CHINO 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2024090833)
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW
Attachment B.4
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
LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-2
A-1 Introductory comment. See responses to specific comments below.
Letter A
A-1
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-15
D-5 Conclusory remarks.
D-5
LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-16
LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-17
E-1 Introductory comment. See the responses to specific comments below.
Letter E
E-1
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
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.
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.
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.
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
LETTER RESPONSE
RTC-23
F-1 Comment noted.
Letter F
F-1