development in the Sphere of Influence when projecting future population, housing, and jobs in the City, the proposed Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area are already accounted for in the water (groundwater) supply and demand scenarios determined by MVWD.

The Industrial Development Site is underlain by the Chino Groundwater Basin. Recharge within the basin occurs through infiltration of flow from unlined stream channels, and underflow from saturated alluvium and fractures in surrounding mountain bedrock and hills. Pursuant to City General Plan Policies P1 through P3 under Objective PFS-8.1, the proposed industrial development would be required to minimize contaminants to ground and surface waters.132 The City also adheres to guidance provided by the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) to enhance its management of the Chino Basin and ensure the protection of water quality and safe yield of the basin.133 Although development of the industrial development would substantially increase the impervious surface area of the site, the proposed development would be subject to Standard Condition HYD-2, which requires development and implementation of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (FWQMP) to identify BMPs to retain the site’s minimum design capture volume and hydromodification volume. Storm water shall be captured on the site such that post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration would not exceed pre-development storm water 128 Ibid. Page 7-8. 129 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino. org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 130 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed January 2023). 131 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Project Description. Table 3-1 Estimated Development Under the General Plan and Focused Growth Plan. Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 132 City of Chino. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Pages 4.8-19 through 20 January 25, 2010. 133 Ibid. Page 4.18-20.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, except for on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site. Future development of any property within the 53.28-acre annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies and develop and implement a FWQMP pursuant to City Municipal Code Chapter 13.25 when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties. As stated above, the City’s General Plan incorporates existing and anticipated development in the Sphere of Influence when projecting future population, housing, and jobs in the City. Therefore, the proposed Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area are already accounted for in the water (groundwater) supply and demand scenarios determined by MVWD.

Significance Conclusion: Through compliance with applicable General Plan policies and Standard Condition HYD-2, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that it impedes sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Currently, storm water generally sheet flows in a southerly direction and drains off site onto Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue where it flows either west along Philadelphia Street into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel or south along East End Avenue prior to entering the Municipal storm drain system along East End Avenue north of SR-60.134 The proposed industrial development is expected to generally maintain the existing drainage pattern. Upon 134 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Philadelphia and East End Industrial, HZ Project Number R310158.01. Ontario, California. February 24, 2021. (Appendix H1).

IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 3-84 development of the site, all on-site storm water would be captured on site in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS618036, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 permit. The runoff would be infiltrated via two subterranean chamber systems located west of the proposed warehouse buildings prior to discharge into the existing 33-inch storm drain at Philadelphia Street at volumes that do not exceed the existing, pre-developed condition. i. The majority of the Industrial Development Site consists of pervious surface area. Construction activities for the proposed industrial development would remove the remaining structure and onsite vegetation, consisting primarily of ruderal grasses and trees. These activities would expose surface soils to the potential for wind and water erosion. Pursuant to Standard Condition HYD-1, the project applicant would submit the SWPPP to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) and demonstrate to the City that a Waste Discharge Identification Number is obtained for the proposed project from the SMARTS to ensure the SWPPP includes a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the entire demolition, grading, and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and nonstructural BMPs to control sediment and non-visible discharges from the site. The SWPPP would include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the site during construction phases to ensure NPDES compliance and that additional BMPs and erosion control measures would be documented in the SWPPP and utilized if necessary. Upon completion of construction and during operation, the Industrial Development Site would be paved and vegetated, which would prevent erosion and siltation of sediments.
ii. On-site conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces could increase storm water runoff rates and/or volume. NPDES regulations require development projects to retain storm water runoff on site at levels that generally do not exceed the existing condition. Pursuant to Standard Condition HYD-2, the project applicant shall prepare a Final WQMP that details incorporation of self-treating or self-retaining areas such as landscaped areas of permeable surfaces to the greatest extent practicable and streets/sidewalks/parking lots designed to minimum permitted widths to increase permeable areas. The Final WQMP shall verify the site’s minimum DCV of runoff and specify appropriate LID BMPs to ensure post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the NPDES MS4 Permit.

Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs during occupancy of the industrial development and operation would be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Final WQMP.

The project-specific SWPPP and WQMP would be reviewed and approved as routine actions during the processing of the proposed industrial development by the City; therefore, the required measures and features detailed in the SWPPP and WQMP to maintain drainage patterns and control the rate and volume of runoff would be incorporated into the proposed industrial development.
iii. The Clean Water Act (CWA) delegates authority to the states to issue NPDES permits for discharges of storm water from construction, industrial, and municipal entities to Waters of the United States. The purpose of the MS4 permit is to meet the State Water Resources Control

The Industrial Development Site is over one acre in size and is required to have coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities SWPPP. Pursuant to Standard Condition HYD-1, an SWPPP would be prepared and detail BMPs to be implemented during construction to reduce/eliminate adverse water quality impacts resulting from development. All impacts related to runoff during demolition, site preparation, and construction would be addressed through implementation of the SWPPP.

Pursuant to Standard Condition HYD-2, the applicant shall prepare a WQMP to address Section 303(d) listed pollutants and retain the Industrial Development Site’s minimum DCV. Through implementation of Standard Condition HYD-2, BMPs shall be designed and implemented to ensure post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the NPDES MS4 Permit. Additional design features, such as roof downspouts draining into pervious, landscaped areas, and maintenance of existing surface flows across the Industrial Development Site into two subterranean infiltration chamber systems, would further maintain the site’s existing drainage pattern and prevent additional sources of polluted runoff.

Periodic maintenance of the infiltration chamber system and landscaped areas during occupancy of the industrial development and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Final WQMP.

Off-site improvements to infrastructure in the immediate area include curb, gutter, and storm drain swales along the west side of East End Avenue and the north side of Philadelphia Street.

Curb, gutter, and drainage swales also would be installed along the site’s western frontage in coordination with the adjacent property owner. East End Avenue would be repaved with asphalt concrete to a half-width of 52 feet along the site’s frontage.

An Offsite Drainage Study135 was prepared for the project to determine the capacity of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street to carry stormwater per City of Chino standards and specifications, analyze the runoff from upstream properties and determine its effects on the Industrial Development Site, and to identify if runoff conditions upon implementation of the project would warrant updates to the Master Plan of Drainage for the area (refer to Appendix H3).

The drainage study area under evaluation consisted of approximately 56 acres primarily along East End Avenue from the Industrial Development Site north to Phillips Boulevard, as well as a portion of residential area adjacent to East End Avenue comprised of Sullivan Ranch. The Offsite Drainage Study determined runoff from upstream properties sheet flows either directly into the San Antonio Creek Channel or onto East End Avenue.136
135 Huitt-Zollars. PL20-0004 – Preliminary Offsite Drainage Study. January 2, 2023. (Appendix H3). 136 Ibid. Page 3.

However, the ponding would not adversely affect East End Avenue or the Industrial Development Site because the crown of Philadelphia Street is less than one foot above the grate elevation.139 New curb and gutter is proposed along the Industrial Development Site frontage of East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street to protect the site from runoff, and the depth of flow in East End Avenue is expected to be below the top of curb during a 100-year frequency storm event.140 Furthermore, there is no runoff tributary to Philadelphia Street along the project frontage, as a high point on Philadelphia Street midway between East End Avenue and the San Antonio Creek Channel would result in minimal runoff in the proposed gutter along the Industrial Development Site’s frontage with Philadelphia Street. Through project design, overflow from the underground detention systems proposed on the Industrial Development Site would be routed to the existing 33-inch storm drainpipe at Philadelphia Street prior to draining into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel, so the Industrial Development Site would no longer contribute runoff to the Philadelphia Street/East End Avenue intersection. Through implementation of Standard Condition HYD-2, post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration would not exceed pre-development storm water runoff by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the NPDES MS4 Permit, and runoff in excess of the existing 33-inch storm drainpipe capacity would pond at the northeast corner of the intersection and sheet flow across the crown of Philadelphia Street and continue south on East End Avenue, which has adequate capacity for conveyance. Therefore, a Master Plan of Drainage update is not required, and storm drain infrastructure necessary to ensure adequate storm water drainage capacity would be limited to the Industrial Development Site and its frontage along East End Avenue and Philadelphia Street.

All storm drain infrastructure would be constructed to specifications detailed in Chapter 19.07 (Subdivision, Improvements, Dedications, and In-Lieu Fees), Chapter 13.20 (Wastewater Discharge Regulations), Chapter 13.24 (Storm Drains), and Chapter 13.25 (Stormwater Drainage System Regulations) of the City Municipal Code. The City Public Works Department would review 137 Ibid. Page 2. 138 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Philadelphia and East End Industrial, HZ Project Number R310158.01. Ontario, California. February 24, 2021. (Appendix H1). Page 3-1. 139 Huitt-Zollars. PL20-0004 – Preliminary Offsite Drainage Study. January 2, 2023. (Appendix H3). Page 3. 140 Ibid.

BMPs to mitigate the pollutants of concern would treat the flow prior to discharge to the Municipal storm drain system. The storm water from Industrial Development Site would be conveyed to two on-site infiltration chamber systems west of the proposed warehouse buildings in accordance with Standard Condition HYD-2. Any sources of storm water pollution would be addressed through adherence to NPDES permit requirements. Compliance with Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2 would ensure polluted runoff during demolition, site preparation, and construction would be addressed by the SWPPP, and post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration would not exceed pre-development conditions by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow.
iv. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Nos. 06071C8615H the Industrial Development Site is located in Zone X (Other Areas), which is defined as an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain.141 Currently, storm water generally sheet flows in a southerly direction and drains off site onto Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue where it flows either west along Philadelphia Street into the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel or south along East End Avenue prior to entering the Municipal storm drain system along East End Avenue north of SR-60. Upon development of the industrial development, on-site storm water would flow toward the subterranean infiltration systems west of the proposed warehouse buildings. The site’s DCV would be captured so that storm water runoff volume and time of concentration would not exceed pre-development conditions by more than 5 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the NPDES MS4 Permit prior to discharge into the existing 33-inch storm drain at Philadelphia Street (refer to the discussion in Section 3.10(c)(iii) above).

East End Annexation (i-iv): Portions of the annexation area along the concrete San Antonio Creek Channel are designated Zone A (special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood), which is identified by FEMA as having a 1 percent annual chance flood discharge contained in channel.142 Although no physical development is proposed on any property within the 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, except for on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, future development of any property within the 53.28-acre annexation area identified by FEMA to be within a flood zone must occur in accordance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Section 60.3 as a matter of regulatory policy. For example, compliance with NFIP Section 60.3(d) requires a developer to obtain a FEMA permit for a Floodway Encroachment for construction in flood zones indicating the lowest floor (including basement) must be built above a base flood elevation (BFE).143 Furthermore, the Cobey-Alquist Flood Management Act (Sections 8000–9651 of the California Water Code) states that a large portion of land resources of the State of California is subject to recurrent flooding. The public interest necessitates sound development of land use, as land is a 141 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Nos. 06071C8615H. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/ search?AddressQuery=highland%2C%20california?AddressQuery=highland%2C%20california#searchresultsanchor (accessed July 11, 2022). 142 Ibid. 143 The Base Flood Elevation in a Special Flood Hazard Area is the water-surface elevation of the 1 percent annual chance flood.

These aforementioned federal and State regulations serve to reduce the risk to life and damage to property from development within flood-prone areas. Compliance with the NFIP Reform Act, NFIP Section 60.3, and California Civil Code Section 1103 are regulatory requirements implemented as a routine action by the City in accordance with Sections 8000–9651 of the California Water Code in order to address the potential for future development or redevelopment within the East End Annexation area to impede or redirect flood flows and ensure floodplain management pursuant to federal and State law. Additionally, future development or redevelopment within the East End Annexation area would be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 Permit as applicable, up to and including preparation of site-specific SWPPPs and WQMPs when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: Compliance with construction- and operation-phase storm water requirements, as set forth in Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2, would ensure post-development storm water runoff volume would not exceed the existing, pre-developed condition. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.

Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Industrial Development Site is not located in flood hazard or inundation zones,144 and the site is not located near bodies of water or enclosed water storage features that could result in tsunamis or seiches. 144 City of Chino. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4-4: Flood Hazard Map and Figure 4-6: Prado Dam Inundation Map.

Approved and Adopted May 15, 2018.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the discussion and analysis above, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: Please refer to the discussion presented in Sections 3.10, Thresholds a and b. Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2 would ensure development of the Industrial Development Site would not substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, inhibit groundwater recharge potential, or substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, the industrial development would not conflict with any applicable water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the 53.28-acre East End Annexation area, except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site. Future development of any property within the 53.28-acre annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to demonstrate consistency with applicable water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: Through implementation of Standard Conditions HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation is not required. 145 Ibid.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a. Physically divide an established community?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is situated adjacent to East End Avenue to the east, Philadelphia Street to the south, industrial development to the north, and a single-family residence to the west. Under existing conditions, East End Avenue already creates a physical barrier between the residential uses to the east and the single-family residence to the west of the Industrial Development Site (Figure 2).

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is already developed with industrial uses and contains one residential property (APN 1013-521-05). The outlier residential property would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to conform to the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property and overall East End Annexation area. Additionally, the majority of parcels composing the East End Annexation area are bounded by East End Avenue to the east, which already creates a physical barrier between the East End Annexation area and residential uses to the east.

Significance Conclusion: The majority of parcels composing the 56.87-acre East End Annexation area, which includes the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, are separated from residential uses to the east by East End Avenue. Therefore, no impact would occur to an established community in the project site vicinity from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation is not required. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) but is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan. Accordingly, the development of the Industrial Development Site would include a zone change of the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) as a municipal exercise to achieve consistency of land use development in accordance with the City of Chino’s

Development proposed on the Industrial Development Site includes construction of three industrial buildings totaling 63,900 square feet, of which approximately 9,000 square feet would be office space and approximately 4,000 square feet would be mezzanine space with a FAR of approximately 0.41.

Therefore, the proposed development of the Industrial Development Site is consistent with the types of land uses anticipated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Furthermore, the City estimated approximately 141,067 residents, 38,814 households, and 83,255 jobs in the City and its Sphere of Influence by 2025,147 which exceed the estimates generated by SCAG for the same time period and through 2045 (According to SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment would total approximately 121,300 residents, 33,100 households, and 57,400 jobs by 2045148). Since the City’s General Plan incorporates existing and anticipated development in the Sphere of Influence when projecting future population, housing, and jobs in the City, the proposed Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area are already accounted for in the projections in the 2022 AQMP for future development in the City of Chino. As detailed throughout this Initial Study, impacts to the environment resulting from development of the Industrial Development Site are subject to applicable mitigation and local, State, and/or federal regulations, which would render the development consistent with the ONTLUCP and the Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan.

East End Annexation: The 53.28-acre East End Annexation area (not including the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site) would include a zone change from San Bernardino County zoning designations Regional Industrial (IR), Community Industrial (IC), and Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to City of Chino zoning designation Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2) (refer to Table 2.2.A:

Existing and Proposed Zoning). The Chino General Plan designation for the overall annexation area is Light Industrial (LI) and General Industrial (GI). Parcels within the 53.28-acre annexation area are already developed primarily with industrial uses, rendering existing industrial development on these parcels consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designations within annexation area. As stated above, the land use intensity of the East End Annexation area developed with industrial uses has been incorporated in the buildout horizon of the Chino General Plan.149 The outlier residential property 146 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Page LU-15. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/ View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed June 8, 2022). 147 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Project Description. Table 3-1 Estimated Development Under the General Plan and Focused Growth Plan. Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 148 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed January 2023). 149 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Project Description. Table 3-1 Estimated Development Under the General Plan and Focused Growth Plan. Approved and Adopted July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022).

53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to demonstrate consistency with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the types of land uses anticipated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, the project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP, ONTLUCP, and the Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
And
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3)150, which is defined as an area where the potential for mineral resources exists, but there is insufficient data to determine whether these mineral deposits are significant.151 The Industrial Development Site comprises 3.59 acres of mostly undeveloped land, except for one abandoned structure. The site is surrounded by residential development to the east and industrial development to the north, west, and south. Additionally, one residential property is located adjacent to the southwest corner of the Industrial Development Site property. The Industrial Development Site is designated Light Industrial in the City’s General Plan152 and would include a zone change from the San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) once the property is annexed into the City of Chino. The City General Plan indicates the Light Industrial land use designation allows for industrial uses with fewer impacts on traffic, noise, odors, and pollutants.153 Section No. 20.07.020 of the City Zoning Code indicates the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District is an industrial zoning district that accommodates manufacturing uses considered light in nature by reason of its size, activity, and performance characteristics. 150 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Open Space and Conservation Element. Figure OSC-3, Mineral Resource Zones. July 2010.https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/403/Chino-General-Plan---09-Open-Space-and-ConservationPDF (accessed June 8, 2022). 151 Ibid. Page OSC-14. 152 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022). 153 Ibid. Page LU-15.

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is located within MRZ-3,154 which as discussed above, is defined as an area where the probability of mineral resources exists, however the significance of mineral resources is unknown. Additionally, the East End Annexation area is not considered a State-designated mineral resource extraction zone. The majority of parcels composing the East End Annexation area are already developed with industrial uses and zoned accordingly (refer to Table 2.2.A). The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to conform to the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property and overall East End Annexation area. None of the parcels composing the East End Annexation area are zoned or otherwise designated for uses that would be compatible with mineral resource mining.

Significance Conclusion: Mineral resources extraction would conflict with the purpose and scope of the General Plan and Zoning District for the project site. Therefore, impacts from the loss of available mineral resources would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. 154 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Open Space and Conservation Element. Figure OSC-3, Mineral Resource Zones. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/403/Chino-General-Plan---09-Open-Space-and-ConservationPDF (accessed June 8, 2022).

3.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
a. Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect: The following analysis is based on a Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Appendix I).155
Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is part of the East End Annexation area that would be incorporated into the City of Chino as part of the project. Accordingly, standards against which substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels are evaluated are based on City of Chino Municipal Code and General Plan policies. However, select off-site uses adjacent to the project site would still be located in unincorporated San Bernardino County upon implementation of the project. Therefore, project-generated noise levels have been evaluated pursuant to the Chino Municipal Code and General Plan policies for receptors in Chino and pursuant to the San Bernardino County Noise Control Ordinance for receptors in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

The nearest sensitive receptors is a single-family residential property (APN 1013-521-05) adjacent to the west of the Industrial Development Site (part of the East End Annexation area and therefore subject to City of Chino noise standards), single-family residential properties (APNs 1016-011-02 and -03) across Philadelphia Street to the south of the Industrial Development Site (part of the East End Annexation area and therefore subject to City of Chino noise standards), and single-family residential properties (APNs 0103-501-12, -13, and -14) across East End Avenue to the east of the Industrial 155 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Chino General Plan Noise Element Standards: The City’s General Plan Noise Element157 lists objectives and policies for development projects to achieve the City’s noise-related interior and exterior noise standards of 45 a-weighted decibels (dBA) for interior occupancy158 with windows closed and 65 dBA for exterior occupancy.159 The following are the applicable Chino General Plan goals, objectives, and policies for the proposed project:

Goal N-1: Protect Chino Residents from excessive noise.

Objective N-1.1: Ensure appropriate exterior and interior noise levels for existing and new land uses.

P1. The City shall not locate noise-sensitive land uses (schools, medical centers and hospitals, senior centers, and residences) in areas with noise levels that exceed those considered normally acceptable for each land use unless measures can be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels
P2. The City shall require measures to ensure noise-sensitive uses have appropriate interior noise environments when located in areas adjacent to major noise generators.

P3. The City shall require measures that attenuate exterior and/or interior noise levels to acceptable levels to be incorporated into all development projects where current and/or future noise levels may be unacceptable.

P4. The City shall require a noise impact study to evaluate impacts of projects that may exceed 65 Ldn as part of the design review process.

P5. The City shall require an acoustical study for all new residential developments that lie within the 65 Ldn noise contour on the Future Noise Contour Map, to ensure indoor levels would not exceed City standards. In addition, the City shall continue to enforce the California Building Code for indoor noise levels.

P6. The City shall only approve projects which comply with adopted noise standards or meet the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 156 Although properties that would remain in San Bernardino County upon implementation of the project would be subject to County noise standards, they are evaluated for construction noise using the City of Chino construction noise standard for a conservative analysis since temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except on Sundays and federal holidays, are exempt from noise limit thresholds pursuant to Section 83.01.080(g)(3) of the County Code. 157 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan 2025. Noise Element. Table N-3. July 2010. 158 Indoor environment excluding: bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 159 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family or multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside, mobile home park, hospital patio, park’s picnic area, school’s playground, and hotel and motel recreation area.

1. Designing landscaped building setbacks to serve as a buffer between the noise source and receptor.

2. Placing noise-tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the noise source and receptor.

3. Orienting buildings to shield noise-sensitive outdoor spaces from a noise source.

4. Locating bedrooms or balconies on the sides of buildings facing away from noise sources.

5. Utilizing noise barriers (e.g., fences, walls, or landscaped berms) to reduce adverse noise levels in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas.

Objective N-1.3: Control sources of construction noise
P1. The City shall require a noise monitoring plan to be prepared and submitted prior to starting all construction projects. The noise monitoring plan shall identify monitoring locations and frequency, instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures that would be incorporated.

P2. The City shall limit all construction in the vicinity of noise sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, or senior centers, to daylight hours or 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, the following construction noise control measures shall be included as requirements at construction sites to minimize construction noise impacts:

1. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

2. Ensure that during construction, trucks and equipment are running only when necessary.

3. Shield all construction equipment with temporary noise barriers to reduce constructionrelated noise impacts.

4. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area.

5. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and similar equipment, where available.

P3. The City shall evaluate new development projects for potential construction related noise impacts.

Chino Noise Control Ordinance: Chapter 9.40.040 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise standards for residential land uses, as detailed in Table 3.13.A below.

Note: Each of the noise limits specified here shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulse or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music; provided, however, that if the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard.

In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. 1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. 2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. 3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. 4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour. 5 The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Unless otherwise specifically indicated, the standards in Table 3.13.A shall apply to all residential property with a designated noise zone and are prescribed in terms of allowable noise levels for a given period of time at the residential property boundary. Higher noise levels are permitted during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) than during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

Section 9.40.060 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities do not take place outside the hours for construction as defined in Section 15.44.030 of this Code, and provided the noise standard of 65 dBA plus the limits specified in Section 9.40.040(B)160 as measured on residential property and any vibration created do not endanger the public health, welfare, and safety.

Section 15.44.030(A) of the City’s Municipal Code states construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays. For the purposes of this section, construction shall mean any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, streets and other paving, utilities, filling, grading, excavation, mining, dredging, drilling operations, or pile driving.

Section 9.40.080 of the City’s Municipal Code limits noise generated from air conditioning or a refrigeration system to 5 dBA above the noise standards in Table 3.13.A.

San Bernardino County Noise Control Ordinance: Section 83.01.080(g)(3) of the County Code limits temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except on Sundays and federal holidays. Construction activities that occur within 160 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour.

Section 83.01.080(c) of the County of San Bernardino (County) Development Code establishes the noise standards for stationary noise sources that affect adjacent properties. Table 3.13.B provides the County’s noise standards based on the affected land use and the time period. The noise metric used for stationary sources is defined as noise levels that cannot be exceeded for certain percentages of time, or Ln. In addition, Section 83.01.080(d) of the County Development Code establishes interior and exterior noise standards for mobile noise sources for various land use categories. Table 3.13.B also provides the County’s interior and exterior noise standards for mobile noise sources for each land use category.

Table 3.13.B: County of San Bernardino Stationary and Mobile Noise Standards Stationary Noise Standards
Affected Land Use
(Receiving Noise) Time Period L50(30 min)
L25
(15 min)
L8
(5 min)
L2
(1 min)
Lmax
(Anytime)
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 50 55 60 65
Professional Services Anytime 55 60 65 70 75
Other Commercial Anytime 60 65 70 75 80
Industrial Anytime 70 75 80 85 90
Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table F. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Mobile Noise Standards
Land Use dBA Ldn or CNEL
Categories Uses Interior Exterior
Residential Single and multi-family, duplex, mobile homes 451602 Commercial Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 603 Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 50 N/A Office building, research and development, professional offices 45 65 Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 N/A Institution/Public Hospital, nursing home, school classroom, religious institution, library 45 65 Open Space Park N/A 65
Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table G. June 2023. (Appendix I). 1 The indoor environment shall exclude bathrooms, kitchens, toilets, closets, and corridors. 2 The outdoor environment shall be limited to: hospital/office building patios, hotel and motel recreation areas, mobile home parks, multi-family private patios or balconies, park picnic areas, private yard of single-family dwellings, and school playgrounds. 3 An exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA (Ldn or CNEL) shall be allowed provided exterior noise levels have been substantially mitigated through a reasonable application of the best available noise reduction technology, and interior noise exposure does not exceed 45 dBA (Ldn or CNEL) with windows and doors closed. Requiring that windows and doors remain closed to achieve an acceptable interior noise level shall necessitate the use of air conditioning or mechanical ventilation.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Existing Ambient Noise Levels: To establish baseline conditions, two short-term 20-minute noise level measurements (ST-1 and ST-2) and three long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements (LT-1, LT-2, and LT-3) were conducted between August 2, 2022, and August 4, 2022, in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction

Table 3.13.C shows the results of the short-term measurements along with a description of the measurement location and noise sources that occurred during the measurements. The measured average noise levels in the project vicinity ranged from 62.4 to 67.1 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq), and the measured maximum noise levels ranged from 73.3 to 82.7 dBA maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax). Figure 3 in Appendix I shows the short-term monitoring locations.

Table 3.13.C: Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring
No Location Date Start Time
Duration
(minutes)
Noise Level
(dBA) Noise Source(s)
Leq Lmax Lmin
ST-1
Near 3702 Calaveras Court.

Just outside of the backyard’s
retaining wall facing
Philadelphia Street and East
End Avenue.
8/2/22 11:57 a.m. 20 67.1 82.7 50.7
Traffic noise on Philadelphia Street
and East End Avenue. Noise from
trucks passing by.

ST-2
Located on the northwest
corner of the project site.

Near a chain-link fence.
8/2/22 11:13 a.m. 20 62.4 73.3 53.6
Noise from industrial activities such
as hammering and forklifts.

Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table H. June 2023. (Appendix I). dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level
Table 3.13.D shows the calculated day-night average noise level (Ldn) from the long-term noise level measurements. The measured Ldn is 71.1 dBA at LT-1 , 70.7 dBA at LT-2, and 70.1 dBA at LT-3. Figure 3 in Appendix I shows the long-term monitoring locations.

Table 3.13.D: Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring
No Location
Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime Nighttime Noise Source(s) Ldn Leq Lmax Leq Lmax LT-1
Southwest corner of the project site
on a powerline pole. Just east of
3638 Philadelphia Street.

64.2-68.4
(67.3)1

81.8-

87.9 58.0-

66.6 (63.1)2

76.1-

88.3 71.1
Traffic on Philadelphia
Street. Faint noise from
forklift activity.

LT-2
3643 Philadelphia Street. In the
front yard on the tree. 63.4-69.0
(66.6)1

79.2-

93.3 57.1- 65.8
(62.7)2

74.9-

88.7 70.7
Traffic on Philadelphia
Street.

LT-3
12027 East End Avenue. In the front
yard of the single-family residence
on the tree.

60.9-68.1
(67.3)1

79.2-

88.4 54.8-

66.4 (61.8)2

76.0-

84.2 70.1
Traffic on East End Avenue.

Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table L. June 2023. (Appendix I). 1 Average daytime noise level. 2 Average nighttime noise level.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax =maximum instantaneous noise level 161 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978.

Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and the vehicle mix for each roadway in the project area were obtained from the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project.163 Table 3.13.E lists the existing traffic noise levels on roadways in the project area. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

Table 3.13.E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
To 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
To 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from the
Centerline of the
Outermost Lane
East End Avenue North of
Philadelphia Street 7,889 59 126 272 70.3
East End Avenue South of
Philadelphia Street 8,579 52 111 238 69.5
Philadelphia Street West of
East End Avenue 6,884 < 50 53 113 64.6
Philadelphia Street East of
East End Avenue 6,963 < 50 69 148 66.4
Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table M. June 2023. (Appendix I).

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Construction (Short-Term) Noise: Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during project construction. The first type of impact could result from construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. The second type of impact could result from noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, and building erection on the site. Projectgenerated construction noise would vary depending on the phase of construction, construction process, type of equipment involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work. Noise impacts from construction activities are analyzed based on the sensitive receptors closest to the site.

Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site would incrementally increase noise levels on roadways leading to the site. The pieces of construction equipment for construction activities would move on site, remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. Although 162 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. 163 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2).

Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA.164 Therefore, traffic volumes on East End Avenue or Philadelphia Street would have to double for there to be a discernable increase of 3 dBA along the roadway. The building construction phase would generate the most trips out of all of the construction phases, at 75 trips per day based on the results of the California Emissions Estimator Model in Appendix A. Roadways that would be used to access the project site are Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue have estimated existing daily traffic volumes of 6,884 and 7,889, respectively, near the project site.165 Based on the maximum daily trips generated by project construction activities, project constructionrelated traffic would increase noise by up to 0.05 dBA.166 Since a noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment,167 construction-related traffic would not substantially increase noise in the vicinity of the project site. No short-term, construction-related impacts associated with worker commutes and transport of construction equipment and material to the project site would occur.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related noise generated from construction activities required to develop the project site. These activities include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases change the character of the noise generated on a project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Project construction would require the use of both mobile and stationary equipment. Mobile construction equipment during the noisiest construction phase for the proposed project is expected to require the simultaneous use of graders, bulldozers, and water trucks/pickup trucks. Typical noise levels range up to 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases.168 The site preparation and grading phase tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment, such as graders and bulldozers. For the purposes of evaluating construction noise on the nearest off-site sensitive receptors, distances between the active construction area and the nearest off-site sensitive receptors are measured from a general area 164 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Pages 2-11 through 2-18. September 2013. 165 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 21. June 2023. (Appendix I). 166 Ibid. 167 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Page 2-44.

September 2013. 168 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 23. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to be between 55 and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for site preparation and grading phases.

The maximum noise level generated by each grader is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet; each bulldozer would generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet; the maximum noise level generated by water trucks/pickup trucks is approximately 55 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from these vehicles.169 As stated previously, each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA.

Each of the pieces of construction equipment would operate together on the project site during the noisiest phase of construction. Although each piece of construction equipment would operate in proximity to the other equipment, they would not operate adjacent to each other due to space needed for maneuverability on the relatively small project site. The worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the active construction area.

Based on a usage factor170 of 40 percent, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the active construction area.171 Table 3.13.F shows the combined construction noise level at each of the sensitive land uses surrounding the project site based on standard construction equipment during the site preparation and grading phase. The residential uses directly east of the project site would remain in the County of San Bernardino upon project implementation but are evaluated using the City of Chino construction noise standard for a conservative analysis since temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except on Sundays and federal holidays, are exempt from noise limit thresholds pursuant to Section 83.01.080(g)(3) of the County Code.

Table 3.13.F: Construction Noise Levels without Mitigation Land Use Direction
Reference Noise
Level at 50 ft (dBA) Distance (ft)1 Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Noise Level
(dBA)
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Residential East 88 84 150 9.5 78.5 74.5 Residential Southeast 88 84 230 13.3 74.7 70.7
Residential South 88 84 130 8.3 79.7 75.7
Residential West 88 84 50 0.0 88.0 84.0
Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table O. June 2023. (Appendix I). 1 Distance from the residential property line to the active construction area. dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
As shown in Table 3.13.F, land uses surrounding the project site would experience short-term construction noise levels of 70.7 dBA Leq (74.7 dBA Lmax) to 84.0 dBA Leq (88.0 dBA Lmax). The closest residential property to the west may be subject to short-term construction noise reaching 84.0 dBA 169 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 22. June 2023. (Appendix I). 170 The usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power. 171 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 23. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits, the construction contractor shall erect a minimum 6-foot-high temporary construction barrier along the eastern and southeastern project construction boundaries, a minimum 8-foot-high temporary construction barrier along the southern construction boundary, and a minimum 14-foothigh temporary construction barrier along the western project construction boundary where there are existing residences to reduce construction noise levels. The barriers shall be continuous with no gaps or holes and may be any material that has a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28.

Additionally, the construction contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities shall be prohibited outside of these hours or anytime on Sundays and federal holidays.

The construction contractor shall equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment and also ensure that trucks and equipment are running only when necessary. Only “Quiet” air compressors and similar equipment shall be utilized, where available. Finally, the construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from offsite residential properties. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Director of Development Services, or designee.

Table 3.13.G details the construction noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. As detailed in Table 3.13.G, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which includes temporary construction barriers with a minimum height of 6 feet along the eastern and southeastern project construction boundaries, 8 feet along the southern project construction boundary, and 14 feet along the western project construction boundary, would result in a noise reduction of 5 dBA, 5 dBA, 6 dBA, and 14 dBA, respectively, and would reduce noise levels to at or below the City’s construction noise standard of 70 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) at the off-site residential properties.

Construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As stated above, Table 3.13.E lists the existing traffic noise levels on roadways in the project area.

Using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity, Tables 3.13.H and 3.13.I show the existing and near term (2025) traffic noise levels without- and with-project conditions. The with-project condition vehicle mix was adjusted based on the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project.172 These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

Tables 3.13.H and 3.13.I show that the proposed project would result in a project-related traffic noise increase of up to 0.4 dBA. A noise increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.173 Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
172 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2). 173 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Page 2-44.

September 2013.

The project would include surface parking for automobiles and trucks. Noise generated from parking activities would include noise generated by vehicles traveling at slow speeds, engine start-up noise, car door slams, car horns, car alarms, and tire squeals. In addition, noise generated from truck parking would include backup alarms and air brakes. Representative parking activities would generate between 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.178 Based on the project trip generation obtained from the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project,179 it is estimated that automobile parking would generate the maximum noise level (60 dBA Lmax) for a cumulative period of 3 minutes during daytime hours and 1 minute during nighttime hours. Also, it is estimated that truck parking activities would generate the maximum noise level (70 dBA Lmax) for a cumulative period of 1 minute during both daytime and nighttime hours. Accordingly, automobile parking activities would generate a noise level of 57.0 dBA Leq at 50 feet during daytime hours and

52.2 dBA Leq at 50 feet during nighttime hours, while truck parking activities would generate a noise level of 52.2 dBA Leq at 50 feet during daytime and nighttime hours.180 Table 3.13.J and Table 3.13.K below detail the estimated noise levels generated by parking lot activities during daytime and nighttime hours, respectively. 174 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 27. June 2023. (Appendix I). 175 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2). 176 3 delivery trucks per hour x 5 minutes of maximum noise level per truck = cumulative of 15 minutes of maximum noise level per hour. 177 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 30. June 2023. (Appendix I). 178 Ibid. 179 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2). 180 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 30. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Table 3.13.J (daytime) and Table 3.13.K (nighttime) show the individual stationary noise sources from truck delivery and truck loading and unloading activities, automobile parking activities, truck parking activities, and rooftop HVAC equipment at the closest residential property lines from the project site, as well as the distance attenuation, noise reduction from shielding, and the combined stationary noise level. The proposed warehouse buildings would shield the residential property lines to the east, southeast, and south from truck loading docks and vehicle parking activities at each of the three proposed warehouse buildings. Additionally, the roof lines and parapets would shield the residential properties to the east, southeast, south, and west from the rooftop HVAC equipment.

As shown in Table 3.13.J (daytime) and Table 3.13.K (nighttime), project operation noise levels generated at the residential property line east of the project site in San Bernardino County would reach up to combined daytime and nighttime stationary noise levels of 51.5 dBA Leq and 48.8 dBA Leq, respectively. The combined daytime noise levels would not exceed the County’s daytime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 55 dBA. Although the combined nighttime noise levels would exceed the County’s nighttime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 45 dBA, the ambient noise level would increase by 0.2 dBA based on the measured average nighttime noise level of 61.8 dBA Leq at LT-3 shown in Table 3.13.D above. This increase in noise is less than 3 dBA and would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.182 The maximum instantaneous noise levels generated at the residential property line east of the project site in San Bernardino County from project operations would reach up to 62.5 dBA Lmax. This noise level would not exceed the County’s daytime and nighttime maximum anytime noise standards of 75 dBA Lmax and 65 dBA Lmax, respectively. Therefore, stationary noise impacts at the residential properties east of the project site in San Bernardino County would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

As shown in Table 3.13.J (daytime), project operation noise levels generated at the residential property lines southeast, south, and west of the project site within the jurisdiction of the City would reach up to combined daytime stationary noise levels of 45.3 dBA Leq, 54.5 dBA Leq, and 65.1 dBA Leq, respectively. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 55 dBA except for the residence west of the project site. Although the combined daytime noise level would exceed the City’s daytime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 55 dBA, the ambient noise level would increase by 2 dBA based on the measured average nighttime noise level of 67.3 dBA Leq 181 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 30. June 2023. (Appendix I). 182 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Page 2-44.

September 2013.

Similarly, Table 3.13.K (nighttime) indicates project operation noise levels generated at the residential property lines southeast, south, and west of the project site within the jurisdiction of the City would reach up to combined nighttime stationary noise levels of 43.1 dBA Leq, 51.6 dBA Leq, and 61.9 dBA Leq, respectively. Noise levels at the residential property line southeast of the project site would not exceed the City’s nighttime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 45 dBA, while noise levels at the residential property lines south and west of the project site would exceed the City’s nighttime 30- minute (L50) noise standard of 45 dBA. Although the combined nighttime noise level would exceed the City’s nighttime 30-minute (L50) noise standard of 45 dBA, the ambient noise level would increase by

0.3 dBA and 2.5 dBA based on the measured average nighttime noise level of 62.7 dBA Leq and 63.1 dBA Leq at LT-2 and LT-1, respectively, as shown in Table 3.13.D above This increase in noise is less than 3 dBA and would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.

Finally, Table 3.13.J (daytime) and Table 3.13.K (nighttime) indicate the maximum instantaneous noise levels generated at the residential property lines southeast, south, and west of the project site within the jurisdiction of the City from project operations would reach up to 54.6 dBA Lmax, 64.8 dBA Lmax, and 71.9 dBA Lmax, respectively. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime maximum anytime noise standards of 75 dBA Lmax and 70 dBA Lmax, respectively, except for the residence west of the project site during nighttime hours. However, the measured nighttime maximum noise levels at the residence west of the project site are already above 70 dBA Lmax, and range from 76.1 to 88.3 dBA Lmax at LT-1 as shown in Table 3.13.D above. Maximum instantaneous noise levels generated at the residential property line to the west of the site are already higher than noise levels expected to be generated by operation of the Industrial Development Site. Therefore, stationary noise impacts at the residential properties southeast, south, and west of the project site in the City of Chino would be less than significant during daytime and nighttime hours. Mitigation is not required.

Significance Conclusion: The Industrial Development Site and East End Annexation area are generally industrial and located in areas currently subjected to high levels of noise from existing industrial

IN I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E DE C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 2 3 PH I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E A N D EA S T EN D A N N E X A T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F C H I N O, SA N B E R N A R D I N O CO U N T Y , CA L I F O R N I A P:\GMS2201_Chino Industrial IS-MND\Initial Study\Public Review Draft\2nd Public Review Draft\IS-MND_Philadelphia Street Industrial Project.docx (06/26/23) 3-115 operations. CEQA calls upon a lead agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate adverse conditions that are already present. In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 17, 2015 (62 Cal.4th 369), the California Supreme Court held that “… agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project‘s future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment – and not the environment’s impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.”
The proposed project would develop the Industrial Development Site with warehouse uses substantially similar to the existing industrial uses adjacent to the north, west-northwest, and select properties to the south of the Industrial Development Site. Furthermore, any future projects proposed within the balance of the East End Annexation area, which is already anticipated and planned by the City for industrial development, would be required to comply with General Plan Goal N-1, Objective N-1.1 (P4), (P5), and (P6), as well as Objective N-1.3 (P3) specified above to ensure noise levels would not exceed City standards and/or conflict with CEQA thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise of similar or lesser frequency and intensity as the existing ambient noise levels in the project area, and operation of the project would not exacerbate the existing ambient noise levels generated by the surrounding uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, no substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of applicable standards would occur. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effect: The following analysis is based on a Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Appendix I).183
Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is part of the East End Annexation area that would be incorporated into the City of Chino as part of the project. Accordingly, standards against which excessive groundborne vibration or noise are evaluated are based on City of Chino Municipal Code. However, select off-site uses adjacent to the project site would still be located in unincorporated San Bernardino County upon implementation of the project. Therefore, projectgenerated vibration levels have been evaluated pursuant to the Chino Municipal Code and General Plan policies for receptors in Chino and pursuant to the San Bernardino County Noise Control Ordinance for receptors in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

The nearest sensitive receptors is a single-family residential property (APN 1013-521-05) adjacent to the west of the Industrial Development Site (part of the East End Annexation area and therefore subject to City of Chino vibration standards), single-family residential properties (APNs 1016-011-02 and -03) across Philadelphia Street to the south of the Industrial Development Site (part of the East 183 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Chino Noise Control Ordinance: Section 9.40.110 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits any person to create, maintain, or cause any ground vibration which is perceptible without instruments at any point on any affected property adjoining the property on which the vibration source is located. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be more than 0.05 inch per second root-mean-square (RMS) vertical velocity.

San Bernardino County Noise Control Ordinance: Section 83.01.090 of the County Code prohibits ground vibration that can be felt without the aid of instruments at or beyond the lot line or which produces a particle velocity greater than or equal to two-tenths (0.2) inches/second measured at or beyond the lot line. In addition, vibration generated from temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. is exempt, except on Sundays and federal holidays.

Construction (Short-Term) Vibration: The construction vibration analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS (inches/second) and assesses the potential for building damage using vibration levels in peak particle velocity (PPV) (inches/second). Vibration levels calculated in RMS velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, whereas vibration levels in PPV are best for characterizing damage potential to buildings.

Reference vibration levels at a distance of 25 feet for each type of standard construction equipment expected to be used at the Industrial Development Site are obtained from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.184 Project construction is expected to require the use of large bulldozers and loaded trucks, which would generate ground-borne vibration levels of up to 87 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) (0.089 inches/second [PPV]) and 86 VdB (0.076 inches/second [PPV]), respectively, when measured at 25 feet.185
The greatest vibration levels are anticipated to occur during the site preparation and grading phase, while all other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings to evaluate building damage is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts normally occur within the buildings. 184 Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123.

September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noiseand-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf (accessed September 2022). 185 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 24. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Furthermore, construction vibration levels are exempt in the County of San Bernardino.

Table 3.13.L: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Land Use Jurisdiction Direction Equipment/
Activity
Reference
Vibration Level
at 25 ft
Distance to
Structure (ft)1 Vibration Level (in/sec)
PPV (in/sec)
Industrial Chino North Large bulldozers 0.089 110 0.010 Loaded trucks 0.076 110 0.008
Residence San Bernardino County East Large bulldozers 0.089 175 0.005 Loaded trucks 0.076 175 0.004
Residence Chino Southeast
Large
Bulldozers 0.089 270 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076 270 0.002
Residence Chino South Large bulldozers 0.089 160 0.005
Loaded trucks 0.076 160 0.005
Residence Chino West Large bulldozers 0.089 55 0.027
Loaded trucks 0.076 55 0.023
Source: LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Table Q. June 2023. (Appendix I).

Note: The potential for construction vibration annoyance was assessed using the City’s vibration standard of 0.05 in/sec RMS. 1 Distance from the active construction area near the center of the project site to the building structure. ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
The closest residential building in the City is west of the Industrial Development Site approximately 55 feet from the active construction area near the center of the site and would experience a vibration level of up to 0.027 inches/second. This vibration level would not result in annoyance because vibration levels would not exceed the City’s vibration standard of 0.05 inches/second RMS. Other building structures that surround the Industrial Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away from the active construction area.

Similarly, Table 3.13.M lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Industrial Development Site at the site’s construction boundary relative to the nearest buildings in the site’s vicinity. As shown in Table 3.13.M, the residential building to the west is approximately 5 feet from the Industrial Development Site construction boundary and would experience a vibration level of up to 0.995 inches/second (PPV). This vibration level would have the potential to result in building damage because the residential building is constructed of nonengineered timber and masonry, and vibration levels could exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.20 in/sec (PPV), and mitigation is required.

Note: The FTA-recommended building damage threshold is 0.20 in/sec (PPV) at the receiving non-engineered timber and masonry building. 1
Distance from the project construction boundary to the building structure. ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Chino that heavy construction equipment (e.g., large bulldozers and loaded trucks) shall be prohibited from operating within 15 feet of the residential structures located on the property (APN 1013-521-05) adjacent to the westsouthwest of the Industrial Development Site. Notes shall be included in the grading plans and temporary on-site signage in the immediate proximity of the southwest portion of the Industrial Development Site shall be erected notifying construction personnel of the prohibition. The temporary signage shall clearly indicate large bulldozers and loaded trucks are prohibited from operating within 15 feet of the residential structures located on the property (APN 1013- 521-05) adjacent to the west-southwest of the Industrial Development Site, the standard language of which shall be determined through coordination between the construction site contractor, the project applicant, and the City of Chino Director of Development Services or designee. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chino Director of Development Services, or designee.

Other building structures that surround the project site are 54 feet or more from the Industrial Development Site construction boundary and would experience a vibration level of up to 0.028 inches/second (PPV). This vibration level would not result in building damage because the surrounding buildings would be constructed equivalent to or better than non-engineered timber and masonry and vibration levels would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.20 inches/second PPV.

Operation (Long-Term) Vibration: Operation of the Industrial Development Site would not generate substantial vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways (e,g., Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue) would be unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Therefore, vibration impacts from operation of the Industrial Development Site would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

Significance Conclusion: As detailed in the analysis above, construction of the Industrial Development Site could generate vibration that could damage structures on the adjacent residential property (APN 1013-521-05) to the west of the site. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce vibration levels at the structures on the adjacent residential property (APN 1013-521-05) to the west of the site to below applicable building damage thresholds. Furthermore, future development projects within the East End Annexation area would be required to would be required comply with General Plan Goal N-1, Objective N-1.1 (P4), (P5), and (P6), as well as Objective N-1.3 (P3) specified above to ensure vibration levels would not exceed applicable standards and/or conflict with CEQA thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 186 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. Page 25. June 2023. (Appendix I).

East End Annexation: Similar to the Industrial Development Site, none of the regional airports (Brackett Field Airport, Cable Airport, Chino Airport, and Ontario International Airport) are located close enough to the East End Annexation area to expose people working in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels.

Significance Conclusion: The proposed project would not expose future occupants of the Industrial Development Site or greater East End Annexation area to significant levels of public or private aircraft noise. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. 187 LSA. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Philadelphia Street Industrial Center Project. June 2023. (Appendix I). 188 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

December 9, 2015. https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/ upl/project/brackett_alucp_final.pdf (Accessed September 2022). 189 West Valley Planning Agency Airport Land Use Commission. Cable Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.

December 9, 1981. http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Cable.pdf (Accessed September 2022). 190 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-1: Airport Influence Area, April 19. 2011. http://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf (accessed April 29, 2020).

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial amounts of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d] identifies a project as growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth, which have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered substantial if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies (e.g., SCAG).

As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the Industrial Development Site is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan.191 The project would include a zone change of the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) as a municipal exercise to achieve consistency of land use development in accordance with the City of Chino’s existing General Plan Light Industrial land use designation of the site.

The City General Plan indicates the Light Industrial land use designation allows for industrial uses with fewer impacts on traffic, noise, odors, and pollutants with a maximum floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 191 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed April 13, 2022).

0.6.192 Section No. 20.07.020 of the City Zoning Code indicates the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District is an industrial zoning district that accommodates manufacturing uses considered light in nature by reason of its size, activity, and performance characteristics.

As detailed in Section 3.11 above, the development of the Industrial Development Site is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code through development of three industrial buildings totaling 63,900 square feet, of which approximately 9,000 square feet would be office space and approximately 4,000 square feet would be mezzanine space, with a FAR of approximately 0.41. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition) rates for Land Use 150 – “Warehousing,” development of the Industrial Development Site would generate approximately 22 employees.193 Although the potential exists for development of the Industrial Development Site to result in population growth through employment opportunities, the development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and Zoning Code for the site and the generation of 22 employees would not be considered substantial or unplanned population growth in the City.

Therefore, annexation of the East End Annexation area would not result in population growth beyond what is already projected for in the City’s General Plan.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the environment from population growth. Mitigation is not required. b. Displace substantial amounts of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development is mostly undeveloped, except for one abandoned structure on site. Development of the site would not displace existing people or housing that would require construction of new housing off-site.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the balance of the annexation area is already developed primarily with industrial uses. The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to 192 City of Chino. General Plan 2025. Land Use Element. Page LU-15. July 2010. https://cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/ View/415/Chino-General-Plan---04-Land-Use-PDF (accessed June 8, 2022). 193 Average 1.71 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet gross floor area and average 5.05 daily vehicle trips per employee.

1.71 ÷ 5.05 = 0.339 employee per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. 0.339 × 63.9 = 22 employees.

Significance Conclusion: As discussed above, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of people or housing that would necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
a. Fire Protection
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The Industrial Development Site is within the Chino Valley Independent Fire Protection District (CVIFPD) which provides fire protection services to the City of Chino, the City of Chino Hills, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County.194 The nearest CVIFPD facility to the site is Fire Station 65, located at 12220 Ramona Avenue, Chino, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Industrial Development Site. The station is an 8,300 square foot structure that currently accommodates one paramedic Engine Company staffed with four personnel, one Truck Company staffed with four personnel, and one Battalion Chief.195 Average travel time between Fire Station 65 and the Industrial Development Site is 4 minutes. Through compliance with California Vehicle Code 21806(A)(1), which requires all vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles, the development of the Industrial Development Site is not expected to reduce the CVIFPD’s response times.

Development of the proposed warehouse buildings may incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services through generation of 22 employees working at the site, but not to the degree that the existing fire stations within the City could not meet demand. Project design features incorporated into the structural design and layout of the proposed warehouse buildings would keep service demand increases to a minimum. For example, the applicant must coordinate with the CVIFPD during the development review process to identify and mitigate any fire hazards and ensure adequate emergency water flow, fire-resistant design and materials, early warning systems and evacuation routes, and adequate emergency access to the site from Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. These construction methods are far superior to the structure that currently exists on the site, which is constructed of materials that are less resistant to fire. Additionally, the City maintains mutual aid 194 Chino Valley Fire District. District Overview Map. https://www.chinovalleyfire.org/204/District-Overview (accessed April 14, 2022). 195 Chino Valley Fire District Website. Business Directory. Listings of Station. https://www.chinovalleyfire.org/Business DirectoryII.aspx?lngBusinessCategoryID=23 (accessed April 15, 2022).

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is within the CVIFPD service area. The CVIFPD already serves the demand generated by existing development within the annexation area. No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59- acre Industrial Development Site. The annexation action would not increase the demand for fire protection services beyond the 22 employees generated by development of the Industrial Development Site. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to comply with applicable CBC and California Fire Code policies when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the information and analysis above, the addition of three warehouse buildings totaling 63,900 square feet consistent with the General Plan and zoning and constructed in accordance with applicable policies designed to minimize fires (i.e., CBC and California Fire Code) would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Police Protection
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The City of Chino Police Department (CPD) headquarters is located at 5450 Guardian Way, approximately 3 miles southeast of the Industrial Development Site.

Development of the site would incrementally increase the demand for police services; however, the design of the warehouse buildings would incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) features to keep service demand increases to a minimum. For example, the design would incorporate public zones and private zones via physical and symbolic barriers to define acceptable uses of the proposed warehouse facilities and determine who has a right to occupy such zones. Additionally, the Industrial Development Site would be equipped with formal surveillance through the use of closed-circuit television, electronic monitoring, and potentially security patrols, as well as informal surveillance such as architecture, landscaping, and lighting designed to minimize visual obstacles and eliminate places of concealment for potential assailants. The CPD employs CPTED 196 Chino Valley Fire District Volume 1 of 3-Technical Report, Standards of Cover Assessment and Master Plan Update, Section 2.7, pages 30-31. March 12, 2018. https://chinovalleyfire.org/vol-1-technical-report-chino-valley-fd-socassessment-final-03-13-18 (accessed September 16, 2022).

Funding for new police facilities commensurate with the increased demand for services in the City would be provided from capital improvement fees levied on new development. These DIFs are onetime charges applied to new development and are imposed to raise revenue for the construction or expansion of capital facilities such as police stations located outside of project boundaries of a new development that benefit the area. DIFs enable the City to collect fair-share fees from new development projects to fund new infrastructure and services, including police services. DIFs are collected for specific infrastructure needs and are deposited into different accounts representing these requirements.

The Industrial Development Site would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City for new development with regard to public safety. The applicant would be required to pay DIFs used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public safety structures and purchasing equipment for new public safety structures. In addition, the City maintains mutual aid agreements with police agencies in the surrounding cities (e.g., Upland, Ontario, and Rialto) and with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which allow for the services of nearby police departments to assist the CPD during major emergencies. Payment of DIFs commensurate with the increased demand for services in the City would offset any increase in demand for police services.

East End Annexation: The East End Annexation area is within the CPD service area. The CPD already serves the demand generated by existing development within the annexation area. No physical development is proposed on any property within the annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site. The annexation action would not increase the demand for fire protection services beyond the 22 employees generated by development of the Industrial Development Site.

Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to comply with CPTED principles when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the information and analysis above, the addition of three warehouse buildings totaling 63,900 square feet consistent with the General Plan and zoning and constructed in accordance with applicable policies designed to minimize crime (e.g., CPTED) would not require new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause 197 City of Chino. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. https://cityofchino.org/298/Crime-PreventionThrough-Environmental-D (accessed June 9, 2022).

Industrial Development Site: The industrial development does not include housing; therefore, no increase in the number of school-age students is expected. California Government Code (Section 65995[b]) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees imposed by school districts. These base amounts are commonly referred to as “Level 1 fees” and are subject to inflation adjustment every two years. School districts are placed into a specific “level” based on school impact fee amounts that are imposed on the development. With the adoption of Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1A in 1998, schools meeting certain criteria can now adopt Level 2 and 3 developer fees. The amount of fees that can be charged over the Level 1 amount is determined by the district’s total facilities needs and the availability of State matching funds. If there is State facility funding available, districts are able to charge fees equal to 50 percent of their total facility costs, termed “Level 2” fees. If, however, there are no State funds available, “Level 3” fees may be imposed for the full cost of their facility needs. 198 Per California Government Code, “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed … are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts … on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The applicant would be required to pay these development fees in accordance with Government Code 65995 and Education Code 17620.

East End Annexation: No physical development is proposed on any property within the East End Annexation area except on the 3.59-acre Industrial Development Site, and the majority of properties composing the annexation area already conform to their respective land use designations per the City’s General Plan (refer to Table 2.2.A: Existing and Proposed Zoning). The outlier residential property (APN 1013-521-05) would physically remain residential but be subject to a zone change in order to achieve consistency with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial for the property. Therefore, the annexation action would not include new residential development and no new students would be generated as a result of the action. Future development of any property within the remaining 53.28 acres of the annexation area would be subject to CEQA review and would be required to pay applicable development fees when site-specific development applications are submitted to the City for those properties.

Significance Conclusion: Through payment of development fees, no impacts related to school services would occur. Mitigation is not required. 198 California State Legislature, Legislative Analyst’s Office. An Evaluation of the School Facility Fee Affordable Housing Assistance Programs, January 2001. An Evaluation of the School Facility Fee Affordable Housing Assistance Programs (ca.gov) (Accessed April 6, 2022).

Industrial Development Site: The type of use of the proposed development (industrial warehouse) does not generate permanent population in the City that would require access to public facilities, including the City’s library (Chino Branch Library) located at 13180 Central Avenue. Even if any of the 22 employees anticipated by the industrial development would require access to public facilities, the proposed use of the Industrial Development Site is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning of the site,199 so the projected increase in population (through employment generation) would be consistent with planned population growth in the City. This minimal increase in population would incrementally increase the need for a number of public services, including those listed above, and others such as libraries and City administrative facilities. In the same manner for those facilities, the applicant would be required to pay DIFs used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public facility structures and purchasing equipment for new public facilities, including libraries.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the information and analysis provided above, the incremental and planned increase of employment by the proposed project is not expected to result in the need to construct or expand other public facilities, including libraries. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. 199 The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) but is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan. Accordingly, the industrial development would include a zone change of the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) as a municipal exercise to achieve consistency of land use development in accordance with the City of Chino’s existing General Plan Light Industrial land use designation of the site.

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site: The City maintains a performance standard of 3 acres for every 1,000 residents. Although the 22 employees generated by the industrial development could elect to utilize the City’s park facilities, development of the Industrial Development Site would not involve the addition of any housing units that would permanently increase the City’s population, and it is speculative to assume the number of employees who would reside in the City. The closest park to the Industrial Development Site is Walnut Park located at 4600 Walnut Avenue, 1.5 miles southeast of the site. This park is open to the public, and the amenities include restrooms, playgrounds, and open space. The applicant would be required to pay applicable development fees to offset impacts from deterioration to parks and recreation facilities in the City.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the discussion and analysis above, development of the proposed project would not create a significant increase in the use of existing neighborhood, regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

Industrial Development Site: The City’s General Plan indicates the City has approximately 228 acres of parkland and is required to have at least 202 acres of parkland to meet the City’s standard.200 Therefore, the City currently exceeds its performance standard of 3 acres for every 1,000 residents by approximately 26 acres of parkland citywide. Since the industrial development is consistent with the City General Plan, zoning ordinance,201 and City growth projections, it is not expected to require construction of new or expansion of existing park facilities.

Significance Conclusion: Based on the above discussion and analysis, the proposed project is not expected to require new or expansion of existing park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
200 City of Chino. City of Chino General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element. Page PR-3. May 2010. 201 The Industrial Development Site has a San Bernardino County zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) but is within the City of Chino Sphere of Influence and has a land use designation of Light Industrial per the Chino General Plan. Accordingly, the industrial development would include a zone change of the Industrial Development Site from Single-Family Residential (RS-20M) to Light Industrial (M1) as a municipal exercise to achieve consistency of land use development in accordance with the City of Chino’s existing General Plan Light Industrial land use designation of the site.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact.

Discussion of Effect:

Industrial Development Site:

Traffic Circulation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts and provides that, except for roadway capacity projects, a project's effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3(a). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 further specifies that “vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts." Therefore, the following discussion of consistency with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system is based on the project’s ability to foster alternative modes of transportation, as well as level of service (LOS) for vehicle operation, for the purpose of minimizing traffic congestion pursuant to goals established in the General Plan Circulation Element and not pursuant to CEQA.

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared in 2021 for the industrial development to evaluate the industrial development’s compliance with the City of Chino TIA Guidelines (December 2020)202 and applicable General Plan consistency requirements pertaining to the circulation system (Appendix B1).203
The project-specific TIA examines traffic operations in the vicinity of the Industrial Development Site under the following three scenarios: (1) Existing (2020) without Project Conditions; (2) Existing (2020) with Project Conditions; and (3) Opening Year (2022) with Project Conditions. The following study intersections were identified via the Scoping Agreement process: 202 City of Chino. City of Chino Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. December 2020. 203 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B1).

1. Reservoir Street/Philadelphia Street;

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street;

3. Pipeline Avenue/Philadelphia Street;

4. East End Avenue/Walnut Street;

5. Project Driveway 1/Philadelphia Street;

6. Project Driveway 2/East End Avenue; and

7. Project Driveway 3/East End Avenue.

Subsequent to preparation of the TIA in 2021 (refer to Appendix B1), updates to the City’s reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects in 2023 (i.e., CarMax Auto Auction proposed on the southwest quadrant of East End Avenue and Francis Avenue) necessitated preparation of a Supplemental TIA to evaluate a Near Term (2025) with Project Conditions using an ambient growth factor and future cumulative projects in the study area consistent with the cumulative projects list contained in the approved 2021 TIA, plus the proposed CarMax Auto Auction (Appendix B2).204 In order to develop the baseline peak hour traffic volume data for the passenger car equivalency (PCE) roadway segment analysis, seven days of daily roadway classification traffic counts were collected from April 14, 2023 through April 20, 2023 consisting of autos, trucks (by classification), bikes, and pedestrians at the following study roadway segments identified for the Near Term (2025) scenario via the Scoping Agreement process:

8. East End Avenue between Francis Avenue and Philadelphia Street

9. East End Avenue between Philadelphia Street and County Road

10. Philadelphia Street between Reservoir Street and East End Avenue

11. Philadelphia Street between East End Avenue and Roswell Avenue Adequacy of turning radii at the study intersections for truck ingress/egress was analyzed since the Industrial Development Site would be accessed by freight trucks. The 2021 TIA (Appendix B1) indicates there is adequate turning radii for both ingress and egress movements at the intersections of East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street and all three project driveways. Additionally, adequate space is available on site for the trucks to park during loading and unloading operations.

Study intersections and roadway segments analyzed in this section are under the jurisdiction of the City of Chino. The City uses level of service (LOS) D as its minimum level of service criteria for intersections and roadway segments. Therefore, intersections operating at LOS E or F are considered deficient. Additionally, the City of Chino indicates that a project would not meet the LOS standard if 204 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2).

As detailed in Table 3.17.A, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better during a.m. peak hour and during p.m. peak hour) without the project and would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during a.m. peak hour and during p.m. peak hour with the project. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Table 3.17.A: Existing (2020) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection
Level of
Service
Standard
Without Project With Project
Significant
Impact
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour

1. Reservoir Street/Philadelphia Street D C B C C No

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street D C C C D No

3. Pipeline Avenue/Philadelphia Street D C C C C No

4. East End Avenue/Walnut Avenue D C C C C No

5. Project Driveway 1/Philadelphia Street D - - B B No

6. Project Driveway 2/East End Avenue D - - B B No

7. Project Driveway 3/East End Avenue D - - B B No
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 7-1: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary. Table 13-1. Peak Hour Project Driveway Capacity Analysis Summary. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B).

An LOS analysis was conducted for opening year (2022) without project and opening year (2022) with project conditions to determine intersection performance. As detailed in Table 3.17.B, the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS E during p.m. peak hour) with project conditions and without project conditions. Therefore, the 205 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Page 7. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B1). 206 Ibid. Table 5-1. 207 The concept of passenger car equivalents (PCEs) accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could.

Table 3.17.B: Opening Year (2022) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection
Level of
Service
Standard
Without Project With Project
Significant
Impact
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour

1. Reservoir Street/Philadelphia Street D C C C C No

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street D C E C E Yes

3. Pipeline Avenue/Philadelphia Street D C C C C No

4. East End Avenue/Walnut Avenue D C C C C No

5. Project Driveway 1/Philadelphia Street D - - B B No

6. Project Driveway 2/East End Avenue D - - B B No

7. Project Driveway 3/East End Avenue D - - B B No
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 8-1: 2022 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary. Table 13-1. Peak Hour Project Driveway Capacity Analysis Summary. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B).

A peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of East End Avenue/ Philadelphia Street under opening year (2022) conditions to consider the feasibility of installing a signal as an improvement. The peak hour signal warrant is intended for use where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour on an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. As detailed in the project-specific TIA, a signal is warranted at the intersection of East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street under opening year (2022) with project conditions.208
Table 3.17.C lists the intersection improvements required to meet the City’s level of service standard and offset project impacts under opening year (2022) with project conditions for the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection.

Table 3.17.C: Recommended Improvements1
Intersection Opening Year (2022) with Project Improvements

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street Install a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation.

Stripe crosswalks on all legs.

Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Page 26. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B). 1 The conceptual design of these improvements is illustrated in Figure 10-1 of Appendix B.

Circulation Improvements and Funding Sources. Where the project results in an adverse LOS on the roadway network and the City does not have a Development Impact Fee Program for a specific improvement, the project would pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvement. As 208 The concept of passenger car equivalents (PCEs) accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could. Section 11.1 and Table 11-1.

Table 3.17.D: Year 2022 with Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Fair Share Contribution Key Intersection
Impacted
Time
Period
(1)
Existing
Traffic
(2)
Project
Traffic
(3)
Year 2022
with Project
Traffic
(4)
Project Fair
Share
Responsibility

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street AM
PM
-- 1,254-- 26-- 1,348-- 27.66%
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 12-1. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B).

Notes: Net Project Percent Increase (4) = Column (2) / [Column (3) – Column (1)] Based on the LOS analysis for Opening Year (2022) without project and with project scenarios, the Traffic Impact Analysis recommended installation of a signal at the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection, which has been incorporated into the project design detailed in Section 2.2.3 above. The signal would be installed prior to occupancy of the Industrial Development Site, and the project applicant would enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Chino to be reimbursed the cost of this improvement minus the fair-share amount of 27.66 percent as identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the project.209
As detailed in Table 3.17.E, implementation of the recommended improvements to the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection would improve the LOS at the intersection to satisfactory levels for opening year (2022).

Table 3.17.E: Opening Year (2022) with Project Recommended Improvements Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
Level of Service
Standard
With Project Without
Improvements
With Project With
Improvements
Significant
Impact
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Opening Year (2022)

2. East End Avenue/
Philadelphia Street D C E B B No
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 8-1: Year 2022 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary. (Appendix B).

Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for Near Term Year 2025. As part of the 2023 Supplemental TIA (Appendix B2), an LOS analysis was conducted for existing without project and existing with project conditions to determine roadway segment performance. Using rates from the Institute of 209 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 12-1. February 22, 2021 (Appendix B).

Table 3.17.F: Near Term Year (2025) Daily Roadway Segment Analysis Levels of Service Roadway Segment1
Existing Conditions Year 2025 without
Project Conditions
Year 2025 with
Project Conditions
Deficiency
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Daily Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Daily Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C Increase
Significant?

8. East End Avenue,
between Francis
Avenue and
Philadelphia Street
9,713 0.694 B 10,177 0.727 C 10,193 0.728 C 0.001 No

9. East End Avenue,
between Philadelphia
Street and County
Road
10,114 0.722 C 10,551 0.754 C 10,559 0.754 C 0.000 No

10. Philadelphia
Street, between
Reservoir Street and
East End Avenue
7,672 0.548 A 8,142 0.582 A 8,236 0.588 A 0.006 No

11. Philadelphia
Street, between East
End Avenue and
Roswell Avenue
8,163 0.583 A 8,674 0.620 B 8,733 0.624 B 0.004 No
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California. Table 6: Year 2025 Conditions Daily Roadway Segment Analysis Summary. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2). 1 All study area roadway segments are secondary arterials with 14,000 vehicles per day LOS capacity and consist of two undivided lanes.

As shown in Table 3.17.F, the increase in traffic due to the added daily project trips would not result in an adverse level of service. 210 Ibid. Table 5-1. 211 The concept of passenger car equivalents (PCEs) accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could. 212 The updated trip generation estimates in the Supplemental TIA are lower than those forecasted in the approved 2021 TIA due to the updated rates provided in the ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual. Therefore, the project-generated passenger vehicle and truck trips for Existing (2020) with Project Conditions, Existing (2020) with Project Conditions, and Opening Year (2022) with Project Conditions are overestimated for those scenarios for a conservative analysis.

Table 3.17.G: Near Term Year (2025) Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis Levels of Service Roadway Segment1 Approach Time
Period
Total Link
Capacity
(Vehicles
per Hour)
Year 2025 without Project
Conditions
Year 2025 with Project
Conditions
Peak
Hour
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Deficient (Yes/No)
Peak
Hour
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Deficient (Yes/No)

8. East End Avenue,
between Francis
Avenue and
Philadelphia Street
Northbound
AM
PM
3,200
3,200
347
452

0.108

0.141
A
A
No
No
347
456

0.108

1.143
A
A
No
No
Southbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
311
388

0.194

0.243
A
A
No
No
315
388

0.197

0.243
A
A
No
No

9. East End Avenue,
between Philadelphia
Street and County
Road
Northbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
330
525

0.206

0.328
A
A
No
No
331
525

0.207

0.328
A
A
No
No
Southbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
430
365

0.269

0.228
A
A
No
No
430
366

0.269

0.229
A
A
No
No

10. Philadelphia
Street, between
Reservoir Street and
East End Avenue
Eastbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
350
472

0.219

0.295
A
A
No
No
365
480

0.228

0.300
A
A
No
No
Westbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
247
302

0.154

0.189
A
A
No
No
252
317

0.158

0.198
A
A
No
No

11. Philadelphia
Street, between East
End Avenue and
Roswell Avenue
Eastbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
359
250

0.224

0.156
A
A
No
No
362
259

0.226

0.162
A
A
No
No
Westbound
AM
PM
1,600
1,600
188
526

0.118

0.329
A
A
No
No
197
531

0.123

0.332
A
A
No
No
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, Philadelphia Street Industrial Center, Chino, California.

Table 7: Year 2025 Conditions Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis Summary. June 20, 2023 (Appendix B2).

All study area roadway segments are secondary arterials, and each approach supports 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane link capacity.

As shown in Table 3.17.G, the increase in traffic due to the added peak hour project trips would not result in an adverse level of service.

Pedestrian System. There are no sidewalks along the Industrial Development Site’s frontage with East End Avenue to the east or Philadelphia Street to the south. In the site’s vicinity, sidewalks exist briefly along the east side of East End Avenue along the frontage of residential buildings. Generally, pedestrian facilities in proximity to the Industrial Development Site are fragmented and to not facilitate adequate pedestrian access from the site to neighboring commercial land uses.

Transit Services. Public transit is provided to the Industrial Development Site via Foothill Transit Line 195 at the intersection of S. Reservoir Street and Philadelphia Street 0.35 mile west of the site. By introducing employment generating uses in proximity to an existing bus stop, the industrial development would facilitate increased transit mobility in the site vicinity. The proposed industrial development would be site specific and would not require new transit stops or the significant relocation of existing transit stops. Implementation of the proposed industrial development would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the transit services system.

Bicycle Facilities: Bicycle access to the site is provided via Class III bike facilities along Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue. Development of the Industrial Development Site includes half-width buildout of Philadelphia Street and East End Avenue pursuant to the City’s General Plan designation for a Secondary Arterial Street to provide additional road width for vehicles and bicycles to co-operate and further facilitate bicycle connectivity in the community. Additionally, the industrial development includes five designated bicycle parking spaces in accordance with City General Plan Objectives TRA10.1, Policy 2 and TRA-10.2, Policy 3. Implementation of the proposed industrial development would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing Chino’s bicycle facilities system.

By installing a signal at the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection, which has been incorporated into the project design detailed in Section 2.2.3 above, LOS would improve at the affected intersection, and operation of the Industrial Development Site would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing Chino’s circulation System.

East End Annexation: This analysis examines traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project under the long-term traffic scenario, Year 2040 with project conditions, as part of the annexation analysis. The following study intersections were identified via the Scoping Agreement process as part of the annexation analysis:

1. Reservoir Street/Philadelphia Street;

2. East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street;

3. Pipeline Avenue/Philadelphia Street;

4. East End Avenue/Walnut Street;

5. East End Avenue/Francis Avenue;

6. Ramona Avenue/Philadelphia Street;

7. Project Driveway 1/Philadelphia Street;

8. Project Driveway 2/East End Avenue; and

9. Project Driveway 3/East End Avenue.

An LOS analysis was conducted for Year 2040 with project conditions to determine intersection performance to analyze the annexation of the 56.87 East End Annexation area. As detailed in Table 3.17.H, the East End Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS F during a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour) with the project, which worsens the LOS forecast for this intersection during a.m. and p.m. peak hour with the project in Opening Year 2022 (see Table 3.17.B.). The intersection at East End Avenue/Walnut Avenue also is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS E during a.m. peak hour and LOS F during p.m. peak hour) with the project, whereas this intersection was forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C) with the project in Opening Year 2022 (see Table 3.17.B). Additionally, the Ramona Avenue/Philadelphia Street intersection is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS F during a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour) with the project. Therefore, the proposed project would cause an adverse cumulative effect at these three intersections.

Chino City CouncilOctober 3, 2023

Chino City Council
October 3, 2023