Agenda packet — Chino City Council, September 2, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

would be mitigated to less than significant levels with respect to the following issues: biological resources; cultu ral and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; and noise.

Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the Draft EIR. The EIR includes the following: Draft EIR, Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overrid ing Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP); and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2025, the City published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion for the 2045 General Plan Update Draft EIR and filed these notices with LCI under State Clearinghouse No. 2024090833. The DEIR was released for public review for a 45 -day public comment period from June 20, 2025, through August 4, 2025. The City requested consultation with and comments on the DEIR from all applicable parties in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15086. Following the procedures under CEQA Guidelines 15087 and 15105, the NOA and DEIR were released for public review on June 20, 2025, for a 45 -day comment period from June 20, 2025, through August 4, 2025. 6 (Six) comment letters, containing over 35 unique comments, were received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, as required by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a Final EIR has been prepared responding to comments on significant environmental points raised in the revi ew and consultation process of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chino has made available for public review the proposed Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chino on August 14 in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, provided written respon ses to the public agencies and other entities that provided written comments on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Final EIR (including the Draft EIR) was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of Chino, including the Ex-Officio Members from the Sphere of Influence, and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and by a vote of 9-0 recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provide copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City Councils consideration of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR responses to comments received on the draft environmental documents were made available for review at the following locations: City of Chino Development Services Department at Chino City Hall, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino and the Chino Branch Library, 13180 Central Avenue, Chino, and the City ’s website and are set forth in Exhibit B.4 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and this resolution; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of State law have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
207
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-055

Page 3 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the project are identified in the EIR, set forth in Exhibit B.1 to the agenda report and this resolution; and WHEREAS, the irreversible impacts of the project are identified in the EIR, and are set forth in Exhibit B.1 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and this resolution; and WHEREAS, the findings of fact are set forth in Exhibit B.2 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and this resolution; and
WHEREAS, an Errata has been prepared that outlines the changes made to the EIR set forth in Exhibit B.3 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and this resolution; and WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as set forth in Exhibit B.5 to the to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and this resolution; and WHEREAS, projects consistent with the Proposed Plan and the findings of this EIR may also be eligible for streamlined environmental review as permitted under CEQA. This EIR represents the City’s best effort to evaluate the implementation and buildout of the Proposed Plan through its horizon year of 2045. While it is anticipated that conditions may change, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2025, the City Council of the City of Chino conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council heard and reviewed the presentation, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it dur ing all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Ci ty and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Proposed Plan under Public Resource Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO that the above Recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth in this Resolution and the City Council certifies the EIR, adopts the MMRP , and adopts the environmental findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations for the City of Chino 2045 General Plan Update based on the following Findings:
208
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-055

Page 4 of 6 ends

1. The City Council determines that each of the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, set forth as Exhibit B.1 to the September 2, 2025 agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, which it has been reviewed and considered, and furt her finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculatio n. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

3. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA “Findings of Fact” set forth in Exhibit B.2 to the September 2, 2025 , agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

4. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit B.2 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, for the project as supported by substantial evidence in the record pursuant to CEQA Section 15093.

5. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP and make implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP a condition of approval of the project. (Exhibit B.5 to the September 2 , 2025, agenda report). In the event of inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and MMRP , the MMRP shall control.

6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Chino, and are located at 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, 91710. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2).

7. The Proposed 2045 General Plan Update is a document, set forth in Exhibit A .1 to the September 2, 2025, agenda report and incorporated by reference herein, to be adopted by the City Council that serves the following objectives:
a. Promote a balanced community with a clear development pattern defined by lively activity centers, thriving employment districts, and safe, livable neighborhoods. b. Focus future population, housing and employment growth into Key Opportunity Areas while preserving and enhancing the community's distinctive small town feel that comes from strong community bonds and a respect for the community's agricultural roots.
c. Position Downtown as a focal point for civic, cultural, and community life, anchored by its charming historic buildings, the Civic Center, and a host of thriv ing restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues in a walkable environment. 209
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-055

Page 5 of 6 ends

d. Revitalize older shopping centers and commercial corridors so that they feature a range of new uses to serve community needs and act as vital activity hubs and social gathering places that contribute to local character and quality of life. e. Prioritize business attraction and retention to foster a strong, stable economy that welcomes innovation and promoting entrepreneurship.
f. Reinforce connections to the regional transportation network. g. Strengthen the network of safe streets and multi-use trails that link neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other community destinations, tying older and newer parts of Chino together.
h. Enhance neighborhood livability by promoting active, healthy lifestyles with indoor and outdoor recreational amenities and by prioritizing clean air, water, fresh food, and community health.
i. Protect the community from natural hazards, build resilience to climate change, and promote emergency preparedness.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.

EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK

Attachments:

A.1 2045 General Plan (website address below)
B.1 Final 2045 General Plan Update PEIR (link below)
B.2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations B.3 Errata
B.4 Response to Comments
B.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
https://www.cityofchino.org/591/Environmental-Documents

210
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-055

Page 6 of 6 ends

State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )

I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Chino City Council at a regular meeting held on the 2 nd day of September 2025, by the following votes:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK
211
CHINO 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2024090833)

CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Attachment B.2
212
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 A. California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................................................ 1 B. Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................................................. 2 D. Custodian and Location of Records ......................................................................................................... 3 II. PROJECT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....3 A. Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 3 B. Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 4 C. Statement of Objectives............................................................................................................................... 5 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ ................................ .6 A. Notice of Preparation ................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Public Review of PEIR .................................................................................................................................... 6 C. Decision-Making Process ............................................................................................................................ 7 IV. GENERAL FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ................................ ................................ ................................ .........8 A. Legal Effects of Findings .............................................................................................................................. 9 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................ ................................ .9 VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 9 VIII. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .........11 IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ ................................ ........11 A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 11 B. Impacts that Can Only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by Another Jurisdiction: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) ....................... 21

C. Impacts that Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 22

X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 40 A. No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative ................................................................................... 41 B. Redistributed Housing Alternative ......................................................................................................... 41 C. Increased Downtown Development Alternative ................................................................................ 43 XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 43 Overriding Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 44 213
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)
XII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ................................ .............................. 45 A. Growth Inducement .................................................................................................................................... 45 B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................................................. 45 XIII. DECISION AND EXPLANATION REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR................................ 46

214
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 1 ends

I. INTRODUCTION
A. California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines; 14 Cal ifornia Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project or program be examined before a project is approved. In addition , once significant impacts have been identified , CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain findings be made before project approval.

While staff of a decision-making body can assist in recommending adoption of findings to proceed on a project subject to a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), only the decision-making body has the authority to make such findings. Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project or program for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings for each potentially significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment; (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency; or (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.

CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines be supported by substantial evidence in the record (Section 15091(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence must include facts, reasonable assumptions predi cated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines).

When making the findings required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

The following Candidate Findings of Fact (Findings) have been submitted to the City Council of the City of Chino (City), as the decision-making body, to be approved for the Chino 2045 General Plan Update (project) pursuant to CEQA. The project, as detailed below, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is included herein (Section XI), as part of the project’s Findings.
215
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 2 ends

Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the project, State Clearinghouse N umber 2024090833, as well as all other information in the Record of Proceedings (as defined below) on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the program.

B. Project Background
The City has prepared a PEIR as defined in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A PEIR is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA for a series of actions that are characterized as one large project through reasons of geography, similar rules or regulations, or where individual activities will occur under the same regulatory process with similar environmental impacts that can be miti gated in similar ways. Because the project consists of a long -term plan that would be implemented as a policy document guiding future d evelopment activities, and this PEIR includes a mitigation framework that would ensure mitigation would be implemented by future projects, a program approach is appropriate. The Final PEIR may serve as the environmental document for subsequent activities or implementing actions. If, in examining future actions for development within the City, the City finds no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required other than those analyzed and/or required in this Final PEIR, the City can ap prove the activity as being within the scope covered by the Final PEIR and no new environmental documentation would be required. If additional analysis is required, it can be streamlined by tiering from the Final PEIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15153, 15168, and 15183 (e.g., through the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, or Supplemental or Subsequent EIR).

These Findings are made relative to the specific conclusions of the Final PEIR prepared for the project.

C. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project;
• Comments received on the NOP;
• The Draft PEIR for the project;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR;
• All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review and comment period for the Draft PEIR; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); 216
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 3 ends

• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited to in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR;
• All supplemental documents prepared for the PEIR and submitted to the City Council prior to this hearing;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City , including but not limited to federal , state, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
• City staff report prepared for this hearing related to the proposed project and any exhibits thereto;
• Project permit conditions; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

The Draft PEIR and all related appendices were made available for review during the public review period at City Hall, located at 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, California. A copy of the Draft PEIR was also available for review at the Chino Branch Library, located at 13180 Central Avenue, Chino , California.

The Draft PEIR was also available for review on the City’s Community Development Department website: https://www.cityofchino.org/591/Environmental-Documents.

D. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project are located at City Hall, located at 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, California. The Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.

Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are, and at all relevant and required times have been and will be , available upon request at the offices of the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The project would update the City’s Adopted General Plan and would guide future land use decisions, providing a long-term vision for the City, guiding growth and development within the City and its Sphere of Influence, collectively known as the Planning Area, through the planning horizon year of 2045. The boundary of the Planning Area was determined in response to state law requiring each city to include in its general plan all territory within the boundaries of the incorporated area as well as “any land outside its boundaries which in the pl anning agency’s judgment bears relation to 217
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 4 ends

its planning” (California Government Code Section 65300). The City is located within San Bernardino County in the state of California, approximately 36 miles east of Los Angeles, 30 miles west of San Bernardino, 25 miles northeast of Anaheim, and 50 miles northeast of Long Beach.

The northern portion of the City is bisected by State Route (SR) 60, a major east- west freeway and goods movement corridor that connects the Los Angeles metropolitan area with the Inland Empire and points beyond. SR -71 generally forms the City’s western bo undary, providing connections to Pomona to the north and job centers in Orange County to the south via SR-91. SR-83, known locally as Euclid Avenue, generally forms the eastern boundary of the northern part of the City, providing connections to the City of Ontario to the north.

B. Project Description
The project would update the City ’s Adopted General Plan to incorporate strategies addressing multimodal mobility, environmental justice, climate vulnerability, and emergency evacuation, among other topics. The project would serve as the blueprint for the City’s future and would focus on K ey Opportunity Areas where change is foreseeable. These are generally areas with clusters of vacant and underutilized land, many of which contain commercial properties recently rezoned to permit multi-family housing. Outside of these Key Opportunity Areas, the 2045 General Plan would maintain the existing urban form and enhance the character and quality of life in the City ’s established neighborhoods and would support continued implementation of The Preserve Specific Plan. Key project components include the following:
• Four new land use designations are designed to promote a vibrant mix of uses in Key Opportunity Areas including a Regional Mixed Use (RMU) designation, a Boulevard Mixed Use (BMU) designation, a new Downtown (DT) land use designation, and a new Employment Mixed Use (EMU) designation.
• An updated circulation diagram with new roadway classifications for mixed -use boulevards and Downtown streets that emphasize walkability and roadway safety. • Completion of the Pine Avenue Connector, linking SR
-71 with Euclid Avenue.
• Strategies for effectively managing truck traffic to minimize conflicts with bicycles, pedestrians, and local traffic while optimizing access to the regional network. • Establishing “good neighbor” policies and performance standards for light industrial and manufacturing uses, particularly where adjacent to residential neighborhoods. These policies and standards would govern screening, landscaping, architectural design, n oise, air quality, traffic, and access.
• Streetscape improvements to improve bicycle/pedestrian safety and enhance walkability along segments of Riverside Drive, including wider sidewalks, landscaped buffers between pedestrians and traffic, the addition of bicycle lanes, and the conversion of the ends of some alleyways into pocket parks/plazas.
218
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 5 ends

• A new Community Health and Environmental Justice Element with strategies to promote active, healthy lifestyles, reduce exposure to air pollution, mitigate urban heat in summertime, and improve roadway safety, particularly around schools and community centers. • Strategies to incentivize the creation of mini parks, plazas, and publicly accessible privately- owned open spaces in the northern part of the city where there is a need for new parks and recreational spaces.
• Policy guidance for future uses on the former Ayala Park driving range, including providing on site food and beverage vending for game and event days and/or constructing a water park.

Additionally, it is envisioned that the project would provide direction for the repeal of the following three outdated specific plans and the incorporation of any standards and provisions from those plans that remain relevant into the Zoning Code: the Central Avenue Specific Plan, the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan, and the Spectrum Center Specific Plan. The Proposed Planning Area comprises a total of 20,626 acres (32.23 square miles) of both incorporated and unincorporated land bearing relation to the City’s future growth.

The project would also modify the organizational structure of the Adopted General Plan. Some chapters were combined and renamed to better reflect community priorities identified through the process and to incorporate new requirements established in state law. The chapters of the project would be organized as follows:
• Introduction
• Land Use and Community Character
• Economic Development
• Infrastructure
• Parks, Recreation and Community Services
• Hazards, Safety, and Noise
• Health and Environmental Quality
• Implementation
C. Statement of Objectives
As described in Section 3.2 of the Final PEIR, the following objectives are identified for the project:

1. Promote a balanced community with a clear development pattern defined by lively activity centers, thriving employment districts, and safe, livable neighborhoods.

2. Focus future population, housing and employment growth into Key Opportunity Areas while preserving and enhancing the community's distinctive small town feel that comes from strong community bonds and a respect for the community's agricultural roots.

3. Position Downtown as a focal point for civic, cultural, and community life, anchored by its charming historic buildings, the Civic Center, and a host of thriving restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues in a walkable environment.
219
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 6 ends

4. Revitalize older shopping centers and commercial corridors so that they feature a range of new uses to serve community needs and act as vital activity hubs and social gathering places that contribute to local character and quality of life.

5. Prioritize business attraction and retention to foster a strong, stable economy that welcomes innovation and promoting entrepreneurship.

6. Reinforce connections to the regional transportation network.

7. Strengthen the network of safe streets and multi -use trails that links neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other community destinations, tying older and newer parts of Chino together.

8. Enhance neighborhood livability by promoting active, healthy lifestyles with indoor and outdoor recreational amenities and by prioritizing clean air, water, fresh food, and community health.

9. Protect the community from natural hazards, build resilience to climate change, and promote emergency preparedness.

The City has considered the statement of objectives sought by the project and hereby adopts these objectives as part of the project.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Notice of Preparation
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed an NOP of a Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP was circulated for public comment on September 23, 2024 , and a scoping meeting held on October 17, 2024. Comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in the Final PEIR as Appendix A.

B. Public Review of PEIR
The Draft PEIR for the project was prepared and circulated for review and comment by the public , agencies, and organizations for a public review period that began on June 20, 2025, and concluded on August 4, 2025. A Notice of Completion of the Draft P EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft PEIR was circulated to state agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research.

A Notice of A vailability of the Draft P EIR for review was provided to organizations and parties expressing interest in the project, was posted on the City’s website, and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Comments submitted to the City during the public review of the Draft PEIR have received formal responses as required by CEQA. Those responses to comments have been incorporated into the Final PEIR.
220
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 7 ends

C. Decision-Making Process
The project will be formally heard before the City Council on September 2, 2025, unless the same is continued or rescheduled subject to the provision of notice as required by law, when an ultimate disposition (approval/denial of the project and certification of the Final PEIR) will be determined.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
• Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051, the City is the Lead Agency for the project.
• The Draft PEIR and Final PEIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and any City CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds.
• The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR, and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. • An MMRP has been prepared for the project, which the City has adopted or made a condition of approval of the project. That MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the Record of Proceedings for the project.
• The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator. • In determining whether the project has a significant impact on the environment , and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, the City has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15901(b). • The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Final PEIR.
• The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft PEIR and the responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts associated with the project. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints , including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR. • The responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, which are contained in the Final PEIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft PEIR, and do not result in new information being added to the Final PEIR which would require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).
221
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 8 ends

• The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the project prior to certification of the Final PEIR, nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the project. • Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and/or Final PEIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian of record for such documents or other materials.
• Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record, the City hereby conditions the project and finds as stated in these Findings.

V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[...]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects or programs and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. Public Resources Code Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects or programs for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project or program, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such find ing is that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR” ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that “such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency” ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR” ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565).

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility for modifying the project lies and has been implemented by another agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c)). 222
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 9 ends

A. Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude that various design features incorporated into the program and mitigation measures outlined in the Final PEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these design features and mitigation measures. These Findings, therefore, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City formally approves the project.

The project design features and adopted mitigation measures are included in the MMRP adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated both through the process of constructing and implementing the project.

VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a)(1), the City, in adopting these Findings, also concurrently adopts an MMRP. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, all responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The MMRP is described in the document entitled “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,” included as Chapter 8 of the Final PEIR. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with required mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for the public to review by request during the mitigation compliance period, which is ongoing following program approval and through buildout of future projects implemented under the conditions of the program.

The MMRP will serve the dual purpose of verifying the completion of the mitigation measures for the program and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions.

VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Final PEIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. The Final PEIR concludes that the project would have no significant impacts and require no mitigation measures associated with the following issues:
• Aesthetics ( Issue 1 -Scenic Vistas ; Issue 2 -Scenic Resources , Issue 3 -Visual Character , and Issue 4-Light and Glare)
• Air Quality (Issue 4-Odors)
• Biological Resources (Issue 4-Wildlife Movement and Corridors, Issue 5-Habitat Conservation Planning, and Issue 6-Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources) • Cultural and Tribal Resources (Issue 3-Human Remains) • Geology and Soils (Issue 1-Seismic Hazards, Issue 2-Soil Erosion, Issue 3-Unstable Geology, Issue 4-Expansive Soils, and Issue 5-Septic Tanks)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Issues 1 -Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Issue 2-Accidental Release, Issue 3-Emissions Near a School , Issue 4-Hazardous 223
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 10 ends

Material Sites, Issue 5-Airport Hazards, Issue 6-Emergency Response, and Issue 7-Wildland Fires)
• Hydrology/Water Quality (Issue 1-Water Quality Standards , Issue 2 -Groundwater, Issue 3-Drainage Patterns/Storm Water Runoff , Issue 4 -Flood Hazard , and Issue 5 -Water Quality Control Plans)
• Land Use/Planning (Issue 1-Physically Divide an Established Community and Issue 2-Conflict with Applicable Plans and Policies)
• Noise ( Issue 1-Increase in Ambient Noise : Railroad Noise , Issue 2 -Vibration: Railroad/ Stationary Sources, and Issue 3: Aircraft Noise)
• Population and Housing (Issue 1-Population Growth and Issue 2-Displace People or Housing) • Public Services and Recreation ( Issue 1 -Public Services, Issue 2 -Increased Use of Parks/Recreational Facilities, and Issue 3-Construction/Expansion of Recreational Facilities) • Transportation (Issue 1-Circulation System: Public Transit and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Issue 3-Hazards Due to a Design Feature, and Issue 4-Emergency Access) • Utilities and Service Systems (Issue 1 -Utility Infrastructure, Issue 2 -Water Supply, Issue 3-Wastewater Treatment, Issue 4 -Solid Waste Capacity, and Issue 5 -Solid Waste Management)
• Wildfire (Issue 1-Emergency Response Plans, Issue 2-Wildfire, Issue 3-Infrastructure, and Issue 4-Flooding or Landslide)
The Final PEIR concludes that implementation of the project would result in significant direct and/or cumulative impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant levels with respect to the following issues:
• Biological Resources (Issue 1-Special Status Species, Issue 2-Sensitive Riparian Habitats, and Issue 3-Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters) (Direct and Cumulative) • Cultural and Tribal Resources (Issue 2 -Archeological Resources and Issue 4-Tribal Cultural Resources) (Direct and Cumulative)
• Geology and Soils (Issue 6-Paleontological Resources) (Direct and Cumulative) • Noise (Issue 1-Increase in Ambient Noise : Stationary Noise/Construction Noise (Direct and Cumulative)
224
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 11 ends

The Final PEIR concludes that implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable direct and/or cumulative impacts with respect to the following issues:
• Air Quality (Issue 1- Air Quality Plans, Issue 2- Criteria Pollutants , and Issue 3 -Sensitive Receptors) (Direct and Cumulative)
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (Issue 1-Historic Resources) (Direct and Cumulative) • Greenhouse Gas (Issue 1 -Greenhouse Gas ( GHG) Emissions, Issue 2 -Policies, Plans, and Regulations Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions) (Direct and Cumulative) • Noise (Issue 1 -Increase in Ambient Noise : Traffic Noise /Land Use Compatibility , Issue 2-Vibration: Construction) (Direct and Cumulative) • Transportation ( Issue 1 -Circulation System : Roadway System and Issue 2 -Vehicle Miles Traveled) (Direct and Cumulative)
VIII. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City finds the characterization of impacts in the Final PEIR with respect to issue areas identified as less than significant have been described accurately and would result in less than significant impacts as so described in the Final PEIR. This finding applies to the impacts evaluated in the Final PEIR and determined to be less than significant, as stated under Section VII.

IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)

1. Biological Resources
Significance Determinations Threshold 1: Sensitive Species Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project resulted in 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.

Impact
As described in Section 4.3.4 of the Final PEIR, b uildout of the project would have the potential to directly and/or indirectly impact candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Potential direct impacts would include the removal of habitat through future development and redevelopment of project sites that support sensitive species. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to sensitive species by primarily focusing future development and redevelopment within the Key Opportunity Areas. However, some sensitive species observations have occurred within the central and northern portions of the Planning Area, including within the Key Opportunity Areas. 225
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 12 ends

Furthermore, future development and redevelopment may occur throughout the Planning Area, including vacant parcels with habitat types that may support sensitive species. Future development and redevelopment may also result in indirect impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species due to excess noise, lighting, or runoff generated during construction of projects both within and outside the Key Opportunity Areas. Furthermore, project construction could result in direct impacts to nesting or migratory birds from the removal of mature trees and/or native vegetation within project areas during the typical bird breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Therefore, impacts to sensitive species would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measures would apply:

BIO-1: Biological Assessment and Mitigation
Applications for future development of vacant properties (and portions thereof), wherein the City’s Director of Development Services or their designee has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to prepare a site-specific general biological resources survey to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. The report shall identify the need for focused presence/absence surveys and identify the pr esence of state or federal regulated wetlands or waters. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources, including sensitive species and/or wetlands are identified, the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.

BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Applications for future development, wherein the City’s Director of Development Services or their designee has determined a potential for impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds, shall be required to restrict removal of sensitive habitat and vegetation to outside the breeding seasons of any sensitive species identified within adjacent properties (typical bird breeding season is January 15 to September 15, as early as January 1 for some raptors). If vegetation clearing must begin during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall provide recommendations to avoid impacts to nesting birds which typically includes a pre -construction survey within three days of the start of construction to determine the presence of active nests.

If active nests are found, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure protection of the nesting birds. Avoidance measures may include a no -activity buffer zone, typically 300 feet from the area of disturbance or 500 feet for raptors, established at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City, If activity buffer zones are not feasible, temporary noise barriers may be installed to attenuate construction noise. Noise wall height and adequacy shall be supported by a noise anal ysis to determine the anticipated construction noise levels with attenuation measures as recommended by the biologist and approved by the City. Periodic noise monitoring shall be conducted during construction to ensure noise attenuation standards are met. Accepted noise levels are species dependent and existing ambient noise levels can play a factor in establishing baseline acceptable noise.
226
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 13 ends

Finding
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the Final PEIR to a level less than significant.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would require the identification of potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive species and implement appropriate site-specific measures to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO -1 and BIO-2 would reduce impacts on sensitive and special status species to a less than significant level.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.3 Biological Resources
Significance Determination Threshold 2: Sensitive Riparian Habitats Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project resulted in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Impact
As described in Section 4.3.5 of the PEIR, the majority of the land within the Key Opportunity Areas consists of urban/developed land. However, future development may occur throughout the Planning Area, including vacant parcels with habitat types that may support sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat. Therefore, impacts to riparian and sensitive habitats would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
See mitigation measure BIO-1.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO -1 would require the identification of on-site biological resources and include specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to riparian and sensitive habitats. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO -1 would reduce impacts on riparian and sensitive habitats to a level less than significant. 227
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 14 ends

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.3 Biological Resources
Significance Determination Threshold 3: Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Pursuant to Issue 3, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Impact
As described in Section 4.3.6 of the Final PEIR, the project has been designed to minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters by primarily focusing future development and redevelopment within the Key Opportunity Areas. However, future development and redevelopment may occur throughout the Plann ing Area, including vacant parcels with jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
See mitigation measure BIO-1.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO -1 would require identification of on-site biological resources and include specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts on wetlands. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on wetlands to a level less than significant.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.3 Biological Resources

2. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Significance Determination Threshold 2: Archaeological Resources Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant direct and cumulative impact would occur if the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5.
228
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 15 ends

Impacts
As described in Section 4.4.6 of the Final PEIR, future development would be focused in urbanized areas and previous agricultural areas that have been disturbed and are therefore unlikely to possess native soil with intact buried archaeological resources. None of the K ey Opportunity Areas possess known archaeological resources. Nonetheless, future development and redevelopment within the Planning Area would have the potential to impact undiscovered archaeological resources that have not been recorded or evaluated or may become eligible for listing in the future. Therefore, implementation of future projects could result in ground-disturbing activities within vacant land that could unearth unknown buried archaeological resources. Grading, excavation, and other ground disturbing activities associated with future development could expose buried archaeological resources and features. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

CUL-2: Cultural Resources Assessment
Prior to project approval or the issuance of grading permits (whichever is applicable and comes first), the City shall require applicants for future proposed ground disturbing projects to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources and ap propriate mitigation measures. The following steps to achieve these goals:
1) A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards shall conduct a cultural resources assessment consisting of a record search from the SCCIC, a sacred lands search from the NAHC, a pedestrian survey, background context and project specific recommendations
2) If the cultural resources assessment identifies archaeological resources that have not been evaluated for significance per CEQA thresholds (see Section 4.4.3 above), then an evaluation program shall be completed. An evaluation program generally will include excavation to determine depth, extent, integrity, and content of the subsurface cultural material,
3) If an archaeological resource is determined significant and avoidance through project redesign is not feasible, a data recovery and construction monitoring program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to an archaeological resource to below a significant level, and
4) After construction, a final data recovery and monitoring report shall be completed documenting the result of the data recovery, research design, and monitoring efforts.

Confidential attachments must be submitted under separate covers. Artifacts collected during the evaluation, data recovery, and monitoring efforts must be curated at an appropriate facility consistent with the state and federal curation standards (36 CFR 79 of the Federal Register) and that allows access to the artifact collections.
229
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 16 ends

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 would require project level surveys to determine the potential for archaeological resources, and if so determined, to include site- specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a level less than significant. The implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 would reduce impacts on cultural resources to a level less than significant.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Significance Determination Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources Pursuant to Issue 4, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is either:
• listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, in a local register; or
• a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (c).

Impacts
As described in Section 4.4.8 of the Final PEIR, while much of the Key Opportunity Areas are urbanized or are former agricultural areas that have previously been disturbed, there is a potential for encountering undiscovered buried resources associated within Native American culture. The potential for intact tribal cultural deposits at depth exists at many locations where undocumented fill or alluvial deposition may mask buried resources, or in proximity to known recorded archaeological resources, which can also be tribal cultural resources as defined in CEQA ( Public Resource Code Section 21074). The Native American Heritage Commission sacred lands search indicated the results are positive. Construction of future site-specific development and redevelopment under the project would have the potential to unearth unknown cultural resources, including religious or sacred uses.

Where required under Assembly Bill 52, future site-specific development under the project would be subject to further consultation, which may identify unknown tribal cultural resources that have not been formally recorded during the consultation for the project. Nonetheless, grading or excavation 230
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 17 ends

within native soils could also expose unknown buried tribal cultural resources and features, including sacred sites. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
See mitigation measure CUL-2.

Rationale
Where required under Assembly Bill 52, future projects would be required to consult with known Native American tribes resulting in further site-specific consideration of potential resources. Future projects would also i mplement mitigation measure CUL -2 requiring project level surveys to determine the potential for archaeological resources, and if so determined, to include site -specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources to a level less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of regulatory compliance and mitigation measure CUL-2 would reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources to a level less than significant.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3. Geology and Soils
Significance Determination Threshold 6: Paleontological Resources Pursuant to Issue 6, a significant impact would occur if the project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Impact
As described in Section 4.5.9 of the Final PEIR, the project has been designed to minimize impacts on paleontological resources by focusing future development and redevelopment within the Key Opportunity Areas, which consist primarily of developed land that has been disturbed previously and is unlikely to possess unknown paleontological resources . However, development throughout the broader Planning Area would have the potential to disturb native soils which may possess unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources would b e potentially significant.
231
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 18 ends

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Evaluation
Applications for future development, wherein the Community Development Director or his or her designee has determined a potential for impacts to paleontological resources, shall review the underlying geology and paleontological sensitivity of the site. If it is determined that the potential exists that sensitive paleontological resources are present, the applicant shall provide a paleontological resources technical report consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified paleontologist. If it is determined there is potential for paleontological resources to be present, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during grading in locations where the paleontological resources techn ical report determined that such monitoring is necessary due to the potential for paleontological resources to reside within the underlying geologic formations. The paleontological resources technical report shall also provide specific duties of the monitor, and detailed measures to address fossil remains, if found.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure GEO -1 requires site-specific surveys of potential paleontological sensitivity, and if so determined, to include project -specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a level less than significant.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.5 Geology/Soils

4. Noise
Significance Determination Threshold 1: Increase in Ambient Noise: Stationary Noise/ Construction Noise
Pursuant to Issue 1 , a significant impact would occur if the project would 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.
232
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 19 ends

Impact (1c: Stationary Noise)
As described in Section 4.10.5 of the Final PEIR, land uses proposed under the project would be similar to land uses that currently exist within the Planning Area. Noise levels within the Planning Area are currently dominated by vehicle traffic on freeways and heavily traveled area roadways, which would continue to be the primary source of noise under project buildout. Future development and redevelopment under the project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and applicable policies in the Hazards, Safety, and Noise Element, which would reduce impacts associated with stationary sources of noise. However, because specific project details are not yet known, impacts associated with stationary sources of noise would be potentially significant.

Impact (1d: Construction Noise)
Implementation of the project may result in simultaneous construction of various development and redevelopment projects over the duration of project buildout. Future development and redevelopment under the project could result in a temporary ambient noise increase due to construction activities. Due to the developed nature of the Planning Area, there is a high likelihood that construction activities would take place adjacent to existing structures and that sensitive receptors would be close to construction activities. hourly average noise levels would be approximately 83 A-weighted decibels [dB(A)] one-hour equivalent noise level (L eq) at 50 feet from
the center of construction activity when assessing three pieces of common construction equipment working simultaneously. Noise levels would vary depending on the nature of the construction activities including the duration of specific acti vities, the equipment involved, the location of the sensitive receivers, and the presence of intervening barriers. Construction noise levels of 83 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to 80 dB(A) L eq at 70 feet. Therefore, significant impacts would occur if sensitive land uses are located closer than 70 feet of construction activities. The City regulates construction noise through Municipal Code Sections 9.40.060 and 15.44.030, which set noise standards for construction activities and limit construction to 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturday. Additionally, applicable policies in the Hazards, Safety, and Noise Element would require all construction activities to meet the City Municipal Code standards. Nonetheless, b ecause construction activities may occur near noise sensitive land uses , and because noise disturbances could occur for prolonged periods of time or during noise sensitive hours of the day, construction noise associated with future site-specific projects could exceed the City’s noise standards. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measures would apply:

NOI-3: Stationary Noise
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a site- specific acoustical/noise analysis of any on-site generated noise sources, including generators, mechanical equipment, and trucks, shall be prepared which identifies all noise-generating equipment, predicts noise levels at property lines from all identified equipment, and recommends mitigation to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), to ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards. Noise reduction measures shall include buildin g noise-attenuating 233
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 20 ends

walls, limiting the hours of operation, or other attenuation measures. Additionally, future site-specific projects shall be required to buffer sensitive receptors from noise sources through the use of open space and other separation techniques as recommended after thorough analysis by a qualified acoustical engineer. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site-specific noise analyses.

NOI-4: Construction Noise
Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the Planning Area. These measures shall be identified on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City:
• The City’s Development Services Department shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 15.44.030. No construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best- available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise sensitive land uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise sensitive land uses. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Development Services Department. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s an d contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and rep ort the action to the City.
234
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 21 ends

• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart backup alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off backup alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the noise level limits established in the Municipal Code.

Finding
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects as identified in the Final PEIR to a level of insignificance.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure NOI -3 would require site-specific noise studies to identify potentially significant project level noise impacts and implement reduction and mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to stationary noise to a level less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure NOI-4 would require the inclusion of project-specific noise attenuation measures to reduce impacts related to construction noise to a level less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures NOI-3 and NOI-4 would reduce noise impacts to a level less than significant.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.10 Noise
B. Impacts that Can Only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by Another Jurisdiction:

Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) No impacts that could only be mitigated to less than significant though the actions of another jurisdiction or public agency were identified in the Final PEIR. 235
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 22 ends

C. Impacts that Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)

1. Air Quality
Significance Determination Threshold 1: Air Quality Plans Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact
The two principal criteria for evaluating conformance with an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are (1) whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and (2) whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.

Criteria 1: Exceed AQMP
As described in Section 4.2.5 of the Final PEIR, growth forecasting for the AQMP is based in part on the land uses established by local general plans, which would be the City’s A dopted General Plan.

The growth projections used by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) to develop the AQMP emissions budgets are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general plans and used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in the development of the regional tra nsportation plans and sustainable communities strategy. When compared to the baseline year 2024 condition, the project would result in an increase in residential units and office, retail, light industrial, public facilities, and school land uses and would result in the same amount of heavy industrial uses and p arks. This increase in development would also result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). When compared to buildout of the Adopted General Plan, the project would increase the amount of retail and light industrial square footage and would result in the same amount of all other land use types. Rather than increase the anticipated number of residential uses, the project would focus construction of new residential uses within Key Opportunity Ar eas. This redistribution would result in a slight decrease in VMT when compared to buildout of the Adopted General Plan. The reduction in VMT would in turn lead to a reduction in mobile source emissions in the Planning Area. However, the increase in commercial and light industrial uses would lead to an increase in area and energy sources emissions.

As shown in Tables 4.2 -4a and 4.2-4b of the Final PEIR, buildout of the project would result in an increase in emissions of reactive organic gases ( ROG), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM
10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and a decrease in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur oxides (SOX) when compared to the existing condition. The decreases are mainly due to regulations that result in cleaner mobile sources over time. When compared to buildout under the Adopted General Plan, the project would result in an increase in emissions of ROG and NOX, and decrease in emissions of CO, PM10, and PM2.5, and no measurable change in emissions of SOX. The increases in emissions of ROG and NOx would result in a conflict with the assumptions used to develop the AQMP. Therefore, because the project 236
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 23 ends

would conflict with the implementation of the regional air quality strategy, air emissions associated with the adoption of the project could result in a cumulatively considerable effect on regional air quality, which would be considered potentially significant.

Criteria 2: Increase Air Quality Violations
The South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is designated as in attainment or unclassifiable attainment (expected to be meeting the standard despite a lack of monitoring data) for all federal air quality standards except 8 -hour ozone (O
3) and PM 2.5 standards. The Basin is designated as in
nonattainment for state air quality standards for 8 -hour ozone and PM 2.5, and additionally is in nonattainment of state PM 10 standards. Because the project involves long -term growth associated with buildout of the Planning Area, cum ulative emissions generated from operation of individual development projects would exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds (see Section

4.2.6.1 of the Final PEIR). Consequently, emissions generated during construction and operation of site-specific projects in addition to existing sources in the Planning Area are considered to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Basin. Future site -specific development and redevelopment would be required to implement best management practices at all construction sites consistent with SCAQMD rules and regulations, comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449, which itself requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment be restricted to five minutes or less, and comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) mandatory measures the would require measures such as installing electric vehicle parking and increasing energy efficiency. The City’s process for the evaluation of future discretionary projects would include environmental review and documentation pursuant to CEQA where applicable, as well as an analysis of those site-specific projects for consistency with the goals, policies, and actions of the project. Compliance with updated Land Use and Community Character Element, Infrastructure Element, and Health and Environmental Quality Element goals, policies, and actions would serve to further support the City’s goal of improving air quality. Despite adherence to these goals, policies, and actions, buildout of the project could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, the project would not be consistent with the AQMP, which would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measures would apply:

AQ-1: Construction Air Quality
Applications for future development and redevelopment, wherein the City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee has determined a potential for air quality impacts associated with construction, shall prepare and submit a technica l assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee shall make this determination based on the size of the project, whether the project would require a transportation impact analysis, or other criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. 237
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 24 ends

The City shall require that applicants for new development projects with the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance to incorporate the measures listed below to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. Thes e identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City.

Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could includ e, but are not limited to:
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall use low emission mobile construction equipment where feasible to reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall encourage rideshare and transit programs for project construction personnel to reduce automobile emissions.
• During all grading and site disturbance activities, construction contractors shall water active grading sites at least twice a day, and clean construction equipment in the morning and/or evening to reduce particulate emissions and fugitive dust. • During all construction activities, construction contractors shall, as necessary, wash truck tires leaving the site to reduce the amount of particulate matter transferred to paved streets as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep on- and off-site streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares, as determined by the City Engineer to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets. • During all construction activities, construction contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 mph or less to reduce fugitive dust. • During grading and all site disturbance activities, at the discretion of the City’s Director of the Development Services Department, construction contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts to reduce fugitive dust.
• During grading and all site disturbance activities, at the discretion of the City’s Director of the Development Services Department, construction contractors shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph to reduce fugitive dust.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment as required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2 to reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
238
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 25 ends

• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use existing on- site electrical power sources to the maximum extent practicable. Where such power is not available, the Contractor shall use clean fuel generators during the early stages of construction to minimize or eliminate the use of portable generators and reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use low emission, on site stationary equipment (e.g., clean fuels) to the maximum extent practicable to reduce emissions, as determined by the City Engineer.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors, in conjunction with the City Engineer, shall locate construction parking to minimize traffic interference on local roads.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall ensure that all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to reduce spilling of material on area roads. • During architectural coating activities, use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website.

AQ-2: Operational Air Quality
Applications for future development and redevelopment, wherein the City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee has determined a potential for air quality impacts associated with operation, shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational -related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. For individual projects that may exceed the daily operational emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, the owner/permitee shall condu ct an analysis of the project’s operational air quality impacts using the latest available California Emissions Estimator Model mode, or other analytical method determined in conjunction with the City.

The City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee shall make this determination based on the size of the project, whether the project would require a transportation impact analysis, or other criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If such analyses identify potentially significant regional or local air quality impacts, project-level mitigation and/or project design features would be required to reduce operational impacts to less than significant. Mitigation to reduce operational impacts depends on the specific project, but may include measures such as, but not limited to:
• Demonstrate net zero energy expenditure.
• Implementation of transportation demand management measures. 239
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 26 ends

• Prohibit the installation of woodstoves, hearths, and fireplaces in new construction facilitated by the General Plan Update.
• Expand and facilitate completion of planned networks of active transportation infrastructure.
• Implement electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond requirements set forth in the 2022 CALGreen mandatory measures, such as Tier 2 voluntary measures set forth in 2022 CALGreen (or future more stringent) standards.
• Implement traffic demand measures, such as unbundling parking fees from rent/lease options, encouraging/developing a ride -share program for the community, and provide car/bike sharing services, that will reduce daily individual car usage and reduce project VMT.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Buildout under the project would exceed the estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Basin. Future discretionary projects would be reviewed for conformance with the goals, policies, and actions to reduce emissions within the Planning Area. Incorporation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions, as well implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 requiring project-specific air quality reports showing future project’s compliance with relevant regulatory and site-specific mitigation measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction and operation -related activities would recue significant impacts to the extent feasible. However, at this program level, site-specific development projects are not currently available, and there is a potential for construction and operational emissions to exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. However, even with implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ- 2, impacts could remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review that would reduce impacts associated with inconsistency with the AQMP. The population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the project. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.2 Air Quality
240
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 27 ends

Significance Determination Threshold 2: Criteria Pollutants Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Impact
Construction Emissions
As described in Section 4.2.6 of the Final PEIR, two construction scenarios were modeled to illustrate potential construction -related air quality impacts associated with future development under the project. These included a 383 -unit multi-family project and a 171,289 -square-foot light industrial project. For assessing the significance of the air quality emissions resulting during construction of the hypothetical projects, the construction emissions were compared to the SCAQMD Significance Thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2-5 of the Final PEIR, construction of the hypothetical projects would exceed the applicable threshold for VOC. This is due to the VOC content of architectural coatings.

Additionally, if several future site-specific projects were to occur simultaneously, there is the potential to exceed significance thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions of criteria pollutants would be potentially significant.

Operational Emissions
At the program level, the analysis compares emissions generated by project buildout to emissions generated under buildout of the City’s Adopted General Plan to determine if the emissions would exceed the emissions estimates included in the AQMP, and to determine whether it would obstruct attainment, or result in an exceedance of ambient air quality standards . As shown in Tables 4.2 -4a and 4.2-4b of the Final PEIR, buildout of the project would result in an increase in emissions of ROG, PM
10, and PM2.5 and a decrease in emissions of NO X, CO, and SO X when compared to the existing condition. When compared to the Adopted General Plan, the project would result in an increase in emissions of ROG and NOX, and decrease in emissions of CO, PM 10, and PM2.5, and no measurable change in emissions of SOX. The project would focus construction of new residential uses within Key Opportunity Areas, and this redistribution would result in a slight decrease in VMT when compared to buildout of the Adopted General Plan. The reduction in VMT would in turn lead to a reduction in mobile source emissions in the Planning Area, however, the increase in commercial and light industrial uses would lead to an increase in area and energy sources emissions.

The regulations at the federal, state, and local levels provide a framework for developing project-level air quality protection measures for future site-specific projects that could be developed in the future.

Compliance with updated Land Use and Community Character Element and Infrastructure Element goals, policies, and actions would serve to further support the City’s goal of improving air quality.

While individual site-specific projects may not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, the scale and extent of emissions associated with buildout of the project may result in some instances where future development or redevelopment would exceed the relevant SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be potentially significant. 241
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 28 ends

Mitigation Framework
See mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 above.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations described below make the mitigation measures o r project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Buildout of the project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction activities associated with buildout of the project could generate short -term emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Basin. Implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1 requiring project-specific air quality reports showing future project’s compliance with relevant regulations and mitigation measure AQ -2 requiring site -specific mitigation measure s would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible. However, construction time frames and equipment for site- specific development and redevelopment projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction- related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, impacts associated with criteria pollutants could remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review, that would reduce the emission of criteria pollutants . Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.2 Air Quality
Significance Determination Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors Pursuant to Issue 3, a significant impact would occur if the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Impact
As reflected in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Handbook, there is currently no adopted standard for the significance of health effects from mobile sources. Therefore, the CARB has provided guidelines for the siting of land uses near heavily traveled roadways. Specifically, the CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day should be avoided when possible. Based on traffic modeling conducted for 242
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 29 ends

the project, segments of SR-71 and SR-60 within the Planning Area currently carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day. The project has the potential for residential and mixed-use land uses to be located within 500 feet of these freeways. Specifically, these areas include the residential uses located adjacent to SR-71 between Schaefer Avenue and Riverside Drive, and residential and mixed-use land uses located adjacent to SR-60 between East End Avenue and Euclid Avenue. It is noted that CARB’s position is that infill development, mixed -use, higher density, transit- oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. M easures are available that can be incorporated into future site-specific project design that would reduce the level of exposure for future residents. However, the scale and extent of exposure of future development and redevelopment under the project to mobile sources of toxic air contaminants cannot be known at this time , and impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

AQ-3: Health Risk Assessment
For site-specific projects that may site new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of SR-71 or SR-60, the applicant shall prepare a HRA evaluating the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to TACs, which shall be required for such individual projects. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the policies and procedures of the state OEHHA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the SQAQMD a t the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies to reduce substantial exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. Examples may include, but are not limited to, air intakes located away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones unless it can be demonstrated that these are operational limitations and/or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems provided with appropriately sized MERV filters.

Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. Air intake and MERV filter requirements shall be noted on all building plans submitted to the City Development Services Department.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations described below make the mitigation measures o r project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Future projects would implement mitigation measure AQ -3, which would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to mobile source toxic air contaminants (TACs) to the extent feasible. However, site-specific development plans are not currently available, and there is a potential for TAC exposure 243
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 30 ends

to remain. Therefore, despite the application of CARB guidance, regulatory compliance , and adherence to mitigation measure AQ-3, impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to mobile source TACs could remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review that would reduce the potential for TAC exposure. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

2. Cultural Resources
Significance Determination Threshold 1: Historic Resources Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant direct and cumulative impact would occur if the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5.

Impacts
As described in Section 4.4.5 of the Final PEIR, two Key Opportunity Areas have historic resources located within their boundaries. The Downtown Key Opportunity Area has four resources (Gray Building, First National Bank, Opera House, and Chino Valley Champion), and the Euclid/Bickmore Key Opportunity Area includes a property that was once part of the San Bernardino County Dairy Preserve. The four resources within the Downtown opportunity area are listed as significant resources by the Chino Valley Historical Society and the resource in the Euclid/Bickmore opportunity area has been recommended a significant resource under the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Although there are no site-specific plans that would affect an identified historic resource, future site -specific development, both within the K ey Opportunity Areas and outside of those areas, would have the potential to impact known historic or potentially historic resources, including unrecorded historical resources that have not been evaluated or may become eligible for listing in the future. Furthermore, development within vacant lands may result in indirect impacts to the visual and setting integrity to significant historic resources. Therefore, impacts on historical resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

CUL-1: Historic Evaluation
Prior to approval of a future site -specific project that would directly or indirectly affect a building/structure in excess of 50 years of age, the City or a qualified architectural historian shall determine whether the affected building/structure is histo rically significant. The 244
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 31 ends

evaluation shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in the CEQA guidelines. If the evaluation determines that building/structure is not histo ric, no further evaluation or mitigation would be required. If the building/structure is determined to be historically significant, the preferred mitigation would be to avoid the resource through project redesign. If the resource cannot be avoided, all pru dent and feasible measures to minimize or mitigate harm to the resource shall be taken per recommendations of the qualified architectural historian.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations described below make the mitigation measures o r project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Implementation of the mitigation measure CUL-1 requires site-specific surveys of potentially historic structures would potentially reduce impacts on historic resources to a level less than significant.

However, site-specific development plans are not currently available, and there is a potential for future construction to impact historic resources. Therefore, impacts associated with historic resources could remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this program level to ensure that every future project could fully mitigate potentially significant impacts.

Therefore, impacts on historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3. Greenhouse Gas
Significance Determination Thresholds 1: GHG Emissions
Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project resulted in GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact
As described in Section 4.6.5 of the Final PEIR, buildout of the project would increase the amount of retail and light industrial square footage and would result in the same amount of all other land use types in comparison to buildout of the Adopted General Plan . Rather than increase the anticipated number of residential uses, the project would focus construction of new residential uses within Key Opportunity Areas. This redistribution would result in a slight decrease in VMT when compared to 245
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 32 ends

buildout of the Adopted General Plan. The reduction in VMT would in turn lead to a reduction in mobile source emissions in the Planning Area; however, the increase in commercial and light industrial uses would lead to an increase in all other sources emiss ions. The modeled reduction in VMT indicates that the project would be a more efficient plan than the Adopted General Plan in terms of vehicular trips. The updated Infrastructure Element includes goals, policies, and actions that promote reduced mobile source emissions and reduced VMT. The City’s process for the evaluation of future discretionary projects would include environmental review and documentation pursuant to CEQA where applicable, as well as an analysis of those site-specific projects for consistency with the goals, policies, and actions of the project. However, despite adherence to these goals, policies, and actions, buildout of the project could contribute to significant GHG emissions because the anticipated growth and corresponding GHG emissions would exceed the assumptions used in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas
All future site-specific projects shall be required to demonstrate consistency with the City’s CAP. As stated in Appendix A of the CAP, a nalysis of site -specific projects can either be done through emissions calculations or by using the Screening Tables. Site-specific projects that obtain at least 100 points would be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the CAP. Those site-specific projects that do not obtain 100 points using the Screening Tables would need to provide additional analysis to determine the significance of GHG emissions.

Per Section 15.45.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, GHG Performance Standards for New Development, all new development not utilizing the Screening Tables shall contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions by demonstrating consistency with the CAP by implementing one or a combination of the following three options:

1. Exceed the mandatory California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 standards, in effect at the time of application submittal by five percent; or

2. Achieve an equivalent reduction through voluntary measures in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) in effect at the time of development application submittal for discretionary review; or

3. Provide other equivalent GHG reductions through measures including, but not limited to, non -vehicle transportation infrastructure, transit, ZEV (zero emission vehicle) infrastructure or other incentives, waste diversion, water conservation, tree planting, renewable energy option packages, or any combination of these or other measures such that GHG emissions are reduced by 0.074 MT CO 2E per residential
dwelling unit per year and/or per thousand square feet of commercial/industrial use per year.
246
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 33 ends

Applicants that choose Option 1 described above would be required to verify that their site-specific project meets the five percent improvement above the mandatory standards through the appropriate certificate of compliance form for residential construction (CF-1R) or for commercial/industrial construction (PERF-1C). Applicants that choose Options 2 or 3 described above would be required to utilize the GHG Performance Standard Checklist developed by the City, or provide other valid documentation, such as CalEEMod or other methodologies, as verified by the director of development services to demonstrate the required GHG reductions consistent with the City's CAP.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations described below make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Although project implementation would support CAP goals to reduce GHG emissions, the project would result in an increase in the growth and emission assumptions used in the City’s CAP.

Implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 requiring future site-specific projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. However, site-specific development plans are not currently available, and there is a potential for GHG emissions to exceed City and regional significance thresholds. Therefore, despite adherence to mitiga tion measure GHG- 1, impacts associated with GHG emissions c ould remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review, to ensure CAP consistency. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Determination Thresholds 2: Policies, Plans, and Regulations Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions
Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Impact
As detailed in Section 4.6.6 of the Final PEIR, the City has adopted a CAP that includes measures and strategies to achieve a reduction goal of 46 percent below 2008 levels by 2030 which is in line with statewide goals. Implementation of the project would support the CAP’s goals by reducing VMT and focusing housing within Key Opportunity Areas. The City’s process for the evaluation of future discretionary projects would include environmental review and documentation pursuant to CEQA where applicable, as well as an analysis of those site-specific projects for consistency with the goals, 247
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 34 ends

policies, and actions of the project. However, despite adherence to these goals, policies, and actions, buildout of the project could contribute to significant GHG emissions because the growth anticipated under the project, and therefore the GHG emissions associated with buildout of the project, would exceed the assumptions used in the City’s CAP. Therefore, i mpacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
See mitigation measure GHG-1.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations described below make the mitigation measures o r project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Future development would be reviewed for consistency with the City GPU policies that reflect the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to achieve carbon neutrality, consistent with state GHG reduction targets, as well as applicable rules and regulations pursuant to the Energy and Green Building Codes. Future projects would implement mitigation measure GHG-1 which requires projects with the potential for GHG emissions to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds to prepare a technical assessment evaluating potential proj ect GHG impacts. The technical assessment would include recommendations for design and/or mitigations measures to reduce GHG emissions to acceptable levels. Although project implementation would support citywide goals to reduce GHG emissions and the GPU includes goals and polices to support GHG emission reductions, the project does not include a quantified GHG emission reduction strategy to ensure statewide emission goals can be achieved by 2045. Although project implementation would support CAP goals to reduce GHG emissions, the project would conflict with implementation of the CAP and, despite application of the proposed mitigation framework, does not ensure statewide emission goals can be achieved by 2045.

Implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 would ensure future project consistency with the City’s CAP. However, site-specific development plans are not currently available, and there is a potential for project emissions to exceed the assumptions used in the City’s CAP creat ing a conflict with the City’s GHG reduction plan. Therefore, despite adherence to mitigation measure GHG-1, impacts associated with conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs could remain significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review that would reduce the potential conflict relating to GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below. 248
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 35 ends

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4. Noise
Significance Determination Threshold 1: Noise Generation: Traffic Noise Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project would 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.

Impact (1a: Traffic Noise)
As detailed in Section 4.10.5 of the Final PEIR, long-term traffic noise that affects sensitive land uses would be considered substantial and constitute a significant noise impact if the project would:
• Increase noise levels by 5 decibels (dB) or more where the no project noise level is less than 60 community noise equivalent level (CNEL);
• Increase noise levels by 3 dB or more where the no project noise level is 60 CNEL to 65 CNEL; or • Increase noise levels by 1.5 dB or more where the no project noise level is greater than 65 CNEL.

The noise analysis is based on the baseline year 2024 condition and future year 2045 condition traffic volume data. Without the project, existing noise levels range from 50.5 to 75.8 CNEL at the receiving land uses nearest to the analyzed roadway segments and range from 79.4 to 85.3 CNEL at 100 feet from the freeways. With the project, future noise levels are expected to range from 47.5 to 77.7 CNEL at the receiving land uses nearest to the analyzed roadway segments and range from 80.9 to

85.9 CNEL at 100 feet from the freeways. Traffic noise level impacts would exceed the noise level increase thresholds along 34 roadway and freeway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to these study area roadway segments would experience a significant noise level increases due to the project-related traffic as compared to the existing traffic noise levels. Therefore, impacts related to increases in traffic noise would be potentially significant.

Impact (1b: Land Use Compatibility)
As detailed in Section 4.10.5 of the Final PEIR, noise levels for residential uses are normally acceptable up to 65 CNEL, conditionally acceptable with noise levels from 65 to 70 CNEL, normally unacceptable with noise levels from 70 to 75 CNEL, and clearly unacceptable above 75 CNEL. Compatibility levels for other land uses are generally greater than those for residential land uses. Noise sensitive land uses that are developed near higher-volume roadways could experience noise levels exceeding the City’s no ise compatibility standards, particularly those uses located near freeways. Future development and redevelopment under the project would be subject to applicable policies in the Hazards, Safety, and Noise Element. However, traffic noise would likely remain at levels that would 249
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 36 ends

exceed exterior and interior standards. Therefore, impacts related to land use compatibility would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
NOI-1: Exterior Noise Analysis
Prior to the issuance of building permits, site- specific exterior noise analyses that demonstrate that the site-specific project would not place residential receptors in locations where the exterior existing or future noise levels would exceed the City’s noise compatibility standards (Table HSN -1) shall be required as part of the review of future residential development proposals. Noise reduction measures, including but not limited to building noise barriers, increased building setbacks, speed reductions on surrounding roadways, alternative pavement surfaces, or other relevant noise attenuation measures, may be used to achieve the noise compatibility standards. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site-specific exterior noise analyses.

NOI-2: Interior Noise Analysis
Prior to the issuance of building permits, site-specific interior noise analyses demonstrating compliance with the City’s interior noise compatibility standards and other applicable regulations shall be prepared for noise sensitive land uses located in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed the City’s noi se compatibility standards. Noise control measures, including but not limited to increasing roof, wall, window, and door sound attenuation ratings, placing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning e quipment in noise reducing enclosures, or designing buildings so that no windows face freeways or major roadways may be used to achieve the noise compatibility standards. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the si te-specific exterior noise analyses.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations detailed below make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measures NOI -1 and NOI -2 requiring project-specific exterior and interior noise studies to ensure project compliance with City noise standards and regulations would reduce noise exposure for future development to the extent feasible. However, site -specific development plans are not currently available, and there is a potential for noise to exceed the City’s noise standards. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review.

Therefore, despite adherence to mitigation measures NOI -1 and NOI -2, impacts associated with increases in ambient noise related to traffic and land use compatibility would remain significant and unavoidable.
250
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 37 ends

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.10 Noise
Significance Determination Threshold 2: Groundborne Noise and Vibration - Construction Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Impact (2a: Construction)
As detailed in Section 4.10.6 of the Final PEIR, c onstruction activities may include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, excavation of parking and subfloors, foundation work, and building construction. Demolition for an individual site may last several weeks to months and may produce substantial vibration. Pile driving has the potential to generate the highest groundborne vibration levels and is the primary concern for structural damage when it occurs close to structures.

As shown in Table 4.10 -8, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the Federal Transit Administration criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future site -specific projects is not known at this programmatic level of analysis. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration and noise during construction would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measure would apply:

NOI-5: Construction Vibration
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry).

If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile drivin g and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
251
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 38 ends

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations detailed below make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR infeasible.

Rationale
Implementation of mitigation measure NOI -5 requires application of specific vibration reduction measures which would reduce exposure to construction vibration to the extent feasible. However, at this program level of review, site-specific development projects are not currently available, and there is a potential for construction vibration to exceed the applicable standards. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available at this level of review. Therefore, despite adherence to mitigation measure NOI-5, impacts associated with construction vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Section 4.10 Noise

5. Transportation
Significance Determination Threshold 1: Circulation System: Roadway System Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Impact
As detailed in Section 4.13.5 of the Final PEIR, the Transportation Analysis completed for the project forecast daily traffic volumes for the baseline year 2024 condition, buildout of the Adopted General Plan through 2045, and buildout of the project through 2045. The Transportation Analysis identified that under buildout of the project, all roadways would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) D or better, except for the following:
• Kimball Avenue from Mill Creek Avenue to Main Street (LOS F) • Pine Avenue from El Prado Road to Euclid Avenue (LOS E) The Transportation Analysis determined that roadway segment operations under the project would be better compared to the Adopted General Plan, under which a third roadway segment, Chino Hills Parkway from West City Limit to Monte Vista Avenue would also operate at LOS E. The project would result in improved circulation along this segment because it would upgrade the classification of Chino Hills Parkway from a Primary Arterial to a Major Arterial. However, notwithstanding future 252
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 39 ends

implementation of Policy INF-2.4, the segments of Kimball Avenue and Pine Avenue identified above, are projected to operate unacceptable levels because roadway widenings may be infeasible at these locations due to adjacent land uses, capital improvement co sts, and other modes the street serves (like bicycles and pedestrians). Therefore, these two roadway segments would operate at unacceptable levels under the project resulting in a conflict with City circulation standards. Therefore, impacts related to conf licts with the circulation plan related to the roadway system would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
No feasible mitigation exists to improve roadway segment operations on Kimball Avenue from Mill Creek Avenue to Main Street (LOS F) or Pine Avenue from El Prado Road to Euclid Avenue (LOS E).

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations detailed below make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final PEIR infeasible.

Rationale
No feasible mitigation exists to improve roadway segment operations on Kimball Avenue from Mill Creek Avenue to Main Street (LOS F) or Pine Avenue from El Prado Road to Euclid Avenue (LOS E).

Therefore, impacts to roadway segment operations on Kimball Aven ue from Mill Creek Avenue to Main Street (LOS F) or Pine Avenue from El Prado Road to Euclid Avenue (LOS E) would remain significant and unavoidable.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Chapter 4.13 Transportation
Significance Determination Threshold 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Impact
As detailed in Section 4.13.6 of the Final PEIR, the Transportation Analysis completed for the project conducted a VMT forecast for the baseline year 2024 condition, buildout of the Adopted General Plan through 2045, and buildout of the project through 2045 . The VMT forecast was based on the Origin/Destination (OD) method using VMT per service population (SP) within the County of San Bernardino jurisdictional boundary. The Transportation Analysis determined that buildout of the 253
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 40 ends

project would generate 42.7 OD VMT/SP, slightly less than the 43.3 OD VMT/SP generated by buildout of the Adopted General Plan.

However, as described in greater detail in Section 4.13.6 of the Final PER, the uncertainty of driving behavior due to the economy, gas prices, telecommuting changes, and consumer trends could dramatically influence VMT. Furthermore, site-specific development and redevelopment that would occur before complete buildout of the proje ct may generate levels of VMT that would exceed the applicable threshold until the cumulative condition is reached.

Although the Transportation Analysis determined that the project would reduce VMT compared to buildout of the Adopted General Plan, using the best tool available in San Bernardino County, the uncertainty of driving behavior due to the economy, gas prices, telecommuting changes, and consumer trends could dramatically influence VMT within the Planning Area. Furthermore, site-specific development and redevelopment that would occur before complete buildout of the project may generate VMT that would exceed the applicable threshold until the cumulative condition is reached. Therefore, impacts related to projected VMT generated under buildout of the project would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Framework
No feasible mitigation exists to reduce VMT.

Finding
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations detailed below make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible.

Rationale
No feasible mitigation exists to reduce VMT. Therefore, impacts related to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable at this program level of review.

This potentially significant and unavoidable impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XI, below.

Reference
Final PEIR Chapter 4.13 Transportation

X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” 254
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 41 ends

Section 15126.6(f) further states that “the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.”
The objectives of the project are stated above in Section II.C. Statement of Objectives.

The City Council must consider the feasibility of any alternatives to the project , evaluating whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects while achieving most of the objectives of the program. The Final PEIR includes an analysis of three alternative program scenarios: No Project ( Adopted General Plan) Alternative, Redistributed Housing Alternative, and the Increased Downtown Development Alternative.

A. No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the comprehensive update to the General Plan to address new state law and emerging issues and establish a planning and policy framework that extends to a horizon year of 2045 would not occur. Growth in the and development within the City and its Sphere of Influence, collectively known as the Planning Area, would continue to be guided by the existing land use and zoning established in the Adopted General Plan. The No Project Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, GHG, noise, and transportation as identified under the project. Impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation would be greater under the No Project Alternative because buildout of the adopted General Plan would generate a greater amount of VMT and future site-specific development would not be subject to the goals and policies established in applicable elements of the project intended to reduce impacts associated with th ese environmental categories. Similarly, impacts related to energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and wildfire would remain less than significant, but would be greater than the project because future site- specific development would not be subject to the goals and policies established in applicable elements of the project intended to reduce impacts associated with these environmental categories. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

Finding
The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final PEIR, rejects the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the project objectives; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the p roject’s significant and unavoidable impacts; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation; and (4) future site-specific development would not be subject to the goals and policies established in applicable elements of the project intended to reduce impacts.

B. Redistributed Housing Alternative
The Redistributed Housing Alternative would transfer planned housing from interior locations within the Planning Area to the Philadelphia -Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center located closer to SR-60 and SR-71. Both of these locations possess underutilized regional shopping centers that could be converted to new uses. Nearly 90 percent of employed City residents commute 255
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 42 ends

to jobs in other communities each day. These commute trips are predominantly made by single occupant vehicles, starting on local roadways in the City, and then continue onto SR -60 and SR-71 to employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties. In the p ost-pandemic context with decreasing demand for suburban office space and an increase in remote work, projected demand for office space is limited within the City. Therefore, in order to reduce VMT per capita and address the significant impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation under the project, this alternative would increase the capacity for housing within the Philadelphia -Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center, located immediately adjacent to SR -60 and SR-71. To achieve this goal, The Redistributed Housing Alternative would remove the existing Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay from sites located along Riverside Drive, Ramona Avenue, and Schaefer Avenue within interior segments of the Planning Area and i ncrease the housing capacity within the Philadelphia-Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center by a commensurate amount.

Under the project, both the Philadelphia -Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center were assigned the Regional Mixed Use land use designation, which permits a wide range of retail, dining, entertainment, office, lodging, recreational, and cultura l facilities that cater to both visitors and City residents, together with multi -family housing, where permitted under zoning. Under the Redistributed Housing Alternative, the Philadelphia-Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center would retain the future Regional Mixed Use land use designation and would see an increase in the allowance for residential development.

Overall, buildout of this alternative through 2045 would result in the same number of new housing units and jobs as under the project. Changes compared to the project would be limited to an increase of 1,055 more housing units within the Philadelphia-Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center that would be assigned the Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay designation.

Approximately 67 percent of these housing units would be transferred to the Philadelphia -Central Key Opportunity Area and the remaining 33 percent would be transferred to the Spectrum Center.

The intent is to foster denser mixed -use nodes near the freeways in order to reduce commute trip length and promote active transportation for daily needs and recreation, while also supporting the vitality of existing retail in the regional centers consistent with the project objectives. It should be noted that both of these locations were identified as suitable for receiving additional housing through development of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element. Subject to a successful Measure M vote, this alternative would seek to increase the number of units on, and adjacent, to sites that have already received the Mixed Use or Affordable Housing Overlay. Like the project, this alternative would consist of a general plan update and include all the same proposed goals and policies as the project.

The Redistributed Housing Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, GHG, noise, and transportation as identified under the project. Impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation would be incrementally less under the Redistributed Housing Alternative because redistributing planned housing to the Philadelphia Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center under this alternative would reduce VMT within the Planning Area. This alternative would not make any other changes compared to the project beyond redistributing planned housing to the Philadelphia -Central Key Opportunity Area and the Spectrum Center. Therefore, impacts related to all other environmental categories would remain the same as under the project.
256
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 43 ends

Finding
The City Council rejects the Redistributed Housing Alternative because it would not meet the project objectives as well as the preferred alternative. The Redistributed Housing Alternative would not revitalize existing shopping centers and would not be as compact development footprint in comparison to the preferred alternative.

C. Increased Downtown Development Alternative
The Increased Downtown Development Alternative would focus more development in the centrally located Downtown Key Opportunity Area in order to promote a more compact development pattern that could reduce the need for vehicular travel. To accomplish this goal, the City would adopt a new Downtown Mixed Use zoning district in the Downtown Key Opportunity Area, creating capacity for 1,250 new housing units and 60,000 square feet of commercial development beyond the project, potentially including retail, restaur ant, office, and entertainment uses. This alternative would go beyond the project by permitting additional residential and non -residential development capacity with a view to creating a vibrant downtown in the center of the Planning Area, consistent with project objectives. Policies in the Land Use and Community Character Element intended to preserve and protect historic buildings and structures and foster a heritage theme in new development would still apply under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would result in approximately 40,445 homes and 63,775 jobs in the Planning Area by 2045. Like the project, this alternative would consist of a general plan update and include all the same proposed goals and policies as the project.

The Increased Downtown Development Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, GHG, noise, and transportation as identified under the project. Impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation may be incrementally greater under the Increased Downtown Development Alternative because this alternative may on balance result in a slight increase in VMT within the Planning Area. Impacts related to all other environmental categories would remain the same as under the project.

Finding
The City Council rejects the Increased Downtown Development Alternative because it may incrementally increase impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation in comparison to the preferred alternative.

XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when the lead agency approves a project that may result in significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR , but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

The City has adopted Findings Regarding Significant Effects for the project, which conclude that the project will have the following significant effects that are unavoidable even after incorporation of feasible mitigation measures: air quality, historic resources, GHG, noise, and transportation. The City has balanced the project’s benefits against these unavoidable significant effects and determined that 257
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 44 ends

they are acceptable due to each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological , or other benefits listed below which will result from approval and implementation of the project. All benefits are based on the facts in the CEQA Findings Regarding Significant Effects, the Final PEIR, and the record of proceedings for this project. Each of these benefits is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit will occur and justifies project approval, the City determines that it would stand by its determination that the remaining benefits is or are sufficient to warrant project approval.

Overriding Benefits
The City therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:

1. Housing Benefits
• The project would facilitate the construction of housing at varying affordability levels to meet the needs of current and future residents, including residents with varying income levels, seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, single -parent households, or people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. • The project would increase the City’s affordable housing supply, including areas with access to employment centers, community facilities and services, retail, schools, and other amenities.
• The project would address long-term goals of providing affordable housing in the City.

2. Benefits of Compliance with State Housing Law/Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compliance
• The project would serve as an important action toward implementing the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element and the associated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocation of 6,978 units.

3. Land Use Benefits
• The project will comply with state requirements and will provide a long -term plan that would be implemented as a policy document guiding future development activities within the Planning Area.
• The project will address the continuing change, growth, and development of the City through 2045 and will provide a public policy framework for the future of the City. • The project will comply with the state requirement that all counties and cities “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning.” 258
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 45 ends

XII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. Growth Inducement
The PEIR evaluated the potential for the project to induce growth c onsistent with the requirements of Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. B ased on the discussion presented in Section 5.3 of the Final PEIR, the City finds that the project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.

Implementation of the project would not induce direct population and housing growth in the City .

The project would serve as an important action toward implementing the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element and the associated RHNA allocation of 6,978 units. Because the housing assessment in the RHNA is based on SCAG’s projections, future development under the project would accommodate increases in population based on SCAG’s demographic projections. Therefore, future housing developed under the project would provide housing necessary to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 6,978 units as well as accommodate future population growth and housing needs projected in SCAG’s growth projections . Furthermore, the project has been designed to primarily focus future development and redevelopment within Key Opportunity Areas, which consist of clusters of vacant and underutilized land, many of which contain commercial properties recently rezoned to permit multi-family housing. The Key Opportunities Areas are located near major roadways and are already served by existing infrastructure. Similarly, future development outside of the Key Opportunities Areas would occur in areas that are already served by infrastructure and would not require extensions. Therefore, t he City finds, consistent with the Final PEIR, that the project would accommodate projected population growth and would not be considered growth inducing.

The project does not propose or provide direct development rights to new major retail, commercial, or employment centers that would encourage substantial economic or employment growth. Rather, the project has developed a land use plan that includes future commercial and retail uses that would accommodate projected growth within the Planning Area. Therefore, future economic and employment growth associated with the project would not induce growth.

B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that may occur because of project implementation. Consistent with the analysis in Section 5.2 of the Final PEIR, the City finds that implementation of the project would result in significant irreversible impacts to non-renewable resources. Construction and operation of future site-specific development would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses. These resources include (but are not limited to) lumber and other forested products; sand and gravel; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel, copper, lead, other metals; and water. However, through required compliance with the building code in effect at the time of development, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.

Additionally, the City finds, consistent with the Final PEIR , that the project would not result in secondary impacts from environmental changes resulting from the construction of new infrastructure.

This is because the project has been designed to primarily focus future development and redevelopment within Key Opportunity Areas, which consist of clusters of vacant and underutilized 259
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Chino 2045 Chino General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 46 ends

land, many of which contain commercial properties recently rezoned to permit multi-family housing.

The Key Opportunities Areas are located near major roadways and are already served by existing infrastructure. Similarly, future development outside of the Key Opportunities Areas would occur in areas that are already served by infrastructure and would not require extensions. Future development outside of the Key Opportunity Areas would occur in areas that are already served by infrastructure and would not require extensions into unserved portions of the Planning Area.

XIII. DECISION AND EXPLANATION REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a), an agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR when significant new information is added to the Draft EIR after public review of the Draft EIR, but before certification. Significant new information can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to a Draft EIR is not significant unless the Draft EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including feasible alternatives) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

As described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).

The City hereby finds that recirculation of the Draft PEIR is not required for the following reasons:

Changes to the Draft PEIR were made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact analysis for the proposed project. Such changes are a result of public review comments and/or further review of the Draft PEIR. The changes do not constitute significant new information that would alter the outcome of the environmental analysis or require recirculation of the document.

All feasible mitigation measures and alternatives have been identified that could reduce environmental impacts. No feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures have been identified that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project, and no major flaws or inadequacies have been identified in the PEIR based on comments received from public review. Therefore, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines 15088.5, recirculation of the PEIR is not required. 260
CHINO 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2024090833)
ERRATA
Attachment B.3
261
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 1 ends

ERRATA
Chino 2045 General Plan Update
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2024090833

This Errata has been prepared for the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (P EIR) to summarize changes since public review of Draft PEIR that began on June 20, 2025, and concluded on August 4, 2025. Changes were made to the Final PEIR both in response to comments received on the Draft PEIR and as minor changes initiated by City of Chino (City) staff to clarify or correct information the Chino 2045 General Plan Update (project). Changes made to the Final PEIR in response to comments received on the Draft PEIR are presented first, followed by a summary of changes to the text of General Plan Update elements initiated by City staff that did not result in changes to the Final PEIR.

Executive Summary
Table S-1, mitigation measure AQ-3, was revised on p age S-10 to clarify that building plans would be submitted specifically to the City Development Services Department:

Table S-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure
Significance
After Mitigation

4.2 Air Quality
Would the project
expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
Buildout of the project
would not result in a CO
hot spot. Additionally,
construction and
operation of future site-
specific projects would
not result in the exposure
of sensitive receptors to
TACs from construction
activities or stationary
sources. However, future
site-specific projects
within 500 feet of SR-71
and SR-60 could result in
the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial
concentrations of DPM
and impacts would be
considered potentially
significant.

AQ-3: Health Risk Assessment
For site-specific projects that may site new
sensitive land uses within 500 feet of SR-71 or
SR-60, the applicant shall prepare a HRA
evaluating the potential for sensitive receptors to
be exposed to TACs, which shall be required for
such individual projects. The HRA shall be
prepared in accordance with the policies and
procedures of the state OEHHA and the
SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental
cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index
exceed the respective thresholds, as established
by the SQAQMD at the time a project is
considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and
1 hazard index), the project applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that best
available control technologies to reduce
substantial exposure of sensitive receptors to
TACs. Examples may include, but are not limited
to, air intakes located away from high-volume
roadways and/or truck loading zones unless it
can be demonstrated that these are operational
Significant and
Unavoidable
262
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 2 ends

Table S-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure
Significance
After Mitigation
limitations and/or heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems provided with
appropriately sized MERV filters. Mitigation
measures identified in the HRA shall be
incorporated into the site development plan as a
component of the proposed project. Air intake
and MERV filter requirements shall be noted on
all building plans submitted to the City
PlanningDevelopment Services Department.

2.0 Environmental Setting
Section 2.1.3 was revised on page 2-3 to clarify that Prado Regional Park is 2,200 acres in size.

4.1 Aesthetics
Section 4.1.1.3 was revised on page 4.1-6 to clarify that Prado Regional Park is 2,200 acres in size.

4.2 Air Quality
Section 4.2.2.4(b) was revised on page 4.2-21 to reflect an update to Policy INF-4.11:
• Policy INF-4.11: Establish and maintain a comprehensive network of on- and off-roadway bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for both commuter and recreational trips. Coordinate the City's network with existing and planned facilities in neighboring jurisdictions and the region to support a comprehensive active transportation network.

Section 4.2.3.1(b) was revised on page 4.2 -25 to clarify the following regarding South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST):

The LST Methodology includes screening tables that may be used for projects that are five acres or less in size. Project -specific air dispersion modeling may be necessary for projects that are greater than five acres in size, involve a substantial source of emissions, or are located near sensitive receptors.

Section 4.2.6.1(b) was revised on page 4.2 -36 to clarify the following regarding construction emissions:

Additionally, due to CARB’s ongoing implementation of off-road emission standards, cleaner construction equipment would be available in the future. Potential amendments to the off-road diesel engine standards include Tier 5 rulemaking which would reduce NO X and particulate matter emissions beyond the Tier 4 final emission standards. A September 2020 state executive order also requires CARB to develop and proposed a transition to zero 263
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 3 ends

emissions by 2035. Future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in effect at the time that construction activities are proposed.

Section 4.2.7.1(b) was revised on page 4.2 -41 to clarify the following regarding toxic air emissions during construction:

Further, as discussed in Section 4.2.6.1(a) above, future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable CARB off-road equipment regulations in effect at the time that construction activities are proposed.

Section 4.2.7.1(b) was revised on page 4.2-41 to clarify the following regarding stationary sources of toxic air emissions:

Furthermore, future site- specific warehouse projects 100,000 square feet or larger would comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305-WAIRE, as applicable.

4.2.7.3 Mitigation
Section 4.2.7.3, mitigation measure AQ-3, was revised on page 4.2-42 to clarify that building plans would be submitted specifically to the City Development Services Department:

Air intake and MERV filter requirements shall be noted on all building plans submitted to the City PlanningDevelopment Services Department.

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 4.6.2.3(e) was revised on page 4.6-25 to reflect an update to Policy INF-4.11:
• Policy INF-4.11: Establish and maintain a comprehensive network of on- and off-roadway bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for both commuter and recreational trips. Coordinate 264
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 4 ends

the City's network with existing and planned facilities in neighboring jurisdictions and the region to support a comprehensive active transportation network.

4.9 Land Use
Section 4.9.1.1 was revised on page 4.9-2 to clarify that Prado Regional Park is 2,200 acres in size.

4.12 Public Services and Recreation
Section 4.12.1.4 was revised on page 4.12-5 to clarify that Prado Regional Park is 2,200 acres in size.

Section 4.12.2.2(e) was revised on page 4.12-15 to reflect an update to Policy PRC-1.8:
• Policy PRC-1.8: Coordinate local trail planning with regional efforts to ensure connectivity and access to the regional trail system and networks in neighboring communities to support a comprehensive active transportation network.

4.13 Transportation
Figure 4.13-1 has been revised on page 4.13 -2 to correctly present roadway classifications on the proposed circulation network. See revised Figure 4.13-1 below.

Figure 4.13-2 has been revised on page 4.13-5 to remove the proposed truck route designation from the segment of Philadelphia Street west of East End Avenue. See revised Figure 4.13-2 below.

Figure 4.13-3 has been revised on page 4.13-7 to correctly present planned bicycle facilities consistent with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. See revised Figure 4.13-3 below.

Section 4.13.2.3(d) was revised on page 4.13-16 to reflect an update to Policy INF-4.11:
• Policy INF-4.11: Establish and maintain a comprehensive network of on- and off-roadway bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for both commuter and recreational trips. Coordinate the City's network with existing and planned facilities in neighboring jurisdictions and the region to support a comprehensive active transportation network.

Figure 4.13-4 has been revised on page 4.13-21 to remove the designation of Flight Avenue between Kimball Avenue and Remington Avenue as a potential bicycle-truck point of conflict and renumber the subsequent potential bicycle- truck point of conflict . Figure 4.13 -4 has also been revised to remove the proposed truck route designation from the segment of Philadelphia Street west of East End Avenue and to correctly present planned bicycle facilities consistent with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. See revised Figure 4.13-4 below.

Table 4.13-1 has been revised on page 4.13-23 to remove the designation of Flight Avenue between Kimball Avenue and Remington Avenue as a potential bicycle-truck point of conflict and renumber the subsequent potential bicycle-truck point of conflict. See revised Figure 4.13-4 below. 265
266
267
268
269
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 9 ends

Table 4.13-1
Bicycle-Truck Points of Conflict
ID
Roadway Segment
Extents Recommendation
1 East End Avenue
between Philadelphia
Street and Riverside Drive
The existing variable right-of-way presents a barrier to implementing bicycle facilities without widening the roadway. Reroute cyclists to parallel roadway (i.e., Pipeline Avenue) near-term and long-term invest in the bicycle facilities along East End Avenue and its connection to Philadelphia Street and Riverside Drive.
2 Riverside Drive between
Ficus Street and
Norton Avenue
Consider expanding the proposed Class II bicycle lane to Central Avenue to support connectivity with the Riverside Drive mixed-use boulevard.
3 Riverside Drive between
Central Avenue and
Oaks Avenue
Continue to invest in bicycle facility improvements, pending feasibility and congruency with the Riverside Drive mixed-use boulevard. 4 Schaefer Avenue
between Pipeline Avenue
and Mountain Avenue
As proposed by the project (see Figure 4.13-3), enhance existing Class II bicycle lane by adding buffers or converting it to a Class IV cycle track with physical barriers, such as bollards. Continue to improve with additional supportive treatments along the corridor and through intersections.
5 Pipeline Avenue between
Schaefer Avenue and
Eucalyptus Avenue
The existing constrained right-of-way limits opportunities for Class II bicycle lanes and/or separation. Consider rerouting cyclists onto parallel roadway (i.e., Norton Avenue), and invest further into upgrading that roadway to be a lower speed bike boulevard.
6 Monte Vista Avenue
between Schaefer
Avenue and Chino Hills
Parkway
The existing constrained right-of-way limits opportunities for enhancing existing Class II bicycle lanes with buffer or separation. If the roadway cannot be expanded for separation, require intersection treatments including green conflict markings across driveways and intersections, leading bike intervals, and additional signage and lighting. 7 Central Avenue between
Schaefer Avenue and
El Prado Road
As proposed by the project (see Figure 4.13-3), convert the existing Class II bicycle buffered bike lane to a Class IV cycle track with physical barriers to support concurrent truck and bike traffic.
8 Eucalyptus Avenue
between Pipeline Avenue
and Yorba Avenue
The existing constrained right-of-way limits opportunities for enhancing existing Class II bicycle lanes with buffer or separation. If the roadway cannot be expanded for separation, require intersection treatments including green conflict markings across driveways and intersections, leading bike intervals, and additional signage and lighting. 9 Eucalyptus Avenue
between Yorba Avenue
and Central Avenue
As proposed by the project (see Figure 4.13-3), convert the existing Class II bike buffered bike lane to a Class IV cycle track with physical barriers to support concurrent truck and bike traffic–where feasible, if not retain Class II bicycle lanes. In addition, require intersection treatments including green conflict markings across driveways and intersections, leading bike intervals, and additional signage and lighting. 10 Chino Hills Parkway
between Ramona Avenue
and Monta Vista Avenue
Enhance the existing Class II bicycle lane (on the south side of the roadway) by adding buffers or convert it to a Class IV cycle track with physical barriers. Install new Class II bicycle lanes, and if feasible, Class IV cycle tracks on the north side of the roadway. In addition, require intersection treatments including green conflict markings across 270
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 10 ends

Table 4.13-1
Bicycle-Truck Points of Conflict
ID
Roadway Segment
Extents Recommendation
driveways and intersections, leading bike intervals, and additional signage and lighting.
11 Chino Hills Parkway
between Monta Vista
Avenue and Central
Avenue
Existing bicycle lanes are present on both sides of the roadway along the existing sidewalk. Consider investing in on-street bicycle facilities, pending a feasibility study of right-of-way. Alternatively, invest in a dedicated bi-directional Class I shared use path on one side of the roadway.
12 Remington Avenue
between Flight Avenue
and Carpenter Avenue
Convert the existing Class II bike buffered bike lane to a Class IV cycle track with physical barriers to support concurrent truck and bike traffic, pending further feasibility. If not feasible, consider the implementation of Class I share use on one side of the roadway.
13 Flight Avenue between
Kimball Avenue and
Remington Avenue
The existing variable right-of-way limits the possibility of bike lane separation without widening the roadway. Consider investing in a Class I share use on one side of the roadway or rerouting cyclists to the Class I share use path along Hellman Avenue to the east of Flight Avenue. 1413 Hellman Avenue between
River Road and Walters
Street
The existing variable and constrained right-of-way limits opportunities for bike lanes and/or separation. Continue to invest in an off-street Class I shared use path on the west side of the roadway, which connects to an existing network of off-street facilities.
271
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 11 ends

Summary of Staff Initiated Changes to the Project
In addition to the changes made to address the comment letters submitted during public review of the Draft PEIR described above, City staff revised the text of the General Plan Update elements as presented in the bullet list below. The changes listed below represent minor edits for clarification purposes and do not trigger any additional revisions to the Final PEIR beyond that presented above.
• Action LCC-3.C was revised to add off-site bicycle and trail facilities as a desired community benefit to be offered in exchange for bonus floor area ratio in the Boulevard Mixed Use and Regional Mixed Use districts.
• Action HEQ-2.C was deleted, which called for the establishment of a Safe Routes To School Advisory Committee and replaced with new Policy HEQ-2.6, recognizing that the standing Traffic Advisory Committee can fulfill the role envisioned for the proposed committee. • New Action HEQ-4.D was added calling for the City to consider amending the Zoning Code to incorporate regulatory or process incentives to encourage restaurants that serve healthy food.
• Action HSN-1.K was revised to reflect that the Municipal Code already prohibits the use of fireworks in areas of elevated wildfire risk.
• New Action HSN-2.G was added that calls for exploring the feasibility of offering incentives for commercial centers to install backup generators and/or solar batteries to increase energy resilience.
• Text in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Element and in the Health and Environmental Quality Element was revised to clarify the acreage of the Prado Regional Park and that the park is overseen by the San Bernardino County Regional Parks Department, who lease the land from the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers and further sublease portions of that land to partner recreational organizations and businesses. • Policies INF -4.11, HEQ -8.15, and PRC -1.8 were revised to add text clarifying that local multi-use trail planning should be coordinated with regional trail planning initiatives to support a comprehensive active transportation network.
• Map INF -1 of the Infrastructure Element was revised to correctly present roadway classifications on the proposed circulation network.
• Maps INF-2 and INF -3 of the Infrastructure Element were revised to correctly represent planned bicycle facilities consistent with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Various photographs were replaced and various typographical errors and omissions were corrected in elements of the project.
272
Errata
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR

Page 12 ends

Finding Related to Recirculation
The minor changes to the Final PEIR presented above do not constitute a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact which would trigger the requirement to recirculate the PEIR pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All changes listed above were made to clarify or to provide minor corrections to the project.
273
CHINO 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2024090833)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW
Attachment B.4
274
Letters of Comment and Responses
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
RTC-1
Chino 2045 General Plan Update
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2024090833
Letters of Comment and Responses
The following letters of comment were received from state and local agencies during the public review period of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) beginning on June 20, 2025, and end ing on August 4, 2025 . A copy of each comment letter along with corresponding staff responses is included here. Some of the comments did not address the adequacy of the environmental document; however, staff has attempted to provide appropriate responses to all comments as a courtesy to the commenter. Some of the comments received resulted in changes to the Draft PEIR text. These text changes are indicated by strikeout (deleted) and underline (inserted) markings in the Final PEIR text. Revisions to the Draft PEIR are intended to correct minor discrepancies and provide additional clarification. The revisions do not affect the conclusions of the document.

Letter Author Page Number
A South Coast Air Quality Management District RTC-2
B City of Ontario RTC-11
C City of Chino Hills RTC-12
D City of Pomona RTC-13
E California Department of Transportation RTC-17
F Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission RTC-23

275

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-2

A-1 Introductory comment. See responses to specific comments below.

Letter A
A-1
276

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-3

A-2 Section 4.2.2.2(b) and Section 4.2.7.1(b) of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) reference the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective . This includes a discussion of (non -mandatory) measures that could be incorporated into future development. It also discusses minimum efficiency reporting value 13 filters that would be required per the California Green Building Standards Code . The Final PEIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at this program level of review because the scale and extent of exposure of future development and redevelopment under the Chino 2045 General Plan Update (project) to mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) cannot be known at this time.

While the PEIR does not specifically reference the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning , the project includes numerous polices that would reduce harmful air quality emissions consistent with the goals of this document. Section 4.2.2.4(b) provides a list of the project’s policies and actions that would reduce harmful air quality emissions.

A-3 The project includes policies addressing emissions generated by warehouses. Consistent with Land Use and Community Character Element Policy LCC-6.2, the City will support the continued operation and expansion of industrial, manufacturing, and distribution activities within established employment districts, subject to performance standards for new development and operation that minimize noise, odor, or other harmful emissions beyond the boundaries of the site to the extent practicable.

Similarly, consistent
with Land Use and Community Character Element
Action LCC-6.A, the City will identify and offer incentives for new industrial, manufacturing, and distribution to adopt green building practices and technologies that exceed Title 24 California Green Building Code requirements. Additionally, Section 4.2.7.1(b) of the Final PEIR has been revised to state that site-specific warehouse projects 100,000 square feet or larger would comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305-WAIRE, as applicable.

A-2
A-3
277

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-4

A-4 Localized Significance Thresholds are discussed in Section 4.2.3.1(b) of the Final PEIR. Because this is a plan-level analysis, the screening tables are not specifically addressed. However, future site -specific projects would be required to prepare an air quality analysis consistent with SCAQMD requirements per Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2. An additional discussion of the screening tables and requirements necessary for projects greater than five acres has been added to Section 4.2.3.1(b) of the Final PEIR.

A-5 Additional information about potential CARB Tier 5 and zero emission standards and their applicability to future construction has been added to Sections 4.2.6.1(a) and 4.2.7.1(b) of the Final PEIR. Future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable CARB off -road equipment regulations in effect at the time that construction activities are proposed.

A-4
A-5
278

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-5

A-6 Introductory comment regarding mitigation. See responses to specific comments below.

A-7 As a programmatic document, the PEIR identified a mitigation framework adaptable to future projects. Mitigation measure AQ-2 outlines potential reduction measures to be implemented by future projects for the reduction of operational mobile source emissions. The measure specifically states, “Mitigation to reduce operational impacts depends on the specific project, but may include measures such as, but not limited to…” The listed reduction measures set out in m itigation measure AQ -2 are
not intended to be
all-inclusive, rather they provide a framework for the development of reduction measures as applicable to future projects. Pursuant to mitigation measure AQ- 2, f uture site -specific projects would be required to assess project level air quality impacts, including an evaluation of potential impacts associated with operational mobile sources. If such analyses identify potentially significant regional or local air quality impacts, project - level mitigation and/or project design features would be required to reduce operational impacts to less than significant
. These measures would be
developed on a case -by-case basis consistent with the requirements of CARB and state law. Therefore, the PEIR provides an adequate mitigation framework for a programmatic evaluation, and no revisions have been made per this comment.

A-6
A-7
279

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-6

A-8 See response to comment A -7. Future site-specific projects would include an evaluation of potential impacts associated with operational area sources and would develop appropriate mitigation measures on a case -by-case basis consistent with the requirements of CARB and state law. Furthermore, future site -specific development would be required to demonstrate consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan by implementing one or a combination of the following three options:

1. Exceed the mandatory California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 standards, in effect at the time of application submittal by five percent; or

2. Achieve an equivalent reduction through voluntary measures in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 , in effect at the time of development application submittal for discretionary review; or

3. Provide other equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through measures including, but not limited to, non -vehicle transportation infrastructure, transit, zero emission vehicle infrastructure or other incentives, waste diversion, water conservation, tree planting, renewable energy option packages, or any combination of these or other measures such that GHG emissions are reduced by 0.074 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per residential dwelling unit per year and/or per thousand square feet of commercial/industrial use per year.

Compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan would reduce operational emission generated by area sources. Finally, consistent with Land Use and Community Character Element Action LCC -6.A, the City will identify and offer incentives for new industrial, manufacturing, and distribution to adopt green building practices and technologies that exceed Title 24 California Green Building Code requirements. Therefore, the PEIR provides adequate mitigation for a programmatic evaluation, and no revisions have been made per this comment.

A-8
A-9
A-10
280

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-7

A-9 Section 4.2.7.1(b) of the Final PEIR evaluated impacts associated with truck traffic. As noted in this section, the project includes the following policies that would serve to reduce health risks associated with air quality emissions:

1. Policy HEQ -5.3: Require new development that would locate sensitive uses adjacent to sources of TACs to be designed to minimize any potential health risks, consistent with state law.

2. Policy HEQ -5.5: Consistent with AB 98 regulations, regulate new light industrial and warehouse uses in proximity to housing and other sensitive uses and require such projects to route trucks and minimize idling in order to reduce diesel particulate emissions.

3. Policy HEQ -5.6: Work with existing industrial and transportation - related business in Chino to improve outdoor air quality through improved operations and practices, such as planning for zero emissions trucks and vans.

4. Policy LCC -1.5: Locate manufacturing, warehousing, logistics and industrial uses in areas with good access to the regional transportation network while providing for adequate separation and buffering from residential uses.

5. Policy INF-5.10: Prohibit freight trucks from parking or idling on local streets in residential neighborhoods and discourage trucks from traveling on local streets.

6. Action INF- 5.b: Establish restrictions on vehicle weight limit near sensitive land uses such as schools and residential areas to discourage cut -through truck traffic. Support and plan for electrification and autonomy of the truck fleet.

Furthermore, mitigation measure AQ-3 would require projects siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of State Route 71 or State Route 60 to prepare a health risk assessment evaluating the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the PEIR provides adequate mitigation
, consistent with the commenter’s
suggestions, for a programmatic evaluation, and no revisions have been made per this comment.
281

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-8

A-10 Mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 identifies a framework for use by future site-specific projects for the reduction of construction emissions, and for the reduction of operational emissions. As required by the mitigation measures, future site -specific pro jects would include an evaluation of potential impacts associated with construction and operational sources and would develop appropriate mitigation measures on a case -by-case basis consistent with the requirements of CARB and state law. 282

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-9

A-11 Section 4.2.7.1(b) of the Final PEIR documents SCAQMD’s role in issuing permits for future sources of toxic air contaminants by stating the following:

Various uses, such as dry cleaners and gasoline -dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from the SCAQMD. Although
future development and redevelopment under the project
could be located near existing types of facilities, emissions of TACs are regulated by SCAQMD through permitting and
monitoring requirements. The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make t he public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk.

As described in Section 3.5 of the Final PEIR, the PEIR examines the potential environmental impacts of implementing the project and identifies mitigation measures required to address significant impacts, as necessary.

This evaluation is programmatic and does not evaluate the potential project-specific env ironmental impacts of individual development proposals that may be allowed subsequent to project adoption.

Consequently, site-specific development plans that may include stationary sources requiring discretionary air permits are not available for evaluation at this time.

Subsequent projects would be reviewed by the City for consistency with the project and the PEIR, and adequate project-level environmental review would be conducted as required under
the California Environmental
Quality Act . During this process, f uture site -specific projects requiring discretionary air permits would coordinate with SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency, as necessary, and would be required to comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations and permitting requirements.

A-11
283

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-10

A-12 The City will provide written responses ten days prior to certification of the Final PEIR.

A-13 Conclusory remarks.

A-12
A-13
284

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-11

B-1 Consistent with Infrastructure Element Action INF-2.E, the City of Chino (City) will review bike lane classifications with neighboring jurisdictions and seek agreement on actions needing coordination. Similarly, consistent with Infrastructure Element Action INF-4.D, the City will periodically update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as necessary. Any changes, if necessary, would be made consistent with the dimensions documented in the City’s Standard Drawings.

Letter B
B-1
285

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-12

C-1 Introductory comment. See the responses to specific comments below.

C-2 The City of Chino (City) will coordinate with the City of Chino Hills regarding the segment of Chino Hills Parkway between Monte Vista Avenue and shared City boundary. Consistent with Infrastructure Element Policy INF-

3.4, the City will investigate ways to improve roadway operations on Chino Hills Parkway, including widening, if feasible.

C-3 Comment noted. The City will coordinate with the City of Chino Hills regarding the ongoing environmental analysis for the Pine Avenue Connector Project.

C-4 Conclusory remarks.

Letter C
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
286

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-13

D-1 Introductory comment. See the responses to specific comments below.

D-2 Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document. The Heavy Industrial designation of land along the western City of Chino (City)
border between Walnut Street and
Philadelphia Street predates the Chino 2045 General Plan Update (project).

The Heavy Industrial Designation in this location is part of the exiting condition, and the project is not making changes to this area. Furthermore, the majority of land within this area is already built out. No changes have been made per this comment.

D-3 Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document. Please be advised that in the coming months , the City will be amending the Zoning Code to incorporate performance standards related to warehousing and logistics uses consistent with California General Plan Law (Assembly Bill 98). No changes have been made per this comment.

Letter D
D-1
D-2
D-3
287

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-14

D-4 Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document. However, the City has elected to remove the proposed truck route designation from the segment of Philadelphia Street west of East End Avenue, which is reflected in the revised Figure 4.13-2 and Figure 4.13-4 of the Final PEIR.

D-4
288

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-15

D-5 Conclusory remarks.

D-5
289

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-16

290

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-17

E-1 Introductory comment. See the responses to specific comments below.

Letter E
E-1
291

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-18

E-2 The City of Chino (City) has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan with numerous bicycle facilities, including some that connect with bicycle lanes in neighboring jurisdictions. Consistent with Infrastructure Element Action INF-4.D, the City will periodically update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as necessary. Consistent with Infrastructure Element Policy INF-3.6, the City will s upport regional efforts for the development of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Bank in coordination with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority.

E-3 As described in Section 4.13.7.1 of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ( PEIR), the Infrastructure Element includes the following policies related to safety:
• Policy INF-2.10: Consider innovative design and technology solutions to improve mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety such as traffic calming devices, roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions at intersections, separated bicycle infrastructure, high visibility pedestrian treatments and infrastructure, smart road technologies, and traffic signal coordination.
• Policy INF-4.3: Adopt a “vision zero” approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.

Additionally, Table 4.13-1 identifies potential bicycle and truck conflicts and outlines potential strategies the City has developed that are documented in the Infrastructure Element that would serve to reduce these conflicts.

Furthermore, any future site-specific projects that would impact the State Highway System would require an evaluation of traffic safety related to pedestrian and bicycle needs , including multimodal conflict points and changes in traffic composition, as appropriate.

E-4 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided.

Consistent with
Infrastructure Element Policy INF-3.22, the City will continue to incentivize the use of electric and hybrid vehicles by expanding the availability of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in City parking lots and structures and/or by providing priority parking locations for electric and hybrid vehicles.

E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5

E-6

E-7

292

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-19

E-5 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. The Infrastructure Element includes the policies listed below that would support development of multimodal transportation within the Planning Area. I mplementation of these policies would also help to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions within the Planning Area.
• Policy INF- 2.10: Consider innovative design and technology solutions to improve mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety such as traffic calming devices, roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions at intersections, separated bicycle infrastructure, high visibility pedestrian treatments and infrastructure, smart road technologies, and traffic signal coordination.
• Policy INF- 2.11: As part of street redesigns, plan for the needs of different modes– such as shade for pedestrians, lighting at pedestrian scale, mode- appropriate signage, bicycle facilities, and transit amenities. Coordinate with the future Urban Forest Management Plan t o ensure the right tree, is placed in the right place, for the right reason.
• Policy INF- 2.12: Add bike and pedestrian facilities on roads with excess capacity where such facilities do not exist, using supporting transportation plans as guidance. Excess capacity includes street rights-of-way or pavement widths beyond the standards, or excess capacity in roadways based on actual vehicular travel versus design capacity.
• Policy INF- 4.2: As new development and redevelopment occurs, seek opportunities to create a finer -grained network of streets and walking and bicycling connections, especially within a half-mile walk of mixed-use areas.

293

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-20

E-5 (cont.)
• Policy INF- 4.4: Design streets to promote walking by including design elements such as the following:
o Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; o Closely spaced intersections;
o Frequent and low-stress crossings;
o Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
o Street trees that provide shading; and
o Minimize curb cuts to only required access areas.
• Policy INF- 4.5: Provide for a safe, convenient pedestrian environment with strategies such as separate pedestrian- ways in parking lots, avoiding excessive driveway widths, and providing planting strips between sidewalks and streets where feasible. Plan for direct connec tions from the interiors of residential neighborhoods to nearby parks, schools, retail, and other services using sidewalks, trails, and paseos.
• Policy INF-4.9: Remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the City, including through the following:
o provision of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses;
o relocation of infrastructure or street furniture that impedes travel pathways;
o reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts; and o creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas. • Policy INF- 4.10: When designing projects, prioritize designs that encourage walking, improve pedestrian safety, and incorporate best practice designs and considerations for efficiencies in walking. • Policy INF-4.11: Establish and maintain a comprehensive network of on- and off-roadway bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for both commuter and recreational trips.
294

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-21

E-5 (cont.)
• Policy INF-4.12: Plan and seek funding for a continuous, low -stress bikeway network consisting of bicycling -friendly facilities that connect neighborhoods with destinations and activity centers throughout the City.
• Policy INF- 4.13: When designing projects, prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of cyclists, such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists, increase bikeway widths, raise bikeways, design safer intersection crossings and turns, and separate bikeways from driving traffic wherever feasible.
• Policy INF-4.14: Implement safety improvements in mid-block areas that allow for bicycles to safely cross heavily traveled roads.

Improvements can include stop signs for cyclists, warning beacons, and illuminated signs initiated by pedestrians and cyclists.

E-6 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. Following City procedure, future site-specific projects that may impact state right -of-way would initiate early engagement with Caltrans, including California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
participation in the scoping
process, as appropriate.

E-7 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. Per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, f uture site -
specific projects would
require the preparation of a transportation analysis, which would include the components suggested in this comment, as appropriate.

295

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-22

E-8 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. Per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, f uture site -specific projects would require the preparation of a transportation analysis that includes an evaluation of impacts related to VMT , consistent with the City’s guidelines and screening criteria. Future site -specific transportation analyses would also propose mitigation and discuss overriding considerations, as appropriate.

E-9 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. If any future site- specific projects would impact a Caltrans facility, they would be required to comply with the American s with Disabilities Act , as required by Caltrans .

Future site -specific projects would also maintain bicycle and pedestrian access through the construction process, as appropriate.

E-10 This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy or content of the PEIR. However, the following response is provided. If any future site-specific projects would encroach into Caltrans ’ right-of-way, the project applicant would be required to obtain a Caltrans -issued encroachment permit.

E-11 Conclusory remarks.

E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
296

LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-23

F-1 Comment noted.

Letter F
F-1
297
CHINO 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2024090833)

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Attachment B.5
298
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted upon certification of an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. The MMRP specifies the mitigation measures that have been identified to address potential impacts that would result from adoption of the City of Chino (City) 2045 General Plan Update (project) and future site-specific development. The MMRP additionally identifies the entity responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation; and when in the process it should be accomplished.

The Program EIR (PEIR) prepared for the project focuses on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in the PEIR include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. After analysis, potentially significant impacts were identified for air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation.

Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this PEIR would reduce potentially significant impacts, but not to below a level of significance for all the environmental issue areas. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant impacts related to air quality (air quality plans; criteria pollutants; sensitive receptors), biological resources (special status species, sensitive riparian habitats, jurisdictional wetlands and waters ), cultural and tribal cultural resources (historic resources ; archaeological resources; tribal cultural resources) , geology and soils (paleontological resources), GHG emissions (GHG emissions; policy consistency), and noise (ambient noise [traffic noise/land use compatibility/stationary noise/construction noise] ; groundborne noise and vibration) . No feasible mitigation was identified for impacts to transportation (circulation system: roadway system vehicle miles traveled). Impacts related to air quality (air quality plans; criteria pollutants; sensitive receptors), cultural and tribal resources (historic resources), greenhouse gas (emissions; policy consistency), noise ( ambient noise: traffic noise/land use compatibility ; groundborne noise and vibration:
construction), and transportation (circulation system: roadway system; vehicle miles traveled) would remain significant and unavoidable at the program level.

The MMRP for the project is under the jurisdiction of the City . As specified in Table 1, t he MMRP summarizes the potentially significant impacts and lists the associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. 299

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-2
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Air Quality
Issue 1: Conflict with Air Quality Plan:

Construction Emissions
AQ-1: Construction Air Quality
Applications for future development and redevelopment, wherein the City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee has determined a potential for air quality impacts associated with construction, shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee shall make this determination based on the size of the project, whether the project would require a transportation impact analysis, or other criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. The City shall require that applicants for new development projects with the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance to incorporate the measures listed below to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
300

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-3
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 mph or less to reduce fugitive dust.
• During grading and all site disturbance activities, at the discretion of the City’s Director of the Development Services Department, construction contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts to reduce fugitive dust.
• During grading and all site disturbance activities, at the discretion of the City’s Director of the Development Services Department, construction contractors shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph to reduce fugitive dust. • During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment as required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2 to reduce the release of undesirable emissions. • During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use existing on-site electrical power sources to the maximum extent practicable. Where such power is not available, the Contractor shall use clean fuel generators during the early stages of construction to minimize or eliminate the use of portable generators and reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall use low emission, on site stationary equipment (e.g., clean fuels) to the maximum extent practicable to reduce emissions, as determined by the City Engineer. • During all construction activities, the construction contractors, in conjunction with the City Engineer, shall locate construction parking to minimize traffic interference on local roads.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall ensure that all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to reduce spilling of material on area roads.
• During architectural coating activities, use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of 301

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-4
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website.

Issue 1: Conflict with Air Quality Plan:

Operational Emissions
AQ-2: Operational Air Quality
Applications for future development and redevelopment, wherein the City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee has determined a potential for air quality impacts associated with operation, shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. For individual projects that may exceed the daily operational emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, the owner/permitee shall conduct an analysis of the project’s operational air quality impacts using the latest available CalEEMod mode, or other analytical method determined in conjunction with the City. The City’s Director of the Development Services Department or their designee shall make this determination based on the size of the project, whether the project would require a transportation impact analysis, or other criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If such analyses identify potentially significant regional or local air quality impacts, project-level mitigation and/or project design features would be required to reduce operational impacts to less than significant. Mitigation to reduce operational impacts depends on the specific project, but may include measures such as, but not limited to:
• Demonstrate net zero energy expenditure.
• Implementation of transportation demand management measures. • Prohibit the installation of woodstoves, hearths, and fireplaces in new construction facilitated by the General Plan Update.
• Expand and facilitate completion of planned networks of active transportation infrastructure.
• Implement electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond requirements set forth in the 2022 CALGreen mandatory measures, such as Tier 2 voluntary measures set forth in 2022 CALGreen (or future more stringent) standards. • Implement traffic demand measures, such as unbundling parking fees from rent/lease options, encouraging/developing a ride-share program for the community, and provide car/bike sharing services, that will reduce daily individual car usage and reduce project VMT.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
302

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-5
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Issue 2: Cumulative Net Increases in
Criteria Pollutants: Construction
Emissions
See mitigation measure AQ-1 above. Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
Issue 2: Cumulative Net Increases in
Criteria Pollutants: Operational Emissions
See mitigation measure AQ-2 above. Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
Issue 3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
AQ-3: Health Risk Assessment
For site-specific projects that may site new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of SR-71 or SR-60, the applicant shall prepare a HRA evaluating the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to TACs, which shall be required for such individual projects. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the policies and procedures of the state OEHHA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the SQAQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies to reduce substantial exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. Examples may include, but are not limited to, air intakes located away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones unless it can be demonstrated that these are operational limitations and/or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems provided with appropriately sized MERV filters. Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. Air intake and MERV filter requirements shall be noted on all building plans submitted to the City Development Services Department.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
303

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-6
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Biological Resources
Issue 1: Special Status Species BIO-1: Biological Assessment and Mitigation Applications for future development of vacant properties (and portions thereof), wherein the City’s Director of Development Services or their designee has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to prepare a site-specific general biological resources survey to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. The report shall identify the need for focused presence/absence surveys and identify the presence of state or federal regulated wetlands or waters.

If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources, including sensitive species and/or wetlands are identified, the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Biologist,
Applicant
Issue 1: Special Status Species BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Applications for future development, wherein the City’s Director of Development Services or their designee has determined a potential for impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds, shall be required to restrict removal of sensitive habitat and vegetation to outside the breeding seasons of any sensitive species identified within adjacent properties (typical bird breeding season is January 15 to September 15, as early as January 1 for some raptors). If vegetation clearing must begin during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall provide recommendations to avoid impacts to nesting birds which typically includes a pre-construction survey within three days of the start of construction to determine the presence of active nests.

If active nests are found, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure protection of the nesting birds. Avoidance measures may include a no-activity buffer zone, typically 300 feet from the area of disturbance or 500 feet for raptors, established at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City, If activity buffer zones are not feasible, temporary noise barriers may be installed to attenuate construction noise. Noise wall height and adequacy shall be supported by a noise analysis to determine the anticipated construction noise levels with attenuation measures as recommended by the biologist and approved by the City. Periodic noise monitoring shall be conducted during construction to ensure noise attenuation standards are met. Accepted noise levels are species dependent and existing ambient noise levels can play a factor in establishing baseline acceptable noise.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Biologist,
Applicant
304

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-7
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Issue 2: Sensitive Vegetation
Communities
See mitigation measure BIO-1 above. Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Biologist,
Applicant
Issue 3: Wetlands See mitigation measure BIO-1 above. Prior to project approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Biologist,
Applicant
Cultural Resources
Issue 1: Historic Resources CUL-1: Historic Evaluation
Prior to approval of a future site-specific project that would directly or indirectly affect a building/structure in excess of 50 years of age, the City or a qualified architectural historian shall determine whether the affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in the CEQA guidelines. If the evaluation determines that building/structure is not historic, no further evaluation or mitigation would be required. If the building/structure is determined to be historically significant, the preferred mitigation would be to avoid the resource through project redesign. If the resource cannot be avoided, all prudent and feasible measures to minimize or mitigate harm to the resource shall be taken per recommendations of the qualified architectural historian.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified
Architectural Historian,
Applicant
Issue 2: Archaeological Resources CUL-2: Cultural Resources Assessment Prior to project approval or the issuance of grading permits (whichever is applicable and comes first), the City shall require applicants for future proposed ground disturbing projects to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures. The following steps to achieve these goals:
1) A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards shall conduct a cultural resources assessment consisting of a record search from the SCCIC, a sacred lands search from the NAHC, a pedestrian survey, background context and project specific recommendations 2) If the cultural resources assessment identifies archaeological resources that have not been evaluated for significance per CEQA thresholds (see Section

4.4.3 above), then an evaluation program shall be completed. An Prior to project
approvals or issuance
of grading permits
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified
Archaeologist, Applicant
305

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-8
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
evaluation program generally will include excavation to determine depth, extent, integrity, and content of the subsurface cultural material, 3) If an archaeological resource is determined significant and avoidance through project redesign is not feasible, a data recovery and construction monitoring program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to an archaeological resource to below a significant level, and 4) After construction, a final data recovery and monitoring report shall be completed documenting the result of the data recovery, research design, and monitoring efforts. Confidential attachments must be submitted under separate covers. Artifacts collected during the evaluation, data recovery, and monitoring efforts must be curated at an appropriate facility consistent with the state and federal curation standards (36 CFR 79 of the Federal Register) and that allows access to the artifact collections.

Issue 4: Tribal Cultural Resources See mitigation measure CUL-2 above. Prior to project approvals or issuance
of grading permits
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified
Archaeologist, Applicant
Geology and Soils
Issue 6: Paleontological Resources and
Unique Geology
GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Evaluation
Applications for future development, wherein the Community Development Director or his or her designee has determined a potential for impacts to paleontological resources, shall review the underlying geology and paleontological sensitivity of the site. If it is determined that the potential exists that sensitive paleontological resources are present, the applicant shall provide a paleontological resources technical report consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified paleontologist. If it is determined there is potential for paleontological resources to be present, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during grading in locations where the paleontological resources technical report determined that such monitoring is necessary due to the potential for paleontological resources to reside within the underlying geologic formations. The paleontological resources technical report shall also provide specific duties of the monitor, and detailed measures to address fossil remains, if found.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified
Paleontologist, Applicant
306

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-9
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Greenhouses Gas Emissions
Issue 1: GHG Emissions GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas
All future site-specific projects shall be required to demonstrate consistency with the City’s CAP. As stated in Appendix A of the CAP, analysis of site-specific projects can either be done through emissions calculations or by using the Screening Tables. Site-specific projects that obtain at least 100 points would be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the CAP. Those site-specific projects that do not obtain 100 points using the Screening Tables would need to provide additional analysis to determine the significance of GHG emissions.

1. Exceed the mandatory California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 standards, in effect at the time of application submittal by five percent; or

3. Provide other equivalent GHG reductions through measures including, but not limited to, non-vehicle transportation infrastructure, transit, ZEV (zero emission vehicle) infrastructure or other incentives, waste diversion, water conservation, tree planting, renewable energy option packages, or any combination of these or other measures such that GHG emissions are reduced by 0.074 MT CO
2E per residential dwelling unit per year and/or
per thousand square feet of commercial/industrial use per year.

Applicants that choose Option 1 described above would be required to verify that their site-specific project meets the five percent improvement above the mandatory standards through the appropriate certificate of compliance form for residential construction (CF-1R) or for commercial/industrial construction (PERF- 1C). Applicants that choose Options 2 or 3 described above would be required to utilize the GHG Performance Standard Checklist developed by the City, or provide other valid documentation, such as CalEEMod or other methodologies, as verified by the director of development services to demonstrate the required GHG reductions consistent with the City's CAP.

Prior to project
approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
307

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-10
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Issue 2: Policies, Plans, and Regulations
Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions
Refer to mitigation measure GHG-1 above. Prior to project approvals
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Air
Quality Technical Specialist,
Applicant
Noise
Issue 1: Increase in Ambient Noise: Traffic
Noise
NOI-1: Exterior Noise Analysis
Prior to the issuance of building permits, site-specific exterior noise analyses that demonstrate that the site-specific project would not place residential receptors in locations where the exterior existing or future noise levels would exceed the City’s noise compatibility standards (Table HSN-1) shall be required as part of the review of future residential development proposals. Noise reduction measures, including but not limited to building noise barriers, increased building setbacks, speed reductions on surrounding roadways, alternative pavement surfaces, or other relevant noise attenuation measures, may be used to achieve the noise compatibility standards. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site-specific exterior noise analyses.

Prior to project
approvals and prior
to the issuance of
building permits
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Noise
Specialist/Acoustical
Engineer, Applicant
Issue 1: Increase in Ambient Noise: Land
Use Compatibility
NOI-2: Interior Noise Analysis
Prior to the issuance of building permits, site specific interior noise analyses demonstrating compliance with the City’s interior noise compatibility standards and other applicable regulations shall be prepared for noise sensitive land uses located in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed the City’s noise compatibility standards. Noise control measures, including but not limited to increasing roof, wall, window, and door sound attenuation ratings, placing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment in noise reducing enclosures, or designing buildings so that no windows face freeways or major roadways may be used to achieve the noise compatibility standards. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site-specific exterior noise analyses.

Prior to project
approvals and prior
to the issuance of
building permits
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Noise
Specialist/Acoustical
Engineer, Applicant Issue 1: Noise Standards: Increase in Ambient Noise: Stationary Noise
NOI-3: Stationary Noise
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a site-specific acoustical/noise analysis of any on-site generated noise sources, including generators, mechanical equipment, and trucks, shall be prepared which identifies all noise-generating equipment, predicts noise levels at property lines from all identified equipment, and recommends mitigation to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), to ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards. Noise reduction Prior to project
approvals and prior
to the issuance of
building permits
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Noise
Specialist/Acoustical
Engineer, Applicant
308

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-11
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
measures shall include building noise-attenuating walls, limiting the hours of operation, or other attenuation measures. Additionally, future site-specific projects shall be required to buffer sensitive receptors from noise sources through the use of open space and other separation techniques as recommended after thorough analysis by a qualified acoustical engineer. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site-specific noise analyses.

Issue 1: Noise Standards: Increase in
Ambient Noise: Construction Noise
NOI-4: Construction Noise
Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the Planning Area. These measures shall be identified on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City:
• The City’s Development Services Department shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday as prescribed in Municipal Code Section

15.44.030. No construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise sensitive land uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise sensitive land uses.
• Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Development Services Department. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the Prior to project
approvals, at least
10 days prior to the
start of construction
activities, during
construction
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Construction
Contractors, Applicant
309

Chino 2045 General Plan Update Program EIR
Page MMRP-12
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart backup alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off backup alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the noise level limits established in the Municipal Code.

Issue 2: Groundborne Noise and
Vibration: Construction
NOI-5: Construction Vibration
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Prior to project
approvals and prior
to issuance of a
building permit
Director of the Development
Services Department or their
designee, Qualified Noise
Specialist/Acoustical
Engineer, Applicant

310

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-056

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO , CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN, REPEALING THE

EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, THE MAJESTIC

SPECTRUM SPECIFIC PLAN, THE CENTRAL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND REPEAL THE 2025 GENERAL PLAN (EXCLUDING THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT) PL23-0128 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
WHEREAS, State law requires California cities to prepare and adopt a General Plan to guide future development of the City, including at least eight el ements that address land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, noise, and environmental justice; and WHEREAS State law requires cities to keep general plans current through regular updates; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chino (the “City”) last adopted a comprehensive update to its General Plan in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated this comprehensive update to the General Plan in 2022; and WHEREAS, the City in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024090833) for the 2045 General Plan Update, which serves as the foundation document for environmental review; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chino Municipal Code (CMC) section 2.36 (Planning Commission), the Planning Commission is empowered to review and recommend adoption of a general plan in accordance with California Government Code sections 65300 through 65404, and to review and recommend to the city council applications for general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, zone changes, and zone ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS Chino Municipal Code section 20.23.040 (General Plan Amendments) prescribes procedures for amending, supplementing or changing the general plan of the City of Chino, whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good planning practice so requires; and
WHEREAS the procedures established in Chino Municipal Code section 20.23.040 require that the planning commission make a written recommendation on a proposed general plan amendment based on upon the findings contained in section 20.23.040(G); and WHEREAS the 2045 General Plan would replace the Central Avenue Specific Plan (adopted by the Chino City Council on October 6, 1982), the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (adopted by the Chino City Council on December 18, 1990, and subsequently amended ) and the Majestic Spectrum Specific Plan (adopted by the Chino City Council on July 1, 1986, and subsequently amended); and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, the City referred the 2045 General Plan to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities and WHEREAS representatives contacted declined to consult; and
311
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-056

Page 3 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, the City adopted the 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is anticipated to be adopted by the end of 2025; and
WHEREAS the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, that is anticipated to be adopted by the end of 2025, is hereby adopted into the Safety Element of the Ge neral Plan to be eligible for part or all of the local-share costs on eligible Public Assistance funding to be provided by the state though the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA), as permitted under Assembly Bill (AB) 2140; and WHEREAS, the California Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention has reviewed the draft Safety Element and provided feedback at a public hearing on July 22, 2025, and by letter of July 29, 2025; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan is consistent with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has completed its study of the proposed General Plan and related materials; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Planning Commission, including the two Ex -Officio Members from the Sphere of Influence, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment) in compliance with law, entertained the written and oral staff report, and took public testimony on the project and by a vote of 9-0, recommended to the City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment PL23-0128; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2025, the City Council of the City of Chino conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment) in compliance with law, at which time, it considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission for approval of PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment) and all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, all provisions of the California Government Code and Chino Municipal Code related to the 2045 General Plan have been complied with, including public hearings.

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

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

B. Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings and takes the following actions on PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment), and repeals the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan, The Majestic Spectrum Specific Plan, the Central Avenue Specific Plan and Repeal s the 2025 General Plan (Excluding the 2021-2029 Housing Element):

1. PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment)
a. The proposed General Plan is internally consistent as required by State law, in that the 2045 General Plan, elements of the General Plan and all other parts thereof 312
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-056

Page 4 of 6 ends

comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of Chino; and
b. The proposed General Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The 2045 General Plan includes goals, policies and implementing actions which enhance the public interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City by updating land uses to respond to market conditions and opportunities; incorporating growth management strategies; ensuring consistency with other planning documents and initiatives; increasing community resilience to natural and humanmade hazards; fostering active, healthy lifestyles and improved health outcomes; addressing roadway safety and efficient circulation; reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled; promoting community -first economic development; and providing for high quality community services; and c. The proposed General Plan will maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The 2045 General Plan will maintain a balance of land uses within the City appropriately consistent with Chi no's voter -approved residential growth control measure while also accommodating projected population and employment growth and providing revenue to support adequate community services; and d. The proposed General Plan land use designations apply to sites t hat are physically suitable, including, but not limited to parcel size, shape, access, availability of utilities and compatibility with adjoining land uses, for the requested land use modifications and anticipated development. The proposed changes to the 2045 General Plan Land Use Diagram focus on sites that can feasibly be developed with uses that respond to prevailing real estate market conditions and opportunities for the mutual benefit of the community and property owners and that related policies prov ide for land use compatibility with adjoining and surrounding uses.

2. CEQA Findings. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024090833) (EIR) for the City of Chino 2045 General Plan Update Project has been prepared for the 2045 General Plan pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to address potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the City of Chino 2045 General Plan Update.

3. Approval of PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment). The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves PL23-0128 (General Plan Amendment), updating the General Plan as outlined on the General Plan Map Exhibit “A” and the City of Chino 2045 General Plan Exhibit “B” and repeals the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan, The Majestic Spectrum Specific Plan, the Central Avenue Specific Plan and Repeals the 2025 General Plan (Excluding the 2021 -2029 Housing Element) . The City Council further authorizes the D evelopment Services Director or his designee to make any non -substantive corrections or revisions to the City of Chino 2045 General Plan approved herein as deemed reasonably necessary consistent with and to uphold the approval granted herein by the City Council.

4. Actions by the Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby directed to attest as to the adoption of this Resolution as of the date set forth below.

313
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-056

Page 5 of 6 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.

EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK

Attachments:

Exhibit “A” – City of Chino 2045 General Plan Map
Exhibit “B” – City of Chino 2045 General Plan (Website Link) https://www.cityofchino.org/591/Environmental-Documents

State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )

I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Chin o City Council at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of September 2025, by the following votes:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK

314
A¼
Prado
Regional
Park
Ayala Park

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERN ARDINO COUNTY
LOS

ANGELES
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
City of
Pomona
City of
Chino Hills
City of
Ontario
California
Institution
for Men
(CIM)
California
Institution
for Women
(CIW)
Chino Airport

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERN ARDINO COUNTY
The Preserve
Specific Plan
College Park
Specific Plan
East Chino
Specific Plan
Kimball Ave
AzAz
A«
A¼
A«
Aô
Chino Ave
Riverside Dr
Pine Ave
Walnut Ave
Schaefer Ave
Edison Ave
Ramona Ave
East End Ave
Kimball Ave
Central Ave
El Prado Rd
Mountain Ave
Chino Hills Pkwy
Pipeline Ave
East End Ave
Central Ave
Riverside Dr
Schaefer Ave
Ramona Ave
Ramona Ave
Pine Ave
GrandAve
Euclid Ave
Euclid Ave
Phillips Blvd
Francis Ave
Edison Ave
Chino Corona Rd
Y orba Ave
Y orba Ave
Vernon AveBenson Ave
Roswell Ave
Monte Vista Ave
Eucalyptus AveEucalyptus Ave
Mountain Ave
Bickmore Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Mccarty Rd
Euclid Ave
Remington Ave
Hellman Ave
Main St
Fern Ave
San Antonio Ave
Fern Ave
Fern Ave
Cypress Ave
Benson Ave
Magnolia Ave
Oaks Ave
C St
D St
Norton Ave
Norton Ave
Pipeline Ave Philadelphia St
Central Ave
Park Pl
B St
C St
Walnut Ave
Monte Vista Ave
Norton Ave
Benson Ave
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Map LCC-4a General Plan Land Use
Residential
RD1 (1 du/ac)
RD2 (2 du/ac)
RD4.5 (4.5 du/ac)
RD8 (4.5 - 8 du/ac)
RD12 (8 - 12 du/ac)
RD14 (12 - 14 du/ac)
RD20 (14 - 20 du/ac)
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Commercial (GC)
Service Commercial (SC)
Mixed Use
Downtown (D)
Regional Mixed Use (RMU)
Boulevard Mixed Use (BMU)
Employment Mixed Use (EMU)
Mixed Use - Medium Density (MU20)
Industrial
Business Park (BP)
Light Industrial (LI)
General Industrial (GI)
Open Space
Agriculture (A)
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
Public
Public/Institutional (P/I)
Schools (S)
College Park Specific Plan
Estate Residential (ER)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Mixed Use - College Park (MU - CP)
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
Schools (S)
The Preserve Specific Plan
Estate Residential (ER)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
RD 20 (14 - 20 du/ac)
RD30 (20 - 30 du/ac)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Mixed Use - High Density (30 du/ac)
Community Core 16 (Mixed Use)
Airport Related (AR)
Agriculture (A)
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
Specific Plan
City of Chino
Sphere of Influence
Data Source: City of Chino GIS, 2025; San Bernardino County GIS, 2025; Dyett & Bhatia, 2025. 0 1 2½
Miles
Exhibit A
315

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-006

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CHINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE
(PL23-0129) AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2010-06,

WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ZONING MAP, BY CHANGING

THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED
HEREIN

WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024090833) has been prepared for the City of Chino 2045 General Plan Update Project (Project) and approved concurrently with the first reading of this Ordinance (Ordinance 2025-006).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chino does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Ordinance No. 2010-06 is hereby amended to affect a Zone Change on the parcels within the City of Chino identified on the map and parcels identified in Exhibit A (attached). The City Council further authorizes the Development Services Director or his designee to make any non -substantive corrections to the Ordinance attac hed to Exhibit A as deemed reasonably necessary consistent with the approval granted herein by the City Council.

Section 2. CEQA Findings. The City of Chino 2045 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024090833) (EIR) has been prepared for the Project.

Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council has determined that this Project is within the scope of the EIR, and there are no changes to the Project from what was described and analyzed in the EIR. The proposed zone changes are consistent with the Project described in the EIR, and all mitigation measures from the EIR are incorporated as conditions of approval for the Project.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council of the City of Chino declare that they would have enacted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of any determination of invalidity.

Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its second reading and adoption.

Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Chino shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published within the City in accordance with the provisions of the Government Code.

316
Ordinance No. 2025-006

Page 2 of 2 ends

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.

EUNICE M. ULLOA, MAYOR
ATTEST:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK

Exhibit A – Map and List of Sites Receiving Zoning Amendments

State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )

I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino, do hereby certify the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Chino City Council at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of September 2025, by the following votes:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NATALIE GONZAGA, CITY CLERK

317
A¼
Prado
Regional
Park
Ayala Park

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERN ARDINO COUNTY
LOS

ANGELES
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
City of
Pomona
City of
Chino Hills
City of
Ontario
California
Institution
for Men
(CIM)
California
Institution
for Women
(CIW)
Chino Airport

SAN BERN ARDINO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Kimball Ave
AzAz
A«
A¼
A«
Aô
Chino Ave
Riverside Dr
Pine Ave
Walnut Ave
Schaefer Ave
Edison Ave
Ramona Ave
East End Ave
Kimball Ave
Central Ave
El Prado Rd
Mountain Ave
Chino Hills Pkwy
Pipeline Ave
East End Ave
Central Ave
Riverside Dr
Schaefer Ave
Ramona Ave
Ramona Ave
Pine Ave
GrandAve
Euclid Ave
Euclid Ave
Phillips Blvd
Francis Ave
Edison Ave
Chino Corona Rd
Y orba Ave
Y orba Ave
Vernon AveBenson Ave
Roswell Ave
Monte Vista Ave
Eucalyptus AveEucalyptus Ave
Mountain Ave Bickmore Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Mccarty Rd
Euclid Ave
Remington Ave
Hellman Ave
Main St
Fern Ave
San Antonio Ave
Fern Ave
Fern Ave
Cypress Ave
Benson Ave
Magnolia Ave
Oaks Ave
C St
D St
Norton Ave
Norton Ave
Pipeline Ave Philadelphia St
Central Ave
Park Pl
B St
C St
Walnut Ave
Monte Vista Ave
Norton Ave
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
Chino Creek
M2
(OS-1)
M2
CG
CG
CG
CG
M2
CG
CN
OS-1
CG
(CG)
CG
(M2)
(AG)
(CO)
(CO)
(AM)
CG
(C/O)
(RD2)
CG
(RD2)
(BP)
(RD20)
(CO)
CS
(CO)
(CG)
Proposed Zoning Map Amendments
Proposed Zoning District
CN - Commercial Neighborhood
CG - Commercial General
CS - Commercial Service
M2 - General Industrial
OS-1 - Open Space Recreational
City of Chino
Sphere of Influence
Data Source: City of Chino GIS, 2024; San Bernardino County GIS, 2024; Dyett & Bhatia, 2024. 0 1 2½
Miles
Proposed Zoning
(Current Zoning)
Exhibit A
318
Exhibit A.2 - List of Parcels to be Rezoned

APN ADDRESS CURRENT ZONINGPROPOSED ZONING
1014-052-03-0000 5325 PHILLIPS BLVD CG OS-1
1015-281-24-0000 10TH ST RD20 CG
1019-331-01-0000 3321 CHINO AVE RD2 CG
1019-331-02-0000 3417 CHINO AVE CG CG
1019-331-07-0000 3415 CHINO AVE RD2 CG
1021-031-17-0000 5345 SCHAEFER AVE CS CS
1021-031-22-0000 CENTRAL AVE CO CS
1021-031-25-0000 13759 CENTRAL AVE CO CN
1021-031-26-0000 13779 CENTRAL AVE CO CN
1022-051-07-0000 ROSWELL AVE BP CG
1022-051-10-0000 13700 ROSWELL AVE BP CG
1022-051-11-0000 13788 ROSWELL AVE BP CG
1022-051-13-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 1 #105 BP CG
1022-051-14-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 2 #103 BP CG
1022-051-15-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 3 #102 BP CG
1022-051-16-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 4 #101 BP CG
1022-051-17-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 5 #100 BP CG
1022-051-18-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 6 #111 BP CG
1022-051-19-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 7 #112 BP CG
1022-051-20-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 8 #115 BP CG
1022-051-21-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 9 #116 BP CG
1022-051-22-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 117 BP CG
1022-051-23-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 118 BP CG
1022-051-24-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 119 BP CG
1022-051-25-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 120 BP CG
1022-051-26-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 121 BP CG
1022-051-27-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 122 BP CG
1022-051-28-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 110 BP CG
1022-051-29-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 109 BP CG
1022-051-30-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 108 BP CG
1022-051-31-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 107 BP CG
1022-051-32-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 106 BP CG
1022-051-33-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 205 BP CG
1022-051-34-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 203 BP CG
1022-051-35-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 202 BP CG
1022-051-36-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 201 BP CG
1022-051-37-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 200 BP CG
1022-051-38-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 211 BP CG
1022-051-39-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 212 BP CG
1022-051-40-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 215 BP CG
1022-051-41-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 216 BP CG
1022-051-42-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 217 BP CG
1022-051-43-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 218 BP CG
1022-051-44-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 219 BP CG
1022-051-45-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 220 BP CG
319
Exhibit A.2 - List of Parcels to be Rezoned

APN ADDRESS CURRENT ZONINGPROPOSED ZONING
1022-051-46-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 221 BP CG
1022-051-47-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 222 BP CG
1022-051-48-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 210 BP CG
1022-051-49-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 209 BP CG
1022-051-50-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 208 BP CG
1022-051-51-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 207 BP CG
1022-051-52-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE 206 BP CG
1022-051-53-0000 13768 ROSWELL AVE BP CG
1025-092-02-0000 14670 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-121-08-0000 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-151-07-0000 CHINO HILLS PKWY C/O CG
1025-151-08-0000 CHINO HILLS PKWY C/O CG
1025-191-06-0000 CHINO HILLS PKWY C/O CG
1025-211-12-0000 CORPORATE CENTER AVE C/O CG
1025-211-16-0000 CORPORATE CENTER AVE AM CG
1025-211-18-0000 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-211-19-0000 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-211-22-0000 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-211-23-0000 14726 RAMONA AVE C/O CG
1025-211-24-0000 14740 RAMONA AVE AM CG
1025-211-26-0000 4325 CORPORATE CENTER AVE C/O CG
1025-211-28-0000 14740 RAMONA AVE AM CG
1025-211-29-0000 CORPORATE CENTER AVE AM CG
1025-211-30-0000 4480 CHINO HILLS PKWY AM CG
1025-482-01-0000 CHINO HILLS PKWY C/O CG
1025-491-01-0000 CHINO HILLS PKWY C/O CG
1026-101-05-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE CG M2
1026-101-06-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE CG M2
1026-101-07-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE CG M2
1026-101-09-0000 15616 EUCLID AVE CG M2
1026-101-10-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE CG M2
1026-101-12-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE OS-1 M2
1028-202-21-0000 EL PRADO RD CO CG
1056-061-04-0000 7031 KIMBALL AVE M2 CG
1026-111-01-0000 KIMBALL AVE OS-1 M2; OS-1
1027-211-05-0000 FLOWERS ST AG M2
1026-071-02-0000 EUCLID AVE OS-1 OS-1; M2
1026-031-01-0000 15180 EUCLID AVE OS-1 OS-1; M2
A portion of the following parcels is proposed for rezoning as shown on the attached map. 320

MEMORANDUM

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2025

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY OF CHINO
FROM: FRED GALANTE, CITY ATTORNEY

SUBJECT
..titl e
Option to Ground Lease Orange County Flood Control District Property. ..end

RECOMMENDATION
..recommendation
That the City Council Approve the Option Agreement with Orange County Flood Control District and form Ground Lease for a 65-year lease of open space land for recreational and open space uses.
..body

FISCAL IMPACT
The Option is provided to the City at the option price of $1. If the option is exercised, the ground lease is provided at no cost to the City. Any costs of improving the leased land would have to be separately analyzed depending on the City’s desired uses thereon.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
 Positive City Image
 Financial Stability
 Responsible Long-Range Planning
 Public Service Excellence through Internal and External Partnerships

Revenue:

Expenditure:

Transfer In: Transfer Out:
321
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
TITLE: OPTION TO GROUND LEASE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROPERTY.

PAGE: 2

BACKGROUND
The opportunity to ground lease the eight parcels shown below (“Properties”) from Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) originated from a condition of approval imposed by the City on the Majestic Chino Heritage (Majestic) project encompassing a 97-acre industrial project located at the southeast corner of Mountain and Bickmore Avenues.

The parcels that account for the Majestic project site were acquired by OCFCD between 2001 and 2011 for flood capacity purposes because, under existing conditions, most of the project site is below the Prado Dam 566 -foot flood inundation line, which limits development of habitable structures. Prior to acquisition, the Majestic project site was an operating dairy, which ceased operations between 2013 and 2014. Subsequently, OCFCD identified the property for development and released a request for proposals ( RFP) in 2015 for a 65 -year ground lease of the property. In 2016, Majestic was awarded the ground lease and submitted applications in 2018 for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Zone Change (ZC), two Site Approvals (SA), a Special Conditional Use Permit (SCUP), and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM) to develop the site with two industrial buildings totaling just over two million square feet. The City Council approved the project on June 1, 2021. Over the past few years, Majestic has been working with both the OCFCD and Army Corps to get all necessary permits from the agencies to start construction of the project.

As part of approval of the project, a special condition of approval was applied (Condition of Approval 2.13.1) to the Majestic project that outlined the ability of the City to lease OCFCD Properties from OCFCD for $1 instead of receiving an agriculture mitigation/open space replacement fee from Majestic. Over the last several months, the City and OCFCD have worked to develop an O ption Agreement that allows the City to lease the Properties with the types of uses identified in the Ground Lease that would be the operative lease should the City exercise the option to lease the properties. The provisions of final draft agreements are discussed further below.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The Option Agreement provides the City the opportunity to exercise the right to lease the Properties at any time within 120 days from the time the parties approve the Option Agreement at the option price of $1. T he City is authorized to enter the Properties to inspect them before exercising the option to perform any investigations needed to determine their suitability for the City’s proposed use.

If the City exercises the option to some or all of the Properties, t he parties would sign the Ground Lease. After months of negotiations between the parties, the Ground Lease is now approved by staff and legal counsel on both sides. The Ground Lease provides the following key terms:

1. Rent: The lease of the Properties wou ld be for $1 per year. Any property expenses, utility or maintenance costs, other than those for flood control purposes not caused by the City, are to be paid by the City. Any revenue the City receives from activities on the Properties that are projected to exceed the City’s cost of operating the Properties require OCFCD’s prior review and consent and negotiation of a revenue share with OCFCD.

2. Term: The lease would be for an initial term of 65 years, with 3 additional 10 - year extension options. The City would need to demonstrate that it has made 322
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
TITLE: OPTION TO GROUND LEASE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROPERTY.

PAGE: 3

significant improvements or committed significant planning, development or operation of the leased area before OCFCD will agree to authorize any of the extension options.

3. Condition of property : The City agrees to take possession of the OCFCD Properties “as is” and OCFCD does not make representations as to the condition of the Properties, soil, or its suitability for the City’s intended uses. The City, at its cost, must maintain the Premises in good condition du ring the lease and may not make improvements that could impact the flood control purposes of the Premises.

4. Permitted uses: The City may use the Properties for park and recreational uses that uphold the property’s natural, scenic and open space attributes and do not interfere with flood control operations. Permitted uses may also include both passive and active recreational uses such as hiking, biking, picnicking and picnic areas, nature tours, educational programs, and non -motorized recreation as well as ancillary uses that are compatible with the foregoing uses, as approved by OCFCD. Any other uses require OCFCD’s review of plans and re-assessment of rent to be paid by the City, which may include entertainment uses, motorized, golfing and sports activities, agricultural uses, City events, theme parks, obstacle courses. Additionally, the lease provides that if the City discontin ues its use of the Premises for 1 year, OCFCD may terminate the lease.

5. Liability. The City is responsible for any damages to the Premises or injuries that occur during its use. Additionally, the City must maintain insurance coverage for the City’s and O CFCD’s benefit in case of any liability, damages or injuries that occur.

The City has no obligation to exercise the option to lease the Premises if, within the 120 day period the Option Agreement is in effect, the City determines in its own discretion that it does not wish to lease the Premises.

Attachments: Option Agreement
Ground Lease Agreement

323

MASTER REVENUE LEASE (OCFCD)

OPTION AGREEMENT

THIS OPTION AGREEMENT (“Option Agreement”) is made _______________, 2025, (“Effective Date”) by and between the ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTRO L DISTRICT , a body corporate and politic (hereinafter called “District”) and CITY OF CHINO, a California municipal corporation duly organized under the Constitution and law of the State of California (hereinafter called “Optionee”). District and Optionee may sometimes hereinafter individually be referred to as “Party” or jointly as “Parties.”

Recitals

A. Optionee desires to obtain an option to lease certain real property described as the “ Premises” in Exhibit A to that certain ground lease, attached hereto as Attachment I and made a part hereof (“Lease”), for the purposes and uses provided in the Lease.

B. District is the fee owner of the Premises and is willing to enter into an option to lease said Premises for such purposes and uses as set forth herein and in the Lease as part of the conditions of approvals for the Majestic Chino Heritage project (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 20071).

NOW, THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS (PM02.1 S)

a. “Board of Supervisors” means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California, who serve as the governing body for the District.

b. “Chief Real Estate Officer ” means the Chief Real Estate Officer, County Executive Office, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to Tenant, such other person as may be designated by the Board of Supervisors.

c. “City” means the City of Chino, State of California, within which the Premises is located.

d. “County” means the County of Orange, a pol itical subdivision of the State of California , and shall include its Board of Supervisors, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, and contractors

e. “District” means the Orange County Flood Control District, a body corporate and politic. Any reference to the District herein, unless expressly stated to the contrary, shall refer to the District solely in its capacity as owner of the Premises and not the District in its capacity as a land use or other governmental approval authority.

f. “Lease” means that certain Ground Lease attached hereto as Attachment I, including any and all addenda, amendments and exhibits hereto.

g. Premises” means that certain real property containing approximately seventy-five acres with Assessor Parcel Nos: 1033 -082-04-0000, 1033 -082-09-0000, 1033 -082-10-0000, 1033 -081- 324

Page 2 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
06-0000, 1033 -081-07-0000, 1033 -081-08-0000, 1033 -091-01-0000, and 1057 -211-05-0000 in the City, together with all easements, rights and privileges appurtenant thereto, to be leased to Optionee pursuant to the Lease for the uses and purposes as set forth therein. The legal description of the Premises is attached to the Lease as Exhibit A. A rendering showing the approximate boundaries of the Premises is also attached to the Lease as Exhibit A-1.

2. OPTION (PM03.1 S)
District hereby grants Optionee the option (“Option”) to lease said Premises in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth herein and in the Lease.

3. TERM (PM05.1 S)
The term of this Option Agreement shall be one hundred twenty (120) months (“Option Term”) and shall commence on the Effective Date shown above ; provided that if Optionee is unable to secure the required approvals for its use of the Premises, despite its reasonable efforts, the Option Term may extend for such time as is necessary to secure said approvals upon request of the Optionee to the Chief Real Estate Officer , which request will not be unreasonably denied by the District . Any such extension shall be memorialized in an amendment to this Option Agreement executed by the Optionee and the Chief Real Estate Officer on behalf of the District. This Term is conditioned upon the District’s termination rights set forth in Section 16.

4. OPTION PRICE (PM04.2 N)
The price of the Option granted herein is $1.00 (“Option Price”), which shall be paid to District in full upon execution of this Option Agreement.

The Option Price shall be retained by District in consideration for the granting of the Option. No portion of the Option Price shall be refunded or credited to rent payments under the Lease regardless of whether Optionee exercises the Option prior to the expiration of the Option Term.

5. INTENTIONALLY DELETED (PM06.1 N)

6. CONDITIONS (PM07.1 N)
The Option may not be exercised until the Optionee has provided evidence of insurance coverage which fully complies with Section 8.1 (Insurance) of the Lease.

7. REVIEW BY DISTRICT (PM08.1 N)
Optionee hereby acknowledges that one of the purposes of this Option Agreement is to afford Optionee and District the opportunity to determine whether Optionee is able to meet the various conditions of this Option Agreement and is able to obtain the required approvals as set forth in this Option Agreement. Several of those conditions involve obtaining reviews and approvals from officers, employees or agents of the District, and/or the City. Optionee shall also provide evidence of review by the Army Corps of Engineers for its park development to satisfy any Section 408 permit requirements. Each of those reviews shall be conducted in an independent manner and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction or a uthority otherwise possessed by said officers, employees or agents in the conduct of such review. Optionee shall reimburse the District for staff time to review any permit application to meet the terms and conditions of th is Option Agreement.

325

Page 3 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
Nothing cont ained in this Option Agreement shall be deemed to imply that required approvals will be forthcoming, and the failure to issue any such approval or permit by any officer, employee or agent of the District, and/or the City shall not be deemed in any manner a breach of this Option Agreement, nor shall any such denial give rise to any claim, liability, obligation, or cause of action with respect to this Option Agreement or the attached Lease.

No permit, approval, or consent given by the District, and/or the City, or their officers, employees, or agents, acting in its/their governmental capacity, shall affect or limit Optionee’s obligations under this Option Agreement or under the Lease, nor shall any approvals or consents given under this Option Agreement by District, as a Party hereto, or by the Chief Real Estate Officer be deemed approval as to compliance or conformance with applicable governmental codes, laws, rules, and/or regulations.

8. DISCLAIMER OF REPRESENTATIONS OF WARRANTIES (PM015.1 N) District hereby represents and warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Option Agreement and the Lease for the purposes intended for its use by Optionee. Optionee agrees that District has made no representations, warranties, or agreements as t o any matters concerning the Premises, including, but without being limited to, the land, marketability of title, topography, climate, air, water, water rights, utilities, present or future zoning, soil, subsoil, hazardous substances, waste or materials, t he purposes for which the Premises is suited, drainage, access to public roads, proposed routes of roads or extensions thereof or the availability of governmental permits or approvals of any kind. Optionee represents and warrants to District that it and i ts representatives and employees have made or will make their own independent inspection and investigation of such matters concerning the Premises.

9. OPTIONEE’S RIGHT TO ENTER PREMISES, INDEMNIFICATION (PM09.1.1 S) Subject to prior written approval and conditions as may be specified by the Chief Real Estate Officer, Optionee and its authorized representatives shall have the right to enter upon, to pass and to repass over and along said Premises. Optionee hereby agrees to indemnify District and hold District, its officers, and employees harmless from any loss, claims, liability, or costs arising out of or incurred by reason of such investigation. Whether or not this option terminates or expires, Optionee agrees to repair any and all physical damages caused to the Premises by reason of and caused by any such investigation or investigations.

10. HOLD HARMLESS (PMGE10.1 S)
Optionee hereby releases and waives all claims and recourse against District, including the right of contribution for loss or damage of persons or property, arising from, growing out of or in any way connected with or related to this Option Agreement except claims arising from the concurrent active or sole negligence of District, its officers, agents, employees and contractors. Optionee hereby agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel approved in writing by District), and hold harmless, District, the County and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees and contractors against any and all claims, losses, demands, damag es, cost, expenses or liability for injury to any persons or property, arising out of the Optionee’s exercise of the rights under this Option Agreement, except for liability arising out of the concurrent active or sole negligence of District, the County and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees or contractors including the cost of defense of any lawsuit arising therefrom. If District is named as co-defendant in a lawsuit, Optionee shall notify District of such fact and shall represent District in such legal action unless District undertakes to represent itself as co-defendant in such legal action, in which event, Optionee shall pay to District its litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys ' fees. If judg ment is entered against District and Optionee by a court of competent jurisdiction because of the concurrent active negligence of District and Optionee, District and 326

Page 4 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
Optionee agree that liability will be apportioned as determined by the court. Neither party shall request a jury apportionment.

Optionee acknowledges that it is familiar with the language and provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.

Optionee, being aware of and underst anding the terms of Section 1542, hereby waives all benefit of its provisions to the extent described in this paragraph.

11. INSURANCE (PM09.2.2S)
A. General Requirements
Optionee agrees to purchase all required insurance at Optionee’s expense or maintain a program of self insurance and to deposit with District certificates of insurance, including all endorsements required herein, necessary to satisfy District that the insurance provisions of this Option Agreement have been complied with and to keep such insurance coverage and the certificates and endorsements therefor on deposit with District during the entire term of this Option Agreement and any extension thereof.

The Option shall automatically terminate at the same time Optionee’s insurance coverage is terminated.

If within ten (10) business days after termination under this Section, Optionee obtains and provides evidence of the required insurance coverage acceptable to Chief Real Estate Officer, this Option Agreement may be reinstated at the sole d iscretion of Chief Real Estate Officer. Optionee shall pay District Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for processing the reinstatement of this Option Agreement.

Optionee agrees that Optionee shall not operate on the Premises at any time the required insurance is not in full force and effect as evidenced by a certificate of insurance and necessary endorsements or, in the interim, an official binder being in the possession of Chief Real Estate Officer. In no cases shall assurances by Optionee, its employees, agents, including any insurance agent, be construed as adequate evidence of insurance. Chief Real Estate Officer will only accept valid certificates of insurance and endorsements, or in the interim, an insurance binder as adequate evidence of insurance. Optionee also agrees that upon cancellation, termination, or expiration of Optionee’s insurance, District may take whatever steps are necessary to interrupt any operation from or on the Premises until such time as the Chief Real Estate Officer reinstates the Option.

If Optionee fails to provide Chief Real Estate Officer with a valid certificate of insurance and endorsements, or binder at any time during the term of the Option, District and Optionee agree that this shall constitute a material breach of this Option Agreement. Whether or not a notice of default has or has not been sent to Optionee, said material breach shall permit District to take whatever steps necessary to interrupt any operation from or on the Premises, and to prevent any persons, including, but not limited to, members of the general public, and Optionee’s employees and agents, from entering the Premises until such time as Chief Real Estate Officer is provided with adequate evidence of insurance required herein. Optionee further agrees to hold District harmless for any damages resulting from such interruption of business and possession, including, but not limited to, dam ages resulting from any loss of income or business resulting from District's action. 327

Page 5 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT

All contractors performing work on behalf of Optionee pursuant to this Option Agreement shall obtain insurance subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth herein for Optionee. Optionee shall not allow contractors or subcontractors to work if contractors have less than the level of coverage required by District from the Optionee under this Option Agreement . It is the obligation of the Optionee to provide writte n notice of the insurance requirements to every contractor and to receive proof of insurance prior to allowing any contractor to begin work within the Premises. Such proof of insurance must be maintained by Optionee through the entirety of this Option Agr eement and be available for inspection by a District representative at any reasonable time.

All self-insured retentions (SIRs) and deductibles shall be clearly stated on the Certificate of Insurance.

Any SIR in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars $50,000 sh all specifically be approved by the County’s County Executive Office/Office of Risk Management, or designee (“ Risk Manager”). The County reserves the right to require current audited financial reports from Optionee. If Optionee is self - insured, Optionee will indemnify and defend County for any and all claims resulting or arising from Optionee’s use of the premises, services, or other performance in accordance with the indemnity provision stated in this Option Agreement.

If the Optionee fails to mainta in insurance acceptable to District for the full term of this Option Agreement, District may terminate this Option Agreement.

B. Qualified Insurer
The policy or policies of insurance must be issued by an insurer with a minimum rating of A- (Secure A.M. Best’s Rating) and VIII (Financial Size Category) as determined by the most current edition of the Best’s key Rating Guide/Property-Casualty/United States or ambest.com.

If the insurance carrier does not have an A.M. Best rating of A-/VIII, the Risk Manager retains the right to approve or reject a carrier after a review of the company’s performance and financial ratings.

C. Minimum Limits
The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the Optionee shall provide the minimum limits and coverage as set forth below:

Coverages Minimum Limits
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability including coverage
for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles
$1,000,000 limit per occurrence
Workers' Compensation Statutory
Employers' Liability Insurance $1,000,000 per accident or disease
D. Coverage Forms
The Commercial General Liability coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form 328

Page 6 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing liability coverage at least as broad.

The Business Auto Liability coverage shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01, CA 00 05, CA 00 12, CA 00 20, or a substitute form providing liability coverage as broad.

E. Required Endorsements
1) The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain the following endorsements, which shall accompany the Certificate of insurance:

a. an Additional Insured endorsement using ISO form CG 20 26 03 or a form at least as broad naming the District, County of Orange its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents as Additional Insureds;

b. a primary non -contributing endorsement using ISO for CG 20 01 04 13 or a form at least as broad evidencing that the Optionee’s insurance is primary and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by District shall be excess and non-contributing; and

2) All insurance policies required by this contract shall waive all rights of subrogation against the District, County of Orange and members of the Board of Superviso rs, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees when acting within the scope of their appointment or employment.

3) The Workers’ Compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement waiving all rights of subrogatio n against the District, County of Orange, and members of the Board of Supervisors, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees.

Blanket coverage may also be provided which will state “As Required by Written Contract.”

4) All insurance policies required by this contract shall give DISTRICT thirty (30) days’ notice in the event of cancellation and ten (10) days for non -payment of premium. This shall be evidenced by policy provisions or an endorsement separate from the Certifica te of Insurance.

F. Severability of Interest Clause - Commercial General Liability The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain a severability of interests clause, also known as a “separation of insureds” clause (standard in the ISO CG 001 policy).

G. Delivery
Insurance certificates should be forwarded to District address provided in Section 17 (Notices) below or to an address provided by the Chief Real E state Officer. Optionee has ten (10) business days to provide adequate evidence of insurance or this Option Agreement may be cancelled.

H. Insurance Requirement Changes
District expressly retains the right to require Optionee to increase or decrease in surance of any of the above insurance types throughout the term of this Option Agreement . Any increase or decrease in insurance will be as deemed by the Risk Manager as appropriate to adequately protect District.

329

Page 7 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
Chief Real Estate Officer shall notify Optionee in writing of changes in the insurance requirements. If Optionee does not deposit copies of acceptable certificates of insurance and endorsements with District incorporating such changes within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, this Option Agreement may be in breach without further notice to Optionee, and District shall be entitled to all legal remedies.

The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Optionee’s liability hereunder nor to f ulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this Option Agreement , nor in any way to reduce the policy coverage and limits available from the insurer.

12. ASSIGNMENT (PM010.1 S)
This Option shall not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred without the prior written consent of District, which consent may be withheld in the District’s sole and absolute discretion . Failure to obtain District’s required written consent shall render said sale, assignment, or transfer void.

13. EXERCISE OF OPTION TO LEASE (PM011.1 S)
At any time during the Option Term that Optionee shall have performed all conditions as set forth in Section 6 (Conditions) of this Option Agreement to the satisfaction of Chief Real Estate Officer, Optionee may exercise the Option by giving Chief Real Estate Officer written notice of election do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Lease in triplicate.

14. EXECUTION OF LEASE (PM012.1 N)
Acting as District’s representative, Chief Real Estate Officer shall execute the Lease within ________ ( ) days of receipt of Optionee’s notice of election to exercise the Option and the Lease executed by Optionee.

15. LEASE EFFECTIVE DATE (PM013.1 S)
It is understood and agreed by the Parties hereto that the Effective Date of the Lease shall be the date of execution of the Lease by District.

16. TERMINATION (PM014.1 S)
Failure of Optionee to fully and satisfactorily meet the terms and conditions of this Option Agreement within the time limits stated shall absolutely and conclusively terminate Optionee’s rights hereunder, notwithstanding the fact that District may choose to negotiate a lease with Optionee within a reasonable time after the expiration of this Option Agreement. The District shall also have the right to terminate this Option Agreement as to any parcels of land not then optioned to ground lease by the Optionee in the event the Army Corps of Engineers disapproves the permits being sought by Majestic as part of the Majestic Chino Heritage project.

Upon execution of this Option Agreement, the Optionee shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the Chief Real Estate Officer a quitclaim deed, in a form as approved by the Chief Real Estate Officer, quitclaiming all right title and interest created by this Option Agreement back to the District (“Quitclaim Deed ”). The Quitclaim Deed shall be retained by the Chief Real Estate Officer for the duration of this Option Agreement and shall be recorded in the event of the termination of this Option Agreement for any reason to remove any cloud on title created by this Option Agreement.

17. NOTICES (PM018.1 N)
330

Page 8 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT
All notices, documents, correspondence and communications concerning this Option Agreement shall b e addressed as set forth in this Section 17, or as the Parties may hereafter designate by written notice, and shall be sent through the United States mail, return receipt requested or with other proof of delivery, with postage prepaid, by personal delivery , Federal Express or similar courier service, or by facsimile. Notices so given shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt with the exception of transmittals via facsimile which shall be deemed delivered on the day transmitted provided transmitted by 4:30 P.M. (PT) on the receiving Party’s regular business day, otherwise delivery shall be deemed to have been given on the next business day.

To DISTRICT:

Orange County Flood Control District
c/o CEO Real Estate
Attn: Chief Real Estate Officer
County Administration North
400 W. Civic Center Dr., Fifth Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701

With a copy to:

Orange County Flood Control District
c/o OC Public Works
Attn: Director
601 N. Ross Street, 4th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
To OPTIONEE:

City of Chino
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
Attn: City Manager

Either Party may change the address for notices by giving the other Party at least ten (10) calendar days’ prior written notice of the new address.

18. VENUE (PMES13.1S)
The Parties hereto agree that this Option Agreement has been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Option Agreement, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in the County of Orange, California, and the Parties hereto agree to and do hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. Furthermor e, the Parties hereto specifically agree to waive any and all rights to request that an action be transferred for trial to another county.

19. SEVERABILITY (PMES15.1S)
If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Option Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.

20. ATTORNEYS' FEES (PMES16.1S)
In any action or proceeding brought to enforce or interpret any provision of this Option Agreement, or where any provision hereof is validly asserted as a defense, each Party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs. 331

Page 9 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT

21. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS (PMES18.1S)
The terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of the Parties hereto.

22. AUTHORITY (PMES20.1S)
The Parties to this Option Agreement represent and warrant that it has been duly authorized and executed and constitutes the legally binding obligation of their respective organization or entity, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT (PM017.1 S)
This instrument contains the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the Option granted herein and all negotiations and agreements between the Parties hereto or their agents with respect to this transaction are merged herein. Any oral representations, modifications, or waivers concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect, except in a subsequent instrument made in writing and signed by both Parties. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Parties' respective obligations herein contained. Subject to the restrictions against sale, assignment, or other transfer above, this Option Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Option Agreement the day and year first above written.

OPTIONEE

a ____________________________

By:

Name:

Title:

By:

Name:

Title:

332

Page 10 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

COUNTY COUNSEL

By:

Deputy

Date

DISTRICT

ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,
a body corporate and politic

Thomas A. Miller, Chief Real Estate Officer
Orange County, California

333

Page 11 of 11 ends

OPTION AGREEMENT

EXHIBIT A

GROUND LEASE
[to be attached]
334

GROUND LEASE

THIS GROUND LEASE (“Lease”) is made and effective as of the ___ day of __________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic (hereinafter called “District”) and CITY OF CHINO, a municipal corporation duly organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter called “Tenant”) (each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).

Recitals
A. District is the fee owner of the Premises (as hereinafter defined).

B. The Parties have executed an Option Agreement, dated _________________ (“Option Agreement”), pursuant to which the District agreed to lease the Premises to the Tenant upon the fulfillment of certain conditions precedent.

C. The Parties acknowledge that the conditions precedent required by the Option Agreement have been fulfilled, the Option has been exercised, and therefore the Tenant and District desire that Tenant shall ground lease the Premises from District on the terms set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals which are hereby incorporated into this Lease by reference, and mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, District and Tenant mutually agree to the following:

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS

1.1 Definitions: The following defined terms used in this Lease shall have the meanings set forth below. Other terms are defined in other provisions of this Lease, and shall have the definitions given to such terms in such other provisions.

1.1.1. “Additional Rent” is defined in Section 3.5 below.

1.1.2. “Affiliate” means, with respect to any person (which as used herein includes an individual, trust or entity), which directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such person.

1.1.3. “Annual Rent” means the annual payment of rent, due hereunder as defined in Section 3.1 below.

1.1.4. “Auditor-Controller” means the Auditor-Controller, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to Tenant, such other person as may be designated by the Board of Supervisors.

1.1.5. “Board of Supervisors” means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California.
335

Page 2 of 36 ends

Chino Ground Lease

1.1.6. “Chief Real Estate Officer” means the Chief Real Estate Officer, County Executive Office, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to Tenant, such other person as may be designated by the Board of Supervisors.

1.1.7. “City” means the City of Chino, State of California.

1.1.8. “Claims” means liens, claims, demands, suits, judgments, liabilities, damages, fines, losses, penalties, costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and expert witness costs, and costs of suit), and sums reasonably paid in settlement of any of the foregoing.

1.1.9. “Commencement Date” means the same as the Effective Date.

1.1.10. “County” means the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California, and shall include its Board of Supervisors, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, and contractors.

1.1.11. “CPI Index” means the CPI Index for All Urban Consumers, All Items (1982- 84=100) for Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the base year is changed, the CPI Index shall be converted in accordance with the conversion factor published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If, for any reason, there is a major change in the method of calculation or formulation of the CPI Index, or the CPI Index is no longer published, then County shall select such other commodity index that produces substantially the same result as would be obtained if the CPI Index had not been discontinued or revised.

1.1.12. “District” means the Orange County Flood Control District, a body corporate and politic. Any reference to the District herein, unless expressly stated to the contrary, shall refer to the District solely in its capacity as owner of the Premises and not the District in its capacity as a land use or other governmental approval authority.

1.1.13. “District’s Fee Interest” means all of District’s interest in the Property, the Premises, this Lease and District’s reversionary interest in the Premises and improvements.

1.1.14. “District Parties” means the District and District’s Affiliates, agents, employees, members, officers, directors and attorneys, including the County of Orange.

1.1.15. “Effective Date” is defined in the introductory paragraph to this Lease.

1.1.16. “Event of Default” is defined in Section 9.1 below.

1.1.17. “Force Majeure Event” is defined in Article XII below.

1.1.18. “Hazardous Material(s)” is defined in Section 4.5.1 below.

1.1.19. “Interest Rate” means the highest rate of interest permissible under the Laws not to exceed the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum.

1.1.20. “Laws” means all laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, orders and regulations now or hereafter made or issued by any federal, state, county, local or other governmental agency or entity that are binding on and applicable to the Premises and improvements, including any encroachment permits (as issued through the County’s encroachment permit process) required by the Orange County Flood Control District 336

Page 3 of 36 ends

Chino City CouncilSeptember 2, 2025

Chino City Council
September 2, 2025