As discussed under Impact AQ-2, the total peak day construction emissions generated from the Project under both Scenarios 1 and 2 would not exceed any of SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. In addition, with respect to operational emissions, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for criteria air pollutants under Scenarios 1 and 2. Therefore, because the Project’s construction- period and operation-period impacts would be less than significant, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.
As discussed under Impact AQ-4 below, the daily emissions generated onsite by the Project’s worst-case construction scenario in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs for NOx, CO or PM
10; however, the Project would exceed the LST for PM2.5. Because the localized emissions of PM2.5could exceed SCAQMD’s LST on certain peak construction days, this impact would be potentially significant and would require mitigation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project would require the use of EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines in order to reduce PM2.5 emissions. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant can demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily PM2.5 emissions can be achieved by other technologies/strategies so that emissions from all concurrent construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously (see Section 4, Mitigation Measure, for full description of mitigation measure). The maximum daily localized PM2.5 emissions generated during Project construction would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s LST. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the localized air quality impacts associated with mitigated construction emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, Project operational emissions would
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-31 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
not exceed any of SCAQMD’s LSTs for any criteria pollutants Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors in the Project area to localized air quality impacts from criteria pollutants and TACs, and would result in no cumulatively considerable impact.
As discussed under Impact AQ-5 below, the Project would not create any objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the Project would result in no cumulative impact regarding odors.
(4) Sensitive Receptors
Threshold AQ-4: A significant impact would occur if the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Statement AQ-4: Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction activities. Localized on-site construction emissions resulting from construction of Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD localized significance threshold for PM2.5, without mitigation resulting in potentially significant construction impacts. Localized emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD localized significance thresholds, with impacts being less than significant. In addition, implementation of the Project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to significant levels of toxic air contaminants or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots, resulting in less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce the Project’s potentially significant localized construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.
Construction and operation of the Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors in the Project area to localized air quality impacts from criteria pollutants and TACs. Separate discussions are provided below analyzing the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to these pollutant sources.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed state and/or federal standards are termed CO hotspots. Emissions of CO are produced in greatest quantities from motor vehicle combustion and are usually concentrated at or near ground level because they do not readily disperse into the atmosphere, particularly under cool, stable (i.e., low or no wind) atmospheric conditions. As shown in Table 4.B-1, measured CO levels in the Project area are substantially below the federal and state standards. Maximum CO levels in recent years are 4.1 ppm (one-hour average) and 2.4 ppm (eight-hour average) compared to the thresholds of 20 ppm (one-hour average) and 9.0 ppm (eight-hour average). Carbon monoxide decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the automobile catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CO have been recorded at monitoring stations in the Basin for some time and the Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-32 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst-case intersections in the Basin: (a) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; (b) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; (c) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard; (d) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. In the 2003 AQMP, the SCAQMD notes that the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue is the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.1 This intersection is located near the on- and off-ramps to Interstate 405 in West Los Angeles. The evidence provided in Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP shows that the peak modeled CO concentration due to vehicle emissions at these four intersections was 4.6 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.2 (eight-hour average) at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.
2 When added to the existing background
CO concentrations, the screening values would be 8.7 ppm (one-hour average) and 5.6 ppm (eight-hour average).
None of the intersections in the Project area have peak hour traffic volumes that exceed those at the worst-case intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP nor do they have any geometric qualities that would result in higher concentrations than the intersections modeled by the SCAQMD. As stated above, Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue is the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County with daily traffic volumes of about 100,000 per day. The Project Traffic Impact Analysis shows that traffic volumes for Project intersections in the Project area would be approximately 42,251 vehicles per day for the first year of operations and approximately 73,658 vehicles per day for the long-range full buildout of operations (Urban Crossroads, 2016). As a result, CO concentrations are expected to be less than 8.7 ppm (1-hour average) and 5.6 ppm (8- hour average), which would not exceed the thresholds. Thus, this comparison provides evidence that the Project would not contribute to the formation of CO hotspots and no further CO analysis is required. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to CO hotspots.
Criteria Air Pollutants – Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts As previously discussed, the SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site as a result of construction and operational activities. The thresholds are based on standards established by the SCAQMD in the LST Methodology. The LSTs are compared to construction emissions that occur on the Project Site. Based on the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds from SCAQMD, the daily on-site construction emissions generated by the Project were evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a 2-acre site under Scenario 1 and a 5-acre site under Scenario 2 to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts (see Table 4.B-5 and Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report for CalEEMod Construction Model Inputs summary).
Construction activity is limited to the areas of Community Commercial, Business Park, and Residential land uses on the Project Site. No construction is anticipated to occur on the Open
1 South Coast Air Quality Manage ment District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations, (2003) V-4-24.
2 The eight-hour average is based on a 0.7 persistence factor, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-33 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Space or Public Facility land uses. Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptor to any area of construction is the semi-rural residence located approximately 200 feet east of the Project Site, directly across the Union Pacific railroad. Since the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 164 feet are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the Project’s peak day construction emissions. Table 4.B-12 and Table 4.B-13 identify the daily localized on-site emissions that are estimated to occur during the Project’s worst-case construction scenario for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.
TABLE 4.B-12
SCENARIO 1 LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Phase
Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOX C O P M 10
a PM2.5
a
Site Preparation 55 41 10 7
Grading 38 26 5 3
Building Construction 29 19 2 2
Architectural Coating 2 2 <1 <1
Paving 20 15 1 1
Situation A – Maximum Localized Emissions b 86 62 13 10 Situation B – Maximum Localized Emissions c 106 77 14 11 Localized Significance Threshold d 200 1,463 22 6
Significant Impact? No No No Yes
Situation A – Mitigated Localized Emissions b, e 26 50 8 0 Situation B – Mitigated Localized Emissions c, e 36 67 8 0 Localized Significance Threshold d 200 1,463 22 6
Significant Impact? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b Situation A sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) c Situation B sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Paving and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) d LSTs for a 2-acre site in SRA 3 4 at a receptor distance of 164 feet. e Emissions calculated with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (use of Tier IV equipment or equivalent reduction).
Refer to Tables 4.B-8 and 4.B-9 for complete emissions output calculated with incorporation of mitigated construction using CalEEMod.
Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling June 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-34 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-13
SCENARIO 2 LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Phase
Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOX C O P M 10
a PM2.5
a
Site Preparation 55 41 10 7
Grading 77 52 10 7
Building Construction 57 37 4 4
Architectural Coating 4 4 <1 <1
Paving 41 29 2 2
Situation A – Maximum Localized Emissions b, e 138 93 13 10 Situation B – Maximum Localized Emissions c, e 179 122 16 12 Localized Significance Threshold d 200 1,463 44 10
Significant Impact? No No No Yes
Situation A – Mitigated Localized Emissions b 53 105 11 0 Situation B – Mitigated Localized Emissions c 73 140 11 0 Localized Significance Threshold d 200 1,463 44 10
Significant Impact? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementat ion of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b Situation A sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) c Situation B sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Paving and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) d LSTs for a 5-acre site in SRA 3 4 at a receptor distance of 164 feet. e Emissions calculated with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Refer to Tables 4.B-8 and 4.B-9 for complete emissions output calculated with incorporation of mitigated construction using CalEEMod.
Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling June 2016
The daily emissions generated onsite by the Project’s worst-case construction scenario in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs for NOx, CO or PM10; however, the Project would exceed the LST for PM2.5. Because the localized emissions of PM2.5could exceed SCAQMD’s LST on certain peak construction days, this impact would be potentially significant and would require mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines in order to reduce PM2.5 emissions. The use of Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines is applied to all equipment in each phase in order to be reduced to below a significant level, as shown in the complete mitigated outputs in Table 4.B-8 and Table 4.B-9 above. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant can demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily PM2.5 emissions can be achieved by other technologies/strategies so that emissions from all concurrent construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area,
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-35 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously (see Section 4, Mitigation Measure, for full description of mitigation measure). The mitigated localized construction emissions for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 that would result from implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 are also shown below in Table
4.B-12 and Table 4.B-13, respectively.
As shown, with implementation of mitigation, the maximum daily localized PM2.5 emissions generated during Project construction would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s LST. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the localized air quality impacts associated with mitigated construction emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Criteria Air Pollutants – Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts During Project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the Project would not be substantial. First year and full buildout operational emissions for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are shown in Table 4.B-14 and Table 4.B-15. As shown, the Project’s total net operational-related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable operational LSTs. Thus, localized air quality impacts during Project operations would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
TABLE 4.B-14
SCENARIO 1 LOCALIZED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Localized Emissions
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day)
NOX C O P M 10
a P M 2.5
a
First Year Operations - 2017
Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.50 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile b 0.64 2.67 0.40 0.11
Total Localized (On-Site) Emissions 1.14 2.69 0.44 0.15 Localized Significance Threshold c 302 2,396 6 2
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No
Full Buildout - 2035
Area 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
Energy 5.01 4.21 0.38 0.38
Mobile b 2.05 6.31 0.60 0.17
Total Localized (On-Site) Emissions 7.06 10.63 0.99 0.55 Localized Significance Threshold c 302 2,396 6 2
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementat ion of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b Due to the size of the site and type of development, a portion of the mobile emissions would occur onsite. As a conservative analysis on-site mobile emissions are anticipated to occur from an average 0.5-mile one-way travel distance. Emissions from on-site travel were based on the percentage difference between the 0.5-mile on-site travel and the average trip distance for the Project Site (i.e, 4.47 percent of the mobile source emissions are estimated to occur within the site boundaries).
c LSTs for a 2-acre site in SRA 3 4 at a receptor distance of 164 feet.
Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling June 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-36 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-15
SCENARIO 2 LOCALIZED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day)
Localized Emissions NOX C O P M 10
a P M 2.5
a
First Year Operations - 2017
Area 0.27 22.96 0.49 0.49
Energy 1.16 0.70 0.09 0.09
Mobile b 1.55 6.11 1.02 0.29
Total Localized (On-Site) Emissions 2.97 29.77 1.60 0.87 Localized Significance Threshold c 302 2,396 11 3
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No
Full Buildout - 2035
Area 0.26 22.76 0.50 0.49
Energy 5.66 4.48 0.43 0.43
Mobile b 2.41 7.39 3.60 0.98
Total Localized (On-Site) Emissions 8.33 34.63 4.52 1.90 Localized Significance Threshold c 302 2,396 11 3
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementat ion of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b Due to the size of the site and type of development, a portion of the mobile emissions would occur onsite. As a conservative analysis on-site mobile emissions are anticipated to occur from an average 0.5-mile one-way travel distance. Emissions from on-site travel were based on the percentage difference between the 0.5-mile on-site travel and the average trip distance for the Project Site (i.e, 4.53 percent of the mobile source emissions are estimated to occur within the site boundaries).
c LSTs for a 5-acre site in SRA 3 4 at a receptor distance of 656 feet.
Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling June 2016
Toxic Air Contaminants – Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition, site preparation (e.g., clearing); site grading and excavation; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that HRAs be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs.
The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), carcinogenic HRAs, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions,
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-37 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the Project.
The initial construction period for the Project is anticipated to last for approximately one year, and the entire build-out construction period could last for up to approximately 17 years; thus, construction would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination. Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time periods, Project construction is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs, especially given the distance between the Project Site and the nearest sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants – Localized Operational Impacts to Off-Site Populations The primary sources of potential air toxics associated with Project operations include diesel particulate matter from delivery trucks (e.g., truck traffic on local streets and on-site truck idling).
The SCAQMD recommends that HRAs be conducted for substantial sources of diesel particulate matter (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions (SCAQMD, 2002). In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors to areas of construction are the single-family residences located approximately 800 feet southwest of the Project Site, directly across Shirley Bright Road.
The CARB siting guidelines define a warehouse as having more than 100 truck trips or 40 refrigerated truck trips per day. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description and the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, 2016), no future heavy-industrial development is proposed as part of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. In addition, any other future industrial uses would likely be linked to and serve more of a supporting role to the office land uses. Based on this supportive role, the industrial uses would likely be below average truck generators. Thus, no Project components are anticipated to generate the level of truck trips expected for a warehouse.
Therefore, the Project is not considered to be a substantial source of diesel particulate matter warranting a refined health risk assessment (HRA).
Toxic Air Contaminants – Operational Impacts to On-Site Populations As discussed previously, CARB Land Use Guidelines advises avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The Guidelines also advises to avoid siting sensitive uses within 1,000 feet of a major rail yard. For projects which would place sensitive uses (residential, school) near a freeway or rail yard, the SCAQMD recommends that the HRA be performed consistent with CARB and OEHHA guidelines. The HRA is intended to allow planners and project applicants to determine whether sensitive uses would be exposed to significant levels of freeway TACs.
Because the Specific Plan area may locate sensitive uses near the SR-210 Freeway and the BNSF Railroad, an HRA was prepared for the Project. TACs from the freeway and rail line are generated through combustion of fuel (diesel) which affects ambient air throughout the region.
Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average).
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-38 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The Project Site vicinity is subject to elevated TACs due to the proximity of the 210 Freeway,BNSF Railroad and other TAC sources. As disclosed in the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV (MATES IV), Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk, the existing carcinogenic risk for the Project Site area spans portions of two MATES IV grid spaces with values of approximately 735 and 761 incidents per 1 million. (SCAQMD, 2015a) By comparison, the carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the entire Basin, based on the average concentrations at fixed monitoring sites, is about 1,023 incidents per 1 million. This risk refers to the expected number of additional cancers in a population of 1 million individuals that are exposed over a 70-year lifetime. Using the MATES IV methodology, about 90 percent of the risk is attributed to emissions associated with mobile sources, and about 10 percent of the risk is attributed to toxics emitted from stationary sources, which include industries, and businesses such as dry cleaners and chrome plating operations. (SCAQMD, 2015b)
For the above reasons, for purposes of disclosure an HRA was prepared for the Project and the findings are summarized in the discussion below.
Table 4.B-16, Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for On-Site Sensitive Receptors, summarizes the carcinogenic risk for representative receptors located throughout the Site. For carcinogenic exposures, the cancer risk from DPM emissions for the Project Site resulted in a maximum carcinogenic risk of approximately 217 per one million for the 30-year residential exposure scenario. This scenario is based on a highly conservative 30-year, 24-hours-per-day, seven-days- per-week exposure. The 30-year lifetime exposure is a default assumption under OEHHA guidelines which takes into account early life (infant and children) exposure. Cancer risk for on- site receptors which are further away from the railway would drop to approximately 50 per 1 million. It should be noted that the calculated cancer risk assumes no mitigation such as mechanical filtration and exposure with windows open. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) typically requires mechanical filtration with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 8 or higher. This would reduce typical indoor PM 10 concentrations up to 70 percent.
Therefore, actual cancer risk impacts to on-site residents would be lower than those reported above.
TABLE 4.B-16
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Risk Scenario
Carcinogenic Risk
Per 1 Million*
Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI) (closest to railway) 217 Middle of the Site 96
Northwest Edge of the Site 50
See calculation worksheets presented in Appendix A-1.
* The significance threshold is 10 per million.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-39 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The HRA worksheets (provided in Appendix A-1) provide a detailed breakdown of these calculations. Although cancer risk values exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per one million, additional mitigation measures may be employed for specific projects located within 500 feet of the freeway or 1,000 feet of the railway.
Additional filtration such as MERV 13 or higher would reduce DPM concentrations at sensitive receptors by as much as 90 percent. During final design of specific projects, residential uses and air intake vents could be placed farther away from the freeway and rail line to limit exposure to DPM. Inoperable windows may also be implemented into the design to limit exposure to DPM.
In summary, the Project Site’s worst-case location would be exposed to cancer risk in excess of the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per 1 million. However, additional measures implemented at the time of Project design may be available to reduce health risk impacts.
The results of this HRA are for informational purposes and provides information to the City and applicant regarding health impacts and allow the applicant to make an informed decision about site planning and design.
(5) Exposure of Objectionable Odors
Threshold AQ-5: A significant impact would occur if the Project would create ob jectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact Statement AQ-5: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Future development pursuant to the Specific Plan consists of business park, residential and commercial uses that are not expected to be a source of off-site odor complaints. In addition, the Project is not located near any sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD handbook. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding objectionable odors.
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents, and exhaust from diesel equipment and diesel-powered on- and off-road equipment. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents. During construction of the Project, such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors associated with Project construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature, the odors would not be considered to be a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan includes development of commercial, business park, retail and residential uses, and therefore does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-40 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
associated with odors. In addition, the Project is not located near any sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD handbook. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4. Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is intended to reduce the prop osed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan’s air quality impacts to the extent feasible during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily NOx and PM
2.5 emissions can be achieved by other technologies/strategies so that emissions from all concurrent construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to:
reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.
5. Level of Significance After Mitigation
All air quality impacts associated with the Project, except Impact Statement AQ-2 and AQ-4, would be considered less than significant without mitigation. Under Threshold AQ-2, the Project would result in a potentially significant impact regarding the violation of an air quality standard during construction; and for Threshold AQ-4, the Project would result in a potentially significant impact regarding the exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors during construction. Emissions of NOx and PM2.5 during construction of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional and localized significance thresholds, respectively; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require construction equipment engines to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines, or require the applicant to demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily NOx and PM2.5 emissions can be achieved by other technologies/strategies. With implementation of this mitigation measure during construction, the Project’s NOx and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds, thus resulting in a less than significant impact regarding the violation of an air quality standard and pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-41 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
6. References
CARB, 2016a. Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2013-2015.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php; Accessed June 2, 2016. _____. 2016b. Ambient Air Quality Standards Table. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm. Accessed June 2, 2016. _____. 2013a. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed June 2, 2016. _____. 2015. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Updated December 2015. Available:
www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm/. Accessed June 2, 2016. _____. 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm, page last updated December 2009.
City of Rialto, 2010. Rialto General Plan. Adopted December 2010. Available at:
http://www.rialtoca.gov/documents/downloads/General_Plan_Update_2010.pdf.
PCR, 2016. Draft Initial Study – Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. January 2016.
SCAG, 2012. Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035. Growth Forecast Appendix. Adopted April 2012. Available at:
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/SR/2012fRTP_GrowthForecast.pdf.
Accessed June 2, 2016.
SCAQMD, 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised March 2015.
Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.
Accessed June 2, 2016.
_____, 2014. Historical Data by Year. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data- studies/historical-data-by-year
_____, 2013. Air Quality Management Plan. Final 2012. Published February 2013. _____, 2009. Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009.
Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. _____, 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Published June 2003.
Revised July 2008. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed June 2, 2016. _____, 2006. Final –Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds Published October 2006. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/pm-2-5- significance-thresholds-and-calculation-methodology. Accessed June 2, 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-42 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
_____, 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Published May 2005. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning- guidance/guidance-document. Accessed June 2, 2016.
_____, 2002. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions. December 2002.
Whiteman, 2016. Pepper Avenue Specific Plan – Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared by Marlie Whiteman, P.E; Urban Crossroads. Prepared June 2, 2015. Revised January 13, 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
C. Biological Resources
1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes existing biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur on the Project Site or in the Site vicinity. In addition, a description of applicable regulations is provided. The analysis evaluates potential impacts to biological resources that could occur with implementation of the Project and is based on a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by PCR Services Corporation (PCR) (currently ESA PCR) (PCR, 2016), provided in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal Regulations
(a) Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). ESA Section 9 prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land, as well as removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law. Under ESA Section 7, agencies are required to consult with the USFWS or NMFS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect an endangered species (including plants) or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS or NMFS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity, provided the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In cases where the federal agency determines its action may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect, a federally listed species, the agency informally consults with the USFWS and/or NMFS. This informal consultation typically involves incorporating measures intended to ensure effects would not be adverse. Concurrence from the USFWS and/or NMFS concludes the informal process. Without such concurrence, the federal agency formally consults to ensure full compliance with the ESA.
(b) Clean Water Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 United States Code [USC] 1251–1376), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, and better known as the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The purpose of the federal CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Discharges into waters of the United States are regulated under CWA Section
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
404. Waters of the United States include: 1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide); 2) all interstate waters and wetlands; 3) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, or natural ponds; 4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above; 5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above; 6) the territorial seas; and 7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. Important applicable sections of the CWA are discussed below:
Section 303 requires states to develop water quality standards for inland surface and ocean waters and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Under Section 303(d), the state is required to list waters that do not meet water quality standards and to develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to improve water quality.
Section 304 provides for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. Certification is provided by the respective Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Section 401 permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB would be required for the Project if a Section 404 permit were required. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. The NPDES program is administered by the RWQCB.
Conformance with Section 402 is typically addressed in conjunction with water quality certification under Section 401.
Section 404 provides for issuance of dredge/fill permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Permits typically include conditions to minimize impacts on water quality. Common conditions include: 1) USACE review and approval of sediment quality analysis before dredging, 2) a detailed pre- and post-construction monitoring plan that includes disposal site monitoring, and 3) requiring compensation for loss of waters of the United States. The areas of the Project Site that occur below mean higher high water (MHHW) would be subject to regulation under Section 404. (c) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects individuals as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. In addition to MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act protects bald and golden eagles as well as any part, nest, or eggs. Furthermore, any impacts to USACE and RWQCB jurisdictional waters would require permitting pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, respectively. In practice, Federal permits issued for activities that potentially impact migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles, typically have conditions that require pre-disturbance surveys for nesting birds. In the event nesting is observed, a buffer area with a specified radius must be established, within which no disturbance or intrusion is allowed until the young have fledged and left the nest, or it has been determined that the nest has failed. If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area varies with species and local circumstances (e.g., presence of busy roads, intervening topography, etc.), and is based on the professional judgment of a monitoring biologist. A list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA is published by USFWS.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) State Regulations
(a) California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) authorizes the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] Sections 2050–2098). The CESA defines endangered species as those whose continued existence in California is jeopardized. State-listed threatened species are those not presently facing extinction, but that may become endangered in the foreseeable future. FGC Section 2080 prohibits the taking of state- listed plants and animals. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 1 also designates fully protected or protected species as those that may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Commission and/or CDFW. Species designated as fully protected or protected may or may not be listed as endangered or threatened. When a species is both state- and federally listed, an expedited request for consistency with the USFWS biological opinion may be issued through a request for Section 2080.1 consistency determination. If CDFW determines that the federal statement/permit is not consistent with CESA, an application for an incidental take permit under section 2081 subdivision (b) of the Fish and Game Code must be processed. (b) California Fish and Game Code
The FGC is implemented by the Commission, as authorized by Article IV, Section 20, of the Constitution of the State of California. FGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505, 3800, and 3801.6 protect all native birds, birds of prey, and nongame birds, including their eggs and nests, that are not already listed as fully protected and that occur naturally within the state. Section 3503.5 specifically states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, eagles, and falcons), including their nests or eggs. The CDFW is the state agency that manages native fish, wildlife, plant species, and natural communities for their ecological value and their benefits to people.
(c) California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of rare, threatened, and endangered vascular plant species of California. The list has served as a potential candidate list for listing as Threatened and Endangered by CDFW.
CNPS has developed five categories of rarity, referred to as California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPRs), of which CRPRs 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are considered particularly sensitive:
CRPR 1A Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Ex tinct elsewhere. CRPR 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California an d elsewhere. CRPR 2A Presumed Extirpated in California, but more common else where.
1 As of January 1, 2013, the forme r California Department of Fish and Game name has been changed to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CRPR 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
CRPR 3 Plants about which we need more information – a review l ist. CRPR 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list.
The CNPS appends CRPR categorizations with “threat ranks” that parallel the ranks used by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is a CDFW species account database, and are added as a decimal code after the CRPR (e.g., CRPR 1B.1). The threat codes are as follows:
.1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).
.2 – Fairly endangered in California (20 – 80% occurrences threatened). .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).
(d) Special-Status Plant Communities
Special-status plant communities include those habitat types considered rare by resource agencies, namely the CDFW, due to their scarcity and/or their ability to support State and Federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare vascular plants, as well as several special- status bird and reptile species. CDFW maintains a natural plant community list, the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities.2 Special-status natural communities (also referred to by CDFW as ‘rare’ or ‘special concern’) are identified on the list by an asterisk and are considered high priority vegetation types (CDFW, 2003; CDFW, 2000). (3) Local Regulations
(a) City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto 2010 General Plan outlines a goal to “conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.” More specifically, Goal 2-39, is supported by the following three policies:
Policy 2-39.1: Protect endangered, threatened, rare, and other special statu s habitat and wildlife species within and along Lytle Creek by working with the United States Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or other established biological resource protection mechanisms within this sensitive area.
Policy 2-39.2: Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easeme nts to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
Policy 2-39.3: Continue to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser vice to adopt a habitat conservation plan to protect viability of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly.
Until a habitat conservation plan is established, continue to support the implementation of the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan.
2 Available online at: http:// www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
b. Existing Conditions
The following description of existing conditions for the Project Site is based on field investigations which are further described in the BRA attached as Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
A survey of the Project Site was conducted by PCR on May 12, 2014; and a jurisdictional delineation was conducted by PCR on June 6, 2014. The observed vegetation communities, jurisdictional features, and other biological features or species observations of interest were mapped on aerial photographs. Survey coverage of the entire Project Site was ensured using the aerial photographs, with special attention to special-status habitats or those areas potentially supporting special-status flora or fauna, or jurisdictional features. Focused surveys were conducted by Michael Brandman Associates for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat during the weeks of May 29, 2006 and June 5, 2006, by FirstCarbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates for a portion of the Project Site the week of April 28, 2013, for coastal California gnatcatcher between April and June, 2008, and for special-status plants on May 23 and May 30, 2006.
The Project Site is located in the City of Rialto in San Bernardino County and can be found on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ San Bernardino North topographic quadrangle map, Section 36, T. 1 N., R. 5 W (USGS, 1967; Earth Survey, 2015).
The Project Site is relatively level and currently supports a roadway, open fields (that appear to be regularly disced), a pumping facility with storage tanks and associated infrastructure, disturbed areas, and areas of natural habitat of varying biological quality. Non-native grasslands, which in some areas support a sparse population of blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus cerulea), cover the mid-section of the Project Site and relatively undisturbed mature and intermediate Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat dominate the western portion of the Project Site. The most notable changes to the Project Site since the previous biological surveys are the recently completed Pepper Avenue extension and the effects of three years of below normal rainfall.
The topography on the Project Site is generally flat with an elevation range from approximately 1,260 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the southeastern corner of the Project Site, to a high of approximately 1,300 feet above MSL at the northwestern corner. Mapped soils in the Project area include four soil types as follows (NRCS, 2015):
Grangeville fine sandy loam (Gr)
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB)
Psamments and Fluvents, frequently flooded (Ps)
Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC) Immediate surrounding land uses include residential development to the west, the 210 Freeway to the north, Lytle Creek to the east, and undeveloped land to the south. (1) Plant Communities
Descriptions of each of the plant communities found within the Project Site are provided below.
Plant community names, codes, and descriptions follow Holland (1986) and A Manual of
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens, 2009) herein referred to as MCV (Manual of California Vegetation). Special-status natural vegetation communities (also referred to by CDFW as ‘rare’ or ‘special concern’) are identified on the list by an asterisk and are considered high priority vegetation types (CDFW, 2003; CDFW, 2000). Table 4.C-1, Plant Communities, lists each of the plant communities observed as well as the acreage within the Project Site, and locations of each of the plant communities are shown in Figure 4.C-1, Plant Communities. 3
In 2014, PCR mapped 0.54 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.45 acre of eucalyptus grove within the existing man-made basin in the southeastern corner of the Project Site. The man-made basin was subsequently evaluated in 2015 as part of an Initial Study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for the Lord Ranch Facility, a proposed 1-million-gallon steel-welded reservoir operated by the West Valley Water District. The vegetation map prepared by LSA shows the southern willow scrub and eucalyptus grove cleared from the man-made basin (see Figure 2 in Appendix B to the Lord Ranch Initial Study). Therefore, PCR removed these communities from the 2014 vegetation map based on updated existing conditions reported by LSA. (a) Elderberry (MCV: Sambucus nigra [Blue Elderberry Stands] Alliance *63.410.00) A large, relatively dense patch of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) was found in the Project Site to the east of Pepper Ave and adjacent to the non-native grassland. Two smaller patches support scattered elderberry trees, which are isolated within the non-native grassland in the eastern portion of the Project Site. The understory is composed of non-native grass species, such as those described in the non-native grassland community in section (c) below. A total of
9.13 acres of elderberry occurs within the Project Site.
TABLE 4.C-1
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Plant Communities
Area
(acres)
*Elderberry 9.13
*Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 31.42
Non-native Grassland 22.62
Ornamental 0.52
Disturbed/Non-native Grassland 2.59
Disturbed/Disced 13.18
Disturbed/Developed 21.94
Total 101.40
* Special-status vegetation comm unities as defined by CDFW
SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2014.
3 Plant communities include non-ve getated and/or developed areas in order to map the entire Project Site and account for the acreage studied.
F
F
F
F
1 3
4 2
RAFSS
NNG
DIS / DEV
EB
DIS / D
NNG
EB
EB
ORN
DIS / NNG
ORN
Imagery ©2016 CNES / Astrium, DigitalGlobe
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.C-1
Plant Communities
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015.
0 300
Feet
Project Boundary
F Photograph Location
Plant Communities
DIS / D - Disturbed / Disced
DIS / DEV - Disturbed /
Developed
DIS / NNG - Disturbed / Non-
native Grassland
EB - Elderberry
NNG - Non-native Grassland
ORN - Ornamental
RAFSS - Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This page intentionally blank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(b) Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (MCV: California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance/Eriogonum fasciculatum – (Lepidospartum squamatum) alluvial fan *32.070.01)
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) dominates the western portion of the Project Site, associated with a drainage feature, and supports species such as California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and scale-broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), in addition to other species including our Lord’s candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei), hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis). The RAFSS is characterized as relatively undisturbed and both intermediate and mature based on vegetation composition.
Intermediate RAFSS is where vegetation is rather dense and composed mainly of subshrubs, whilst mature RAFSS is where vegetation is composed of fully developed subshrubs and wood shrubs. A total of 31.42 acres of RAFSS occurs within the Project Site. (c) Non-native Grassland (MCV: Annual Brome Grasslands 42.026.00) Non-native grassland within the Project Site is dominated by brome grasses, including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), with other associated species such as Cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). This vegetation association dominates the eastern side of Pepper Avenue, with a small portion northwest of the road also. A total of 22.62 acres of non- native grassland occurs within the Project Site.
(d) Ornamental (MCV: Not Application)
The ornamental community within the Project Site primarily consisted of introduced trees, including aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and citrus trees (Citrus sp.). The ornamental community includes two small isolated patches, including one in the northwest corner and another in the northeastern portion of the Project Site. A total of 0.52 acre occupies the Project Site. (e) Disturbed/Non-native Grassland (MVC: Not Applicable/Annual Brome Grasslands
42.026.00)
The disturbed/non-native grassland community within the Project Site is primarily composed of disturbed areas, which are areas that are heavily affected by human activities; as a consequence, these areas support little to no vegetation. The disturbed areas within this community are intermixed with small patches that support non-native grassland, which is described in section (c) above. The disturbed/non-native grassland community occurs along the western boundary of the Project Site and comprises approximately 2.59 acres.
(f) Disturbed/Disced (MCV: Not Applicable)
The disturbed/disced community on the Project Site is primarily composed of disturbed areas intermixed with areas where vegetation was previously disced. These areas are heavily affected by human activities and support little to no vegetation. The disturbed/disced community occurs along the western boundary of the Project Site and comprises approximately 2.59 acres.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(g) Disturbed/Developed (MCV: Not Applicable)
The disturbed/developed areas are portions of the Project Site that are heavily influenced by humans, which include sparsely vegetated disturbed areas intermixed with development.
Development includes Pepper Avenue, which runs in a north-south direction through the center of the Project Site, and a pumping facility in the southeastern corner. The disturbed/developed area occupies approximately 21.94 acres of the Project Site. (2) General Plant Inventory
The plant communities discussed above are composed of numerous plant species. Observations regarding the plant species present were made during the field visits to the Project Site, and a list of all plant species observed is provided in Appendix A of the BRA. Special-status plant species occurring or potentially occurring within the Project Site are discussed below. (3) General Wildlife Inventory
The plant communities discussed above provide habitat for common wildlife species.
Observations regarding the wildlife species present were made during the field visits to the Project Site, and a list of all species observed is provided in Appendix A of the BRA. Special- status wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring are discussed below. (4) Special-Status Biological Resources
The following discussion describes the plant and wildlife species present, or potentially present, within the Project Site that have been afforded special recognition by Federal, State, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations. These species have declining or limited population sizes, usually resulting from habitat loss. Also discussed are habitats that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife. Protected special-status species are classified by either Federal or State resource management agencies, or both, as threatened or endangered, under provisions of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA, respectively).
A list of special-status biological resources potentially occurring within the vicinity of the Project Site was compiled based on a literature review using such resources as CNDDB (CDFW, 2015) and CNPS (CNPS, 2015) The vicinity of the Project Site included the following USGS topographic quadrangles: Silverwood Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Harrison Mountain, Redlands, San Bernardino South, Fontana, Devore, and Cajon. Other resources included Federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 2015a), USFWS critical habitat maps (USFWS, 2015b) and United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping (NRCS, 2015). (a) Special-Status Plant Communities
The Project Site supports three special-status plant community that are considered high priority by CDFW based on their state ranking of S3 or rarer, namely Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) and blue elderberry stands. The RAFSS dominates the western portion of the Project
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Site associated with Drainage A (discussed below), totaling 31.42 acres, and the blue elderberry stands total 9.13 acres east of Pepper Avenue.
(b) Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status plants include those listed, or candidates for listing, by the USFWS and CDFW; and species considered special-status by the CNPS (particularly Lists 1A, 1B, and 2). Several special-status plant species were reported in the vicinity based on CNDDB and CNPS, totaling 82 species within the 9-quadrangle search. The 82 special-status plant species are listed in Appendix B of the BRA. Of the 82 species, only 15 species were considered to have a potential to occur on the Project Site. One of these species was observed on-site, namely the Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), is a federal and state endangered species. A total of 1,725 individuals of this species were observed by MBA in May 2006 during the focused plant survey, as documented in Appendix C of the BRA (MBA, 2007; also MBA, 2006a and MBA, 2008a). PCR also observed this species during surveys conducted in 2015, as shown on Figure 4.C-2, Santa Ana River Woollystar and Red-Tailed Hawk Nest Observations. The plant was also observed during surveys conducted for the SR-210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project to the north (Caltrans, 2014). No other special-status plant species were observed or expected to occur based on the results of the focused survey and/or the habitat present within the Project Site, as detailed in Appendix B of the BRA.
(c) Sensitive Wildlife Species
For the purpose of this Draft EIR, special-status wildlife include those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA or CESA, candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, and species of special concern (SSC) to the CDFW. Several special-status wildlife species were reported in the vicinity based on CNDDB, totaling 51 species within the 9- quadrangle search. Of these, a total of five (5) special-status species were observed within the Project Site, two (2) were species considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the Project Site, nine (9) species were considered to have a potential to occur for foraging only within the Project Site, seven (7) species were not expected to occur based on the results of focused surveys within the Project Site, and the remaining 28 species were considered to have no potential to occur based on the absence of suitable habitat or the location of the Project Site outside the known distribution for the species. Details on these determinations are provided in Appendix D of the BRA.
The five special-status species observed within the Project Site included coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). Coast horned lizard, loggerhead shrike, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit are considered SSC. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBRK) is a federally endangered species and was detected during focused surveys, which are discussed in further detail within the Focused Surveys section below.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The two species considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the study included orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The orange-throated whiptail is a SSC and although it was observed to the north of the Project Site during an initial reconnaissance survey in 2011 conducted for the SR-210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project, this species has not been observed during any of the surveys conducted specifically for the Project Site over the last 10 years. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a SSC and was considered to have a potential to occupy the Project Site based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat within non-native grassland and disturbed habitats. The Interchange Project conducted focused surveys for burrowing owl in 2011; although the surveys were negative, this highly mobile species was considered to have a potential to migrate to the Project Site at any time (Caltrans, 2014). It should be noted that a portion of the Interchange Project Site south of SR-210 overlaps with the Specific Plan Project Site. Based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat within the Specific Plan Project Site and the mobile nature of this species, but also considering the lack of CNDDB records for the species in this area, the negative results of the surveys conducted for the Interchange Project, and the lack of observations during Site surveys conducted over the last 10 years, this species was considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur.
A total of nine avian and bat species were considered to have a potential to forage only and are not expected to nest or roost on the Project Site. These species include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorasaccus), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus).
Focused Surveys
Focused surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher and SBKR. SBKR was detected during trapping surveys conducted by MBA, totaling 12 SBKR individuals that were trapped in May and June of 2006 (MBA, 2006b and MBA, 2008a). During these surveys, two individuals were trapped in the northwestern portion of the Project Site while an additional ten were trapped just south of the Project Site boundary. Both trapping locations were within suitable Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat. The survey results are outlined in the report attached as Appendix E of the BRA. Surveys were also conducted in March and April 2013 by First Carbon Solutions/MBA for a portion of the survey area located east of Pepper Avenue in an area mapped by PCR as non-native grassland and elderberry. No SBKR were found during those surveys; only 4 Dulzura kangaroo rats (Dipodomys simulans) were captured and was likely the same individual since it was captured in the same trap each time and ran in the same direction when released (First Carbon Solutions/MBA, 2013). Dulzura kangaroo rats are not listed as special-status species. No other small mammal species were trapped or detected during the 2013 survey, as outlined in the report attached as Appendix F of the BRA. Additionally, trapping surveys are known to have been conducted within the upstream Lytle Creek area between 1997 and continuing to the present; these surveys indicate that this species occurs but primarily occupies the active Lytle Creek wash.
RAFSS
Imagery ©2016 CNES / Astrium, DigitalGlobe
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.C-2
Santa Ana River Woollystar and Red-Tailed Hawk Nest Observations SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015.
0 300
Feet
Project Boundary
RAFSS - Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Red-tailed Hawk Nest
Santa Ana River
Woollystar
Single Location
Cluster of 40 Plants
Cluster of 75 Plants
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This page intentionally blank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Focused surveys conducted for SBKR confirmed the absence of six additional special-status rodent species on the Project Site. These species included northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus), Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), white-eared pocket mouse (Perognathus alticolus alticolus), San Diego desert wood rat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), and southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona). Although suitable habitat for all six species is present on the Project Site, the negative survey results indicate these species are not expected to occur on the Project Site.
Coastal California gnatcatcher was determined to have potential to occur on the Project Site based on the presence of potentially suitable foraging and nesting RAFSS habitat. No coastal California gnatcatchers were detected on the Project Site during the focused surveys conducted in accordance with USFWS protocols and by a USFWS permitted biologist in April through June 2008 (MBA, 2008b). Therefore, it is assumed that this species is absent from the Project Site. The results are also outlined in a separate survey report attached as Appendix G of the BRA.
Migratory Birds and Raptors
The Project Site supports some potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors primarily within the limited trees and also shrubs observed on-site. One common raptor species, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), was observed nesting on the Project Site by PCR within the eucalyptus grove that was mapped by PCR in 2014. As previously discussed in section
2.b.(1), the eucalyptus grove was subsequently cleared based on findings reported in the 2015 Lord Ranch Initial Study (LSA, 2015). A complete list of bird species observed within the Project Site is listed in Appendix A of the BRA.
(5) Jurisdictional Features
A preliminary jurisdictional assessment of existing on-site drainage and wetland features was conducted by PCR, which served as an expansion to the delineation of the Pepper Avenue Project area conducted by Michael Brandman Associates in January 2008 (MBA, 2008c). The preliminary jurisdictional assessment conducted by PCR determined that the Project Site supports two jurisdictional features identified as Drainage A and Drainage A1 which are subject to regulation by the USACE and the Santa RWQCB as “waters of the U.S.,” and by the CDFW as jurisdictional streambed (Figure 4.C-3, Jurisdictional Features). The Project Site also contains what appears to be a non-jurisdictional man-made basin. The Project Site contains a total of approximately 2,750 linear feet of streambed associated with 0.673 acre of USACOE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.”, 0.023 acre of USACOE/RWQCB “wetlands”, and 4.822 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. Table 4.C-2, Jurisdictional Features, provides a summary of all the jurisdictional features assessed, and a description of these features is provided below.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.C-2
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
Drainage Linear Feet
Area (acres)a
Flow
USACE/RWQCB
Non-wetland
USACE/RWQCB
Wetland CDFW
Drainage A 2,639 0.668 0.023 4.753 Ephemeral
Drainage A1 111 0.005 - 0.069 Ephemeral
Total 2,750 0.673 0.023 4.822
a USACE/RWQCB acres are included within the CDFW acres, therefore the numbers are not cumulative.
SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.
Drainage A (Jurisdictional)
Drainage A is an ephemeral tributary to Lytle Creek that initiates off-site from what appears to be a relatively new culvert beneath Interstate 210. Where the property boundary abuts the grouted rip-rap apron of the existing off-site culvert, there is an on-site area at the headwaters of Drainage A that meets the criteria of a jurisdictional wetlands, which supports obligate vegetation dominated by tall umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum).
The wetland does not appear to have occurred in that area prior to the installation of the culvert and likely is the result of increased flows from the culvert, the relatively gentle topographic relief, and the presence of some clay loam soils in and around the streambed. Based on the analysis of soils by PCR, the wetland appears to be in early development and may expand further downstream over time. Drainage A then extends toward the southeast for a total of approximately 2,639 linear feet prior to entering a culvert beneath the recently constructed extension of Pepper Avenue and then exiting the Site on the downstream end of the culvert.
The drainage connects to Lytle Creek Wash, which connects to the Santa Ana River, and ultimately drains to the Pacific Ocean. With the exception of the wetland feature, Drainage A is largely unvegetated with the exception of patches of RAFSS and primarily supports sandy alluvial soils. USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional channel widths average approximately 12 feet, while CDFW jurisdictional channel widths ranged from 20-140 feet based on the top-of-bank condition.
Drainage A totals approximately 0.668 acre of USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.”, 0.023 acre of USACE/RWQCB “wetlands” and 4.753 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed.
F
F
F F
F
F6
5 21
3 4
A
A
A1
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.C-3
Jurisdictional Features
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015.
0 300
Feet
Project Boundary
F Photograph Location
Drainage Center Line
USACE Waters
USACE Waters & Wetland /
CDFW Jurisdiction & Wetland
CDFW Jurisdiction
F
F
F
F A
A
A1
6 5
2 1
0 75
Feet
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This page intentionally blank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Drainage A1 (Jurisdictional)
Drainage A1 originates offsite from an existing pipe that conveys road runoff from East Eaton Street and extends toward the northwest for approximately 111 linear feet before joining Drainage A. Drainage A1 supports vegetation such as shamel ash (Fraxinus udei) and sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa) as well as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Soils associated with Drainage A1 are sandy wash soils. USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional channel widths in Drainage A1 average approximately 2 feet, while CDFW jurisdictional widths range from 15-70 feet based on the limits of riparian vegetation.
Drainage A1 totals approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.” and 0.069 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed.
Man-made Basin (Non-Jurisdictional)
The man-made basin at the southeast corner of the property appears to be associated with the pumping facility. The man-made basin previously supported a small, isolated stand of southern willow scrub. Based on findings reported in the 2015 Lord Ranch Initial Study, the southern willow scrub has subsequently been cleared and no longer supports riparian vegetation (LSA, 2015). Since the man-made basin lacks riparian vegetation and indicators of USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.”, the basin is not considered USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdictional. (6) Wildlife Movement
Regional movement in the vicinity of the Project Site is limited based on the high level of development and road/freeway networks, and as such, is restricted to undeveloped corridor areas that primarily include Lytle Creek off-site to the east of the Project Site. The non-native grassland areas within the Project Site are open and do not support large patches of natural communities that would provide habitat, resources, and cover for wildlife. However, the on-site drainage that ultimately drains to Lytle Creek is associated with native RAFSS habitat that supports protected species. Although the on-site drainage supports RAFSS habitat, its function to facilitate regional movement is limited by its lack of connection upstream due to development, such as the 2010 Foothill Freeway, as well as the channelization of Lytle Creek downstream of where the on-site drainage connects to Lytle Creek. Additionally, the Project Site and the vicinity are not identified as a regionally important dispersal or seasonal migration corridor by South Coast Wildlands, with the nearest linkage design, namely the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection, approximately
1.5 miles north of the Project Site (South Coast Wildlands, 2008).
Movement on a smaller or “local” scale could occur within the Project Site for species that are less restricted in movement pathway requirements or are adapted to urban areas (e.g., raccoon/Procyon lotor, stripped skunk/Mephitis mephitis, coyote/Canis latrans, and bird species in general). Habitat within the Project Site does include native vegetation communities, particularly the RAFSS that likely supports some wildlife movement within the Project Site and/or between nearby areas for foraging and shelter. Data gathered from the biological survey indicates that the Project Site contains habitat that supports common species of invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and small mammals, in addition to a protected species of mammals within the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
RAFSS. The home range and average dispersal distance of many of these species may be entirely contained within the Project Site and immediate vicinity associated with the drainage areas.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which, in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of no or low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals). The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability.
Indirect impacts are considered to be those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or eventual habitation/operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites. Such impacts include increased pollutant discharges to receiving water bodies such as wetlands or marine environments, harassment by humans and/or their pets, light and glare, or increased ambient noise levels.
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on both the features of the Project and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species potentially affected.
The Goals and Objectives of the Project that avoid, preserve, or restore biological resources are taken into consideration and specifically described below prior to the assessment of potential adverse impacts.
Those direct and indirect impacts determined to be less than significant include impacts to biological resources that are relatively common or exist in a degraded or disturbed state, rendering them less valuable as habitat, or impacts that do not meet or exceed the significance thresholds defined below. Those impacts determined to be significant are those that do meet the thresholds of significance defined below. Conclusions are based on both the features of the Project and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Specific considerations included the overall size of habitats to be affected, the Project Site’s previous land uses and disturbance history, the Project Site’s surrounding environment and regional context, the Project Site’s biological diversity and abundance, the presence of special- status plant and wildlife species, the Project Site’s importance to regional populations of these species, and the degree to which habitats within the Project Site are limited or restricted in distribution on a regional basis and, therefore, are considered special-status in themselves.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
For purposes of analyzing impacts to biological resources, “development Scenario 1” assumes no development within the Community Commercial Overlay PA 7 and PA 8), while development Scenario 2 assumes development within the Community Commercial Overlay PA 7 and PA 8.
Under development Scenario 2, additional direct impacts would occur through removal of approximately 6.3 acres of RAFSS habitat and potential SARWS individuals that may be present for development of PA 7 and PA 8.
b. Thresholds of Significance
For purpose of this Draft EIR, the Project has utilized the checklist questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance to determine whether the Project would have a significant environmental impact regarding biological resources. The Project would result in a significant impact to biological resources if the Project would:
Threshold 1: Have a substantia l 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement BIO-1);
Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement BIO-2);
Threshold 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (refer to Impact Statement BIO-3);
Threshold 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (refer to Impact Statement BIO-4);
Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (refer to Impact Statement BIO- 5); or
Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habita t Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (refer to Impact Statement BIO-6).
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
c. Project Design Features
Of the 101.7 acres located within the Specific Plan, a minimum of 29.5 acres would be preserved as open space. In the development scenario where PAs 7 and 8 are not utilized as permitted by the Community Commercial Overlay, an additional 6.3 acres would be preserved as open space, thereby increasing the overall contiguous open space areas to up to 35.8 acres. The Project’s open space areas would be set aside in perpetuity for avoidance and long-term preservation of habitat and species. These lands are primarily composed of the natural drainage feature that exists on the Project Site and eventually feeds into Lytle Creek. This natural open space supports several sensitive plant and wildlife species.
d. Project Impacts
(1) Sensitive Species
Threshold BIO-1: A significant impact would occur if the Project results in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification s, 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 Statement BIO-1: Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, threatened or endangered in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Wildlife Service. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
(a) Special-Status Plant Species
Development of the Project Site would result in the direct removal of numerous common plant species; a list of plant species observed within the Project Site is included in Appendix A of the BRA. Common plant species present within the Project Site occur in large numbers throughout the region and their removal does not meet the significance level of Threshold BIO-1. Therefore, impacts to common plant species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
One special-status species, the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS; federal and state endangered), was observed within the Project Site and specifically within the RAFSS vegetation community. Under development Scenario 1 (no development within the Community Commercial Overlay PA 7 and PA8), impacts would be limited to construction of the potential pedestrian bridge with pilings that would be installed within the RAFSS habitat, and potential impacts from the adjacent development. Specifically, potential impacts could include temporary direct and indirect effects (e.g., inadvertent removal of individuals outside the construction limits; removal of individuals within temporary impact areas; use of chemicals that could harm the species; and oil, gasoline or diesel fuel spills); permanent direct effects (removal for construction of the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
pedestrian bridge); and long-term indirect effects (e.g., changes in hydrology resulting from the bridge structure; alterations to the hydrologic regime due to runoff from the development; and introduction of weeds as a result of disturbance in temporary impact areas). Under development Scenario 2 (development within the Community Commercial Overlay PA 7 and PA8), additional direct impacts would occur through removal of approximately 6.3 acres of RAFSS habitat and potential SARWS individuals that may be present for development of PA 7 and PA 8. Potential impacts are shown on Figure 4.C-4, Potential Impacts to SARWS and RAFSS Habitats.
To minimize these effects, mitigation measures are proposed as outlined in subsection 4, Mitigation Measures, below. These mitigation measures require approval by USFWS and CDFW as part of their take authorization for this species in compliance with the FESA and CESA, respectively, including a federal incidental take statement pursuant to either a Section 7 consultation between the USACE and USFWS with issuance of a Biological Opinion by USFWS or a Section 10(a)(1)(b) incidental take permit; and issuance of a Consistency Determination by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 stating that the federal documents are consistent with CESA. Should CDFW determine that the federal statement/permit is not consistent with CESA, an incidental take permit under section 2081subdivision (b) of the Fish and Game Code will be required. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-3, impacts to the SARWS species would be reduced to a less than significant level.
In regard to potential indirect effects to SARWS, the Project would be required to comply with flood and water quality standards, including preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These documents would outline measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address water quality issues both during construction and post-construction, and to mitigate post-Project flow rates to less than or equal to pre-Project levels. Examples of measures and BMPs include minimizing urban runoff, minimizing the impervious footprint, constructing basins and swales, providing education materials to residents, activity restrictions such as prohibiting dumping of oils, paint or masonry waste into streets and storm drains, requiring covered trash receptacles, and street sweeping.
The Project Site occupants would be responsible for operations and maintenance of the post- construction BMPs. Detailed designs of the measures and BMPs, and operations and maintenance requirements including specific activities and checklists, would be provided during the final engineering. Thus, all water leaving the development would be treated and would be discharged at rates that would prevent downstream erosion.
The Project Site occupants would be responsible for operations and maintenance of the post- construction BMPs. Detailed designs of the measures and BMPs, and operations and maintenance requirements including specific activities and checklists, would be provided during the final engineering. Thus, all water leaving the development would be treated and would be discharged at rates that would prevent downstream erosion.
Runoff conveyed into the on-site portion of the drainages and leaving the Project Site would be maintained similar to existing conditions, thus allowing the continued survival of the existing habitat. To convey storm flows, detain/retain peak storm events and maintain water quality the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project would require onsite storm drain facilities that would mimic the drainage patterns of the existing condition. These facilities would include proposed storm drains in addition to sub surface water quality features that are conceptually contemplated within PA 5 and PA 3 that are outside of any special-status biological resources. The SWPP, WQMP, and storm drain infrastructure requirements are incorporated as design features of the Project and would avoid any significant indirect effects as a result of drainage (quantity and quality) from the development to the on-site drainages and to downstream areas. No groundwater extraction is proposed by the Project. (b) Sensitive Wildlife Species
Development of the Project Site would result in the disruption and removal of non-native vegetation communities and the loss and displacement of common wildlife species. A list of wildlife species observed within the Project Site is included in Appendix A of the BRA. Due to the high level of existing disturbance from human activity both on-site (from Pepper Avenue, the public facility, and areas primarily east of Pepper Avenue) and within the vicinity (e.g., nearby development and infrastructure), these species are likely adapted to human presence and are expected to persist in the area following development. As such, impacts would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region since these species and impacts to common wildlife species do not meet the significance level of Threshold BIO-1. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would not be considered significant and no mitigation measures are required.
A total of 28 special-status wildlife species of the 51 species identified as occurring in the Project vicinity in available databases are not considered to have a potential to occur within the Project Site due to the lack of suitable habitat or because the Project Site is outside the current known distribution range for the species. These species are listed in Appendix D of the BRA. Since these species are not considered to have a potential to occur within the Project Site, no impacts would occur as a result of development and no mitigation measures are required for these species.
Seven species are not expected to occur based on the negative results of focused surveys, including coastal California gnatcatcher, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid San Diego pocket mouse, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, white-eared pocket mouse, San Diego desert wood rat, and southern grasshopper mouse. Since these species are not expected to be present within the Project Site, no impacts would occur as a result of development and no mitigation measures are required for these species.
RAFSS
PA9
PA7
PA8
Imagery ©2016 CNES / Astrium, DigitalGlobe
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.C-4
Potential Impacts to SARWS Plants and RAFSS Habitat
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015.
0 300
Feet
Project Boundary
Special-Status Plant
Communities:
RAFSS - Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Special-Status Plant: Santa
Ana River Woollystar
Single Location
Cluster of 40 Plants
Cluster of 75 Plants
Proposed Impacts
PA7
PA8
PA9
Pedestrian Connection - Scenario 1
Pedestrian Connection - Scenario 2
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This page intentionally blank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Nine species were considered to have a potential to occur within the Project Site for foraging only, including golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, American peregrine falcon, Vaux’s swift, western mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, and pallid bat. These species are not expected to nest/roost on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. For eight (8) of these species (excluding northern harrier), the potential for foraging is considered low since the species have not been observed during any of the surveys conducted within the Project Site over the last 10 years. For the northern harrier, the potential is considered low to moderate since the species was incidentally observed flying over the SR-210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange project site immediately to the north. The quality of potential foraging habitat within the open areas on the Project Site (e.g. disturbed, non-native grassland, and elderberry vegetation communities) is considered low based on the disturbance of these areas through ongoing discing and limited presence of small mammals as prey for the raptor species. The quality of potential foraging habitat within the native RAFSS areas associated with the on-site drainages is considered higher due to the known presence of small mammal species and the higher likelihood of a diverse range of prey such as insects. Within the vicinity of the Project Site potential foraging habitat is constrained by development and infrastructure. As such, foraging is most likely associated with the more extensive open areas including Lytle Creek to the east and the undeveloped mountain areas such as the San Bernardino National Forest and Muscupiabe Hills. Since the majority of the RAFSS habitat would be avoided, the higher quality foraging habitat within the Project Site would be avoided and impacts to foraging species is expected to be less than significant with no additional mitigation measures required.
Five species were observed within the Project Site, including 4 state species of special concern (coast horned lizard, loggerhead shrike, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit) and one federally endangered mammal species (San Bernardino kangaroo rat/SBKR).
These species are primarily associated with the RAFSS habitat and under development Scenario 1, impacts would be limited to construction of the pedestrian bridge with pilings that would be installed within the RAFSS habitat, and potential impacts from the adjacent development.
Specifically, potential impacts could include temporary direct and indirect effects (e.g., inadvertent take of individuals outside the construction limits; take of individuals within temporary impact areas; use of chemicals that could harm the species; and oil, gasoline or diesel fuel spills); permanent direct effects (take of individuals for construction of the pedestrian bridge); and long-term indirect effects (e.g., changes in hydrology resulting from the bridge structure; alterations to the hydrologic regime due to runoff from the development; and introduction of weeds as a result of disturbance in temporary impact areas). Under development Scenario 2, additional direct impacts would occur through removal of approximately 5.0 acres of RAFSS habitat and potential take of individuals that may be present for development of PA 7 and PA 8. The SBKR occupied RAFSS habitat is also within SBKR critical habitat as designated by USFWS. The majority of the RAFSS habitat would be avoided, including almost the entire 31.42 acres of RAFSS within the proposed 35.8-acre open space area under development Scenario 1 minus the small acreage for the pedestrian bridge pili
ngs, and approximately 29.5 acres of
RAFSS (94 percent of the 31.42 acres of RAFSS habitat currently existing) under development Scenario 2. In addition to the avoidance of RAFSS habitat, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 to BIO-6 are proposed to minimize the effects to the RAFSS associated species and SBKR critical habitat.
These measures were developed specifically for SBKR but would also minimize effects to other
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
RAFSS species and habitat. With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to these species would be reduced to a less than significant level.
For SBKR, the mitigation measures would require approval by USFWS as part of their take authorization for this species in compliance with the FESA, including a federal incidental take statement pursuant to either a Section 7 consultation between the USACE and USFWS with issuance of a Biological Opinion by USFWS or a Section 10(a)(1)(b) incidental take permit.
Two state species of special concern were considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur, including orange-throated whiptail and burrowing owl. Orange-throated whiptail is associated with the RAFSS habitat; avoidance of the majority of RAFSS habitat and the proposed mitigation measures outlined above would reduce any impacts to this species to a less than significant level. Potential habitat for burrowing owl is associated with the disturbed and non- native grassland areas primarily located east of Pepper Avenue. No burrowing owl observations are documented in CNDDB within the Project Site or immediate vicinity, none have been observed during focused surveys conducted within a portion of the Project Site for the Interchange Project, and none have been incidentally observed during any surveys conducted within the Project Site. However, due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is required to avoid potential impacts to this species including pre-construction surveys and relocation should any owls be found. These measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level.
Any potential indirect effects to the RAFSS habitat as a result of the quantity and quality of drainage from the development to the on-site drainages and to downstream areas would be avoided through design features incorporated into the Project, as discussed above.
The Project Site also has the potential to support migratory birds and raptors, which are discussed further under Threshold BIO-4 below.
(2) Sensitive Habitats
Threshold BIO-2: A significant impact would occur if the Project results in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natur al community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California D epartment of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact Statement BIO-2: Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition to special-status plant communities, the on-site drainages support associated vegetation under CDFW jurisdiction. The Specific Plan may result in permanent and/or temporary impacts to jurisdictional drainages, which would result in potentially significant
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-8, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
(1) Special-Status Plant Communities
The Project Site supports two special-status plant communities that are considered high priority by CDFW based on their state ranking of S3 or rarer, namely Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) and elderberry (blue elderberry) stands. Potential impacts to RAFSS habitat and the mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level are discussed above. The potential impact areas are also shown on Figure 4.C-4. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO- 1 through BIO-6, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impacts would occur to the entire 9.13 acres of blue elderberry stands as a result of developing PA 2 and PA 3. CDFW guidelines on addressing high priority vegetation types include ascertaining if Project-affected stands can be considered high-quality, which involves a flexible set of criteria such as the range of existing sustainable occurrences of the vegetation community based on site quality, defensibility, size, and surrounding landscapes. 4 High-quality natural vegetation typically includes those that demonstrate, (1) Lack of invasive exotic species; (2) No evidence of human-caused disturbance such as roads or excessive livestock grazing, or high- grade logging; (3) Evidence of reproduction (sprouts, seedlings, adult individuals of reproductive age); and (4) No significant insect or disease damage, etc. Small impacts to high quality habitats, unless there are other plants or animals of significance associated with it, are unlikely to constitute a significant impact.5 The blue elderberry community within the Project Site is divided into three polygons, including one larger polygon and 2 smaller polygons, characterized by widely spaced shrubs interspersed with non-native grassland species. Aerial imagery of the Project Site shows signs of past discing activities, and the community did not display any observable signs of reproduction such as sprouts or seedlings. Based on the presence of non- native species, evidence of human disturbance, and no observed signs of reproduction, the blue elderberry community within the Project Site is not considered high quality. The community is also isolated from the drainage located within the Project Site to the west of Pepper Avenue, and from Lytle Creek off-site to the east, and does not support any other special-status plants or special-status wildlife species. Based on the low quality characteristics of the blue elderberry community within the Project Site, the lack of connection with any native habitats or drainages, and the absence of any protected species within this community, impacts to blue elderberry within the Project Site are considered less than significant with no mitigation required. (2) CDFW Jurisdiction
The Specific Plan avoids land use impacts to the jurisdictional drainages. Potential permanent impacts could occur to CDFW jurisdiction if the pilings of the pedestrian bridge crossing cannot be located outside of the drainages, and/or temporary impacts may be required within the drainages to construct the crossing. Any impacts are expected to be minimal since the bridge
4 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodat a/vegcamp/natural_comm_background.asp 5 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodat a/vegcamp/natural_comm_background.asp#highpriority
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
dimensions are limited to a 10-foot width spanning a distance of 300 feet if PA 7 is developed (Scenario 2) or 700 feet if PA 7 is not developed (Scenario 1). Based on these dimensions, impacts would be approximately 0.01 acre under either Scenarios 1 or 2; permanent impacts are expected to be limited to the bridge supports with the majority of impacts being temporary for construction.
Potential impacts are depicted on Figure 4.C-5, Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features.
CDFW jurisdictional features would be required to comply with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, including applying for a permit and compensatory mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-8 prescribed to comply with the compensatory mitigation requirement of this regulation, subject to approval by CDFW. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (3) Wetlands
Threshold BIO-3: A significant impact would occur if the Project results in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Se ction 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Impact Statement BIO-3: The Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
The Project Site supports wetlands in the northwest corner of the Site that would be avoided by the Specific Plan. The Project Site also support USACE/RWQCB non-wetland jurisdiction that is regulated under Sections 404/401 of the CWA. The Specific Plan avoids land use impacts to the jurisdictional drainages. Potential permanent impacts could occur to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction if the pilings of the pedestrian bridge crossing cannot be located outside of the drainages, and/or temporary impacts may be required within the drainages to construct the crossing. Any impacts are expected to be minimal since the bridge dimensions are limited to a 10- foot width spanning a distance of 300 feet if PA 7 is developed (Scenario 2) or 700 feet if PA 7 is not developed (Scenario 1). Based on these dimensions, impacts would be approximately 0.003 acre under either Scenarios 1 or 2; permanent impacts are expected to be limited to the bridge supports with the majority of impacts being temporary for construction. Potential impacts are depicted on Figure 4.C-5.
PA9
PA7
PA8
A
A
A1
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.C-5
Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015.
0 300
Feet
Project Boundary
Drainage Center Line
USACE Waters
USACE Waters & Wetland / CDFW
Jurisdiction & Wetland
CDFW Jurisdiction
Proposed Impacts
PA7
PA8
PA9
Pedestrian Connection - Scenario 1
Pedestrian Connection - Scenario 2
PA9
PA7
A
A
A1
0 75
Feet
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-32 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This page intentionally blank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-33 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Impacts to USACE and/or RWQCB jurisdictional features would be required to comply with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, respectively, including applying for a permit and mitigation subject to approval by USACE and/or RWQCB. Mitigation Measure BIO-8 is prescribed to comply with the compensatory mitigation requirement of these regulations, subject to approval by USACE and RWQCB. Compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. (4) Wildlife Corridors
Threshold BIO-4: A significant impact would occur if the Project interferes su bstantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or w ildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impact Statement BIO-4: Implementation of the Project could potentially interfere with the regional movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.
Additionally, the Project Site supports potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds, including raptor species. Compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce potentially significant impacts to migratory bird species to a less than significant level. (a) Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement within the Project Site is considered limited to the native RAFSS vegetation community and associated drainages. This habitat supports protected wildlife species, including the federally endangered SBKR and four species of special concern, and it provides a potential corridor for local wildlife movement between the Project Site and Lytle Creek downstream. The Specific Plan proposes avoidance of the majority of the RAFSS habitat and mitigation measures to minimize effects to the habitat and the special-status species, as described above under Threshold BIO-1. This includes designing the pedestrian crossing to minimize impacts to SBKR habitat and allow continued movement of the species. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce impacts to wildlife movement to a less than significant level. (b) Migratory Species
The Project Site supports potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds, including raptors species (a red-tailed hawk nest was observed on the Project Site). Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. As such direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g. through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g. by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is considered a potentially significant impact as defined by the thresholds of significance (Threshold BIO-4). Mitigation Measure BIO-9 is prescribed to comply
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-34 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
with the MBTA, which would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
As previously discussed under Threshold BIO-2 above, the open habitat areas within the Project Site are considered low quality for foraging due to ongoing discing and a limited small mammal prey base, while the native RAFSS is considered higher quality due to a diverse range of prey including small mammals and insects. The majority of the higher quality foraging habitat (RAFSS) would be avoided. Therefore, impacts to foraging species are expected to be less than significant with no additional mitigation measures required. (5) Policy Consistency
Threshold BIO-5: A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts with a n y l o c a l policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Impact Statement BIO-5: The Project would be consistent with local policies to conserve and enhance biological resources within the City. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would ensure compliance with the City’s policies and, therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
The City has three policies outlined in the General Plan to achieve its goal to conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources. The Specific Plan would comply with these policies as outlined below, therefore less than significant impacts would occur.
Policy 2-39.1: Protect endangered, threatened, rare, and other special status habitat and wildlife species within and along Lytle Creek by working with the United States Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or other established biological resource protection mechanisms within this sensitive area.
The Specific Plan proposes avoidance and mitigation measures to protect the special-status plant species, wildlife species, and plant communities, in addition to jurisdictional drainages that are known to occur within the Project Site, as outlined above under Thresholds BIO-1 through BIO-
3. These measures would also ensure compliance with the City of Rialto’s General Plan Policy 2-
39.1. Policy 2-39.2: Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
The Specific Plan proposes avoidance of the majority of the RAFSS habitat that supports special- status species and provides a potential wildlife movement corridor, as outlined above for Thresholds BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4. Avoidance of RAFSS habitat would occur within an open space area. This avoidance would ensure compliance with the City of Rialto’s General Plan Policy 2-39.2.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-35 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policy 2-39.3: Continue to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt a habitat conservation plan to protect viability of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Until a habitat conservation plan is established, continue to support the implementation of the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan.
The Project Site does not support suitable habitat for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the Specific Plan.
(6) Conservation Plan Consistency
Threshold BIO-6: A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Cons ervation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Impact Statement BIO-6: There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with which the Project would conflict. No impact would occur in this regard.
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with which the Project would conflict.
If the proposed open space areas (i.e., PA 7, PA 8 and/or PA 9) are included within any existing or proposed conservation banks in the future, the Project would be required to comply with any conditions set forth in the approved mitigation plans associated with the conservation bank. e. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the Project. CEQA deems a cumulative impact analysis to be adequate if a list of “related projects” is included in the EIR or the proposed project is consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan [Section 15130(b)(1)(B)].
CEQA also states that no further cumulative impact analysis is necessary for impacts of a proposed project consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan [Section 15130(d)].
The Specific Plan design and proposed mitigation would result in a net gain of sensitive habitats (specifically RAFSS), would avoid impacts to special-status species (including the federal listed SBKR, the federal and state listed SARWS, and migratory birds), would result in a minimum no- net-loss of jurisdictional drainage features, would not affect the function of the on-site drainages for wildlife movement, and would comply with City of Rialto policies for biological resources.
As such, impacts would not be considered cumulatively significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-36 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are recommended for those impacts determined to be significant to special- status biological resources. Mitigation measures for impacts considered to be “significant” were developed in an effort to reduce such impacts to a level of “insignificance,” while at the same time allowing an opportunity to realize development goals under the Project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 mitigation includes:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or resto ring the impacted environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substi tute resources or environments.
The mitigation measures outlined in this section address potentially significant impacts from the Specific Plan, and are consistent with those proposed for the Extension of Pepper Avenue project, where applicable (MBA, 2008a).
a. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Special- Status Species
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to and during construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to special-status plant and wildlife species:
Construction limits shall be temporarily fenced prior to construction activities to avoid the inadvertent disturbance of areas adjacent to the construction limits. This fence shall be constructed as SBKR proof within alluvial fan sage scrub habitat (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2);
A biological monitor shall be present during clearing and grubbing of the Project Site;
All movement of construction contractors, including ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, shall be limited to the designated construction zones; Construction staging areas shall be located as far from the wash area as feasible; The use or rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm special-status plant and animal species shall be prohibited; The propose use and disposal of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel shall be enforced; Orientation meetings shall be conducted for construction personnel to review construction limits, conservation measures, and the locations of any listed species that must be avoided; and
Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented with a storm water pollution prevention plan to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources outside of construction areas.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-37 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS):
The Project shall be designed to avoid Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, where possible.
The pedestrian crossing shall be designed to minimize changes in the hydrology that could impact the ability of the SARWS to disperse or to establish in sandy soils created by scour, and also minimize the amount of habitat that could become less suitable for SBKR with reduced scour.
Water runoff from impervious surfaces shall be captured to ensure that the hydrological regime is not altered from the existing condition. Capturing the flows would also help reduce the number of road contaminants that enter the wash. Temporary impact areas shall require a weed abatement program for approximately 5-years to ensure it remains suitable to SARWS and SBKR. b. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Santa Ana River Woollystar
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to any permanent or temporary direct impacts to the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS) and where avoidance of impacts through Project design is not possible, the following measures shall be implemented:
Seeds from all the SARWS proposed for impacts shall be collected from the Project Site and deposited at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. The seeds shall be collected in September before the first sizeable rain event (i.e. one of ½ inch or more) to increase the ability to collect the seeds and to ensure a high rate of germination. The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden shall divide the seeds for three uses: 1) for a permanent seed bank; 2) for germination and growing seedlings; and 3) to preserve for later seeding or authorized research purposes.
The propagated seedlings and a portion of preserved seeds shall be replanted within any temporary impact areas once construction has ceased, and any permanent impacts to individual plants shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio within the proposed avoidance area (PA 9). Planting shall be conducted October to December or as close to the winter rainy season as possible. All replanting shall be conducted pursuant to an approved mitigation and monitoring plan prepared and overseen by a qualified biologist. The plan should include, at minimum, a map of the restoration areas, a description of any irrigation methodology, measures to control exotic vegetation, specific success criteria, a detailed monitoring program, contingency measures should the success criteria not be met, and identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Monitoring of restoration areas should extend across a sufficient time frame to ensure that the new habitat is established, self-sustaining, and capable of surviving drought.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-38 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
c. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to construction within San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) critical habitat, which consists of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS), the project applicant shall purchase mitigation credits from the Vulcan Materials mitigation land bank in Cajon Wash or equivalent preserved SBKR RAFSS habitat to offset permanent impacts to occupied SBKR critical habitat at a 3:1 ratio, and temporary or indirect impacts at a 1:1 ratio.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to construction within Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
A 4-foot high, 0.5-inch temporary steel mesh SBKR exclusionary fence shall be placed along the perimeter footprint where suitable SBKR habitat exists. The bottom of the exclusionary fence shall be buried below ground a minimum depth of 24 inches to minimize the potential that SBKR can re-enter the construction area and to preclude impacts to adjacent habitat. Trapping shall be conducted for SBKR within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities. Any SBKR or other sensitive mammal species that are captured shall be relocated outside the exclusionary fencing.
Trapping shall be conducted by a permitted biologist and according to protocol; The temporary SBKR exclusionary fencing shall be maintained in place throughout the duration of construction in these areas to minimize take of SBKR during the construction phase and preclude the inadvertent disturbance of outlying areas by construction personnel. Access to SBKR habitat outside of the construction limits shall be prohibited and posted accordingly. The exclusionary fence shall be inspected weekly and repaired as necessary so that there are no gaps greater than 0.5 inch on any portion of the fence that could allow SBKR entry into the Project Site; All the construction equipment shall meet applicable noise ordinances. Compliance with this requirement would minimize noise stress to SBKR in the vicinity of the Project Site; and
Contractor pets shall be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
The pedestrian bridge supports shall be designed to minimize impacts to SBKR habitat and allow continued movement of SBKR.
Temporary impacts areas shall be revegetated with native shrub vegetation through container plantings to reestablish SBKR habitat and provide cover and facilitate movement of small mammals. All replanting shall be conducted pursuant to a mitigation and monitoring plan prepared and overseen by a qualified biologist. To minimize light and noise pollution, no night lighting shall be directed into the open space ar
eas and noise levels should not exceed City standards.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-39 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
d. Mitigation for Potentially Significant Impacts to Burrowing Owl Mitigation Measure BIO-7: A protocol survey for burrowing owl shall be required during prior to any ground disturbing activities within disturbed and non-native grassland habitats. The surveys shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol provided as Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) dated March 7, 2012. A qualified biologist, as defined in the CDFW Staff Report, shall conduct the surveys. Surveys shall preferably be conducted during the breeding season which requires 4 site visits, including at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15; and a minimum of three site visits at least three weeks apart between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15.
If burrowing owls are determined present during the focused survey, occupied burrows and habitat shall be avoided if feasible following the guidelines in the above referenced CDFW Staff Report. This includes, but is not limited to, avoiding direct or indirect destruction of burrows, implementing a worker awareness program, biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging burrows for avoidance with visible markers. Avoidance measures shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist. If occupied burrows or habitat cannot be avoided, appropriate compensation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the CDFW staff report and subject to approval by CDFW. This includes a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan for temporary or permanent exclusion of owls from occupied burrows, and/or a Mitigation Land Management Plan for permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering and dispersal comparable to or of higher quality than the impact area. e. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Special- Status Plant Communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce any impacts to the special-status Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat to a less than significant level. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.
f. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent or temporary impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies:
1. On-site and/or off-site creation, enhancement, and/or restoration of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”/“waters of the State” within the Santa Ana Watershed at a ratio no less than 1:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for any temporary impacts to restore the impact area to pre-Project conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate where applicable). Off-site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in- perpetuity preservation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency- approved off-site mitigation bank.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-40 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
1. On-site and/or off-site replacement and/or restoration of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat within the Santa Ana Watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 3:1 for permanent impacts, and for any temporary impacts to restore the impact area to pre- Project conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate where applicable). Any off-site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in-perpetuity preservation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off- site mitigation bank.
2. Any purchase of mitigation credits through an agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program shall occur prior to any impacts to jurisdictional drainages. If off- site mitigation is proposed on land acquired for the purpose of in-perpetuity mitigation that is not part of an agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program shall include the preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). A HMMP shall also be prepared for on-site mitigation. The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to jurisdictional features, and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater function and value than the impacted habitat. g. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Migratory or Nesting Birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would ensure the pedestrian bridge does not affect the movement of wildlife species such as San Bernardino kangaroo rat that occupy the RAFSS habitat; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required pertaining to wildlife movement. Mitigation is required for migratory or nesting birds as outlined below.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would remove potentially suitable nesting habitat for raptors or songbirds, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Rialto that either of the following have been or will be accomplished.
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (i.e., September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.
3. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting se ason (i.e., February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) would require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction, or as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. An appropriate buffer shall be determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts to the nesting bird(s) accounting for factors such as the species, type of construction activities, in addition to habitat and topography that may provide natural sound attenuation. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-41 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
h. Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Local City of Rialto Policies
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-9 would ensure compliance with the City of Rialto policies pertaining to biological resources. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.
5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With the implementation of and adherence to the prescribed mitigation measures included herein, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
6. REFERENCES
Caltrans (State of California Department of Transportation). 2014. State Route 210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. May 2014.
City of Rialto. 2010. The City of Rialto General Plan. December 2010.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (available by subscription) and Rarefind. CDFW: Sacramento, California.
CDFW. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.
CDFW. 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September.
CDFW. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. State of California, The Resources Agency. December 9, 1983 revised May 8, 2000.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Available online (http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi).
Earth Survey. 2015. PLSS in Google Earth (PLSGE). Available online at:
http://www.metzgerwillard.us/plss/plss.html
First Carbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates (MBA). 2013. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Focused Survey Report, Pepper Avenue Commercial Center Project, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. June 18, 2013.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game. Non- Game Heritage Program. Sacramento, California
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
C. Biological Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.C-42 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Initial Study Lord Ranch Facility. Prepared for West Valley Water District. San Bernardino County, CA. June 29, 2015.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2008a. Biological Assessment, Extension of Pepper Avenue Between Highland Avenue and the Interstate 210 Freeway, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. March 27, 2008.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2008b. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey, Pepper Avenue Extension, City of Rialto, Riverside County, California. February 20, 2008.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2008c. Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands, Pepper Avenue Road Extension, City of Rialto, Riverside County, California.
February 20, 2008.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2007. Results of a Focused Sensitive Plant Survey for Pepper Ave. Specific Plan, a 102-acre Site in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. February 1, 2007.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2006a. Habitat Assessment, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (102 acres), City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, CA. March 21, 2006.
MBA (Michael Brandman Associates). 2006b. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys on the Pepper Ave Specific Plan in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. November 14, 2006.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Available online (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx).
PCR Services (PCR). 2016. Draft Biological Resources Assessment, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, City of Rialto, Riverside County, California. Prepared for City of Rialto Development Services Department. June 2016.
South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion. South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CA. www.scwildlands.org. March 2008.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Species Occurrence Data. Provided by USFWS.
USFWS. 2015b. Critical Habitat Mapping. GIS files provided by USFWS.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1967. San Bernardino North, California topographic quadrangle map. Photorevised 1981.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
D. Cultural Resources
1. Introduction
This section evaluates potential impacts from the Project on cultural resources including historical, archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. The analysis provided in this section is based on a cultural resources technical report prepared by PCR (currently ESA PCR) entitled, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment of the Proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), which was originally prepared in July 2014 (revised in August 2016). The Cultural Resources Assessment analyzed impacts regarding historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Regarding impacts to tribal cultural resources, the City has not received any formal written “request to consult” letters from Native American tribes or individuals pursuant to AB 52.
The Cultural Resources Assessment and Native American consultation documentation are included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR.
The Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the Project would have no impacts on historic or paleontological resources. Thus, discussions of these issue areas within this EIR section are limited, with the focus on impacts to archeological resources. Thus, regulatory framework information regarding historic and paleontological resources is not included within this EIR section. Please refer to the Cultural Resources Assessment for additional background information regarding historic and paleontological resources.
Archaeology is the recovery and study of material evidence of human life and culture of past ages. Over time, this material evidence becomes buried, fragmented or scattered or otherwise hidden from view. It is not always evident from a field survey if archaeological resources exist within a given area. Thus, the possible presence of archaeological materials must often be determined based upon secondary indicators, including the presence of geographic, vegetative, and rock features which are known or thought to be associated with early human life and culture, as well as knowledge of events or material evidence in the surrounding area. Archaeological resources may include both prehistoric remains and remains dating to the historical period.
Prehistoric (or Native American) archaeological resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites.
Prehistoric resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, rock art, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottle dumps, ceramic scatters, privies, foundations, and burials and are generally associated in California with the Spanish Mission Period to the mid-20 th
century of the American Period.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
2. Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Prehistoric Background (13,500 Years Before Present to 1769 A.D.) Prehistory is most easily discussed chronologically, in terms of environmental change and recognized cultural developments. Several chronologies have been proposed for inland Southern California, the most widely accepted of which is Wallace’s four-part Horizon format (1955), which was later updated and revised by Claude Warren (1968). The advantages and weaknesses of Southern California chronological sequences have been reviewed by Warren (in Moratto 1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Heizer (1978). The following discussion is based on Warren’s (1968) sequence, but the time frames have been adjusted to reflect more recent archaeological findings, interpretations, and advances in radiocarbon dating. (a) Paleoindian Period (ca. 13,000-11,000 years before present [YBP]) Little is known of Paleoindian peoples in inland southern California, and the cultural history of this period follows that of North America in general. Recent discoveries in the Americas have challenged the theory that the first Americans migrated from Siberia, following a route from the Bering Strait into Canada and the Northwest Coast sometime after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet receded (ca. 14,000 YBP), and before the Bering Land Bridge was submerged (ca. 12,000 YBP).
A coastal migration route somewhat before that time is also possible. The timing, manner, and location of this crossing are a matter of debate among archaeologists, but the initial migration probably occurred as the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted along the Alaskan Coast and interior Yukon. One of the earliest radiocarbon dates from a Paleoindian Period site containing human remains in Southern California comes from the Arlington Springs Woman site on Santa Rosa Island. These human remains date to at least 9,500 YBP (Morris and Erlandson 1993). Lifeways during the Paleoindian Period were characterized by highly mobile hunting and gathering. Prey included megafauna, such as mammoth, and technology included a distinctive flaked stone toolkit that has been identified across much of North America and into Central America. Their diet likely contained some plant foods, but the Paleoindian toolkit recovered archaeologically does not include many tools that have been identified as designed specifically for plant processing.
To date, no Paleoindian Period sites have been identified in inland southern California. An example of the earliest dated sites is CA-RIV-2798/H located on the shores of Lake Elsinore, which has been dated to approximately 8,400 YBP (Grenda 1997).
The megafauna that appear to have been the focus of Paleoindian lifeways went extinct during a warming trend that began approximately 10,000 YBP, and both the extinction and climatic change (which included warmer temperatures in desert valleys and reduced precipitation in mountain areas) were factors in widespread cultural change. Subsistence and social practices continued to be organized around hunting and gathering, but the resource base was expanded to include a wider range of plant and game resources. Technological traditions also became more localized and included tools specifically for the processing of plants and other materials. This
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
constellation of characteristics has been given the name Archaic and it was the most enduring of cultural adaptations to the North American environment. (b) Archaic Period (ca. 11,000-3,500 YBP)
The earliest Archaic Period lifeways in inland southern California have been given the name San Dieguito tradition, after the San Diego area where it was first identified and studied (Warren 1968). Characteristic artifacts include stemmed projectile points, crescents and leaf-shaped knives. These suggest continued subsistence practices focused on large game, although not on the megafauna of the earlier Paleoindian Period. Milling equipment appears in the archaeological record at approximately 7,500 YBP (Moratto 1984:158). The La Jolla Complex (7,500–3,000 YBP) is characterized by artifact assemblages with basin millingstones and unshaped manos, projectile points, flexed cairn burials, and cogged stones. The transition from San Dieguito tradition to La Jolla lifeways appears to have been an adaptation to drying of the climate after 8,000 YBP, which may have stimulated movements of desert peoples to the coastal regions, bringing millingstone technology with them. Groups in the coastal regions included mollusks in their diet, while inland groups relied on wild-seed gathering and acorn collecting. (c) Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 3,500 YBP-A.D. 1769)
Environmental changes around 4,000–3,000 YBP may have underlain a cultural shift to more land-based gathering practices. This period was characterized by the increasing importance of acorn processing, which supplemented the resources from hunting and gathering. The Late Prehistoric Period of the San Bernardino Mountain and eastern San Gabriel Mountains area has been defined by work at the Sayles site, CA-SBR-421, by Kowta (1969). Artifact assemblages characteristic of the Sayles site include percussion-flaked scraper planes, cores, plano-convex scrapers, choppers, and hammerstones. This type of assemblage, referred to as the Sayles Complex, has been dated to approximately 3,000-1,000 YBP. The Sayles Complex is similar to Late Prehistoric assemblages found along the coast, but lacks mortars and pestles. The absence of mortars and pestles may be due to population or technological changes introduced to the San Bernardino Mountain area along with Uto-Aztecan languages, the so-called “Shoshonean Wedge”, by about 1,500 YBP.
(d) Ethnographic Context
The Project Site is located on the boundary between Serrano and Gabrielino territories, and was likely used by both groups. Both groups are discussed below.
Serrano
The term Serrano refers to both an ethnic group and a group of languages in the Takic family including Serrano and Kitanemuk, and possibly Vanyume and Tataviam. The Serrano lived in an area that extended from Cajon Pass at the western end of the San Bernardino Mountains, east to Twentynine Palms, north to Victorville, and south to the Yucaipa Valley. This area contains a range of very different topographies, including the San Bernardino Mountains and flat valley areas. The Serrano subsisted on plant and animal resources in both the mountain and desert life zones. This included hunting animals such as mountain goats, deer and rabbits; and collecting
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
plant foods such as grass seeds, acorns, piñon nuts, bulbs, roots, berries, and mesquite pods (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano villages were typically located in the mountain foothills. Water availability appears to have been a major determining factor in the placement of the villages. According to the CHRIS- SBAIC, a Serrano village called Santisima Trinidad (pending site number P1072-25) is said to have been located in the vicinity of Sycamore Grove approximately four miles northwest of the Project Site; this village has not been located by archaeologists (L.D. King 2001:4.10-6). Other known Serrano villages in the region include Guapiabit and Muscupiabit near the Cajon Pass.
The Serrano’s first contact with the Spanish is thought to have been in 1771 when Mission San Gabriel was established or in 1772 during Pedro Fages’s forays into Serrano territory (Bean and Smith 1978b:573). In 1819 an asistencia (an outpost for cattle activities) of the Mission San Gabriel was constructed near present day Redlands (San Bernardino County Museum 2006).
Many Serrano people were forced to live on mission grounds until missions were secularized in 1834. Today, many Serrano live on the Morongo and San Manuel Indian reservations in San Bernardino County (Bean and Smith 1978b:573).
Gabrielino
Named after the San Gabriel Mission, the Gabrielino (or Gabrieliño, -eño, Tongva, or Kizh) occupied sections of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties (Bean and Smith 1978a). Gabrielino was one of several Cupan languages in the Takic family which belongs to the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. Gabrielino territory included the Los Angeles Basin, the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, intermittent streams in the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and the islands of San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. Similar to the Serrano, the Gabrielino subsisted on a variety of resources in several ecological zones. Acorns, sage, and yucca were gathered throughout the inland areas, whereas shellfish, fish, and a variety of plants and animals were exploited within the marshes and along the coast. Deer and various kinds of small mammals were hunted on an opportunistic basis.
The settlement patterns of the Gabrielino and other inland groups were similar and they often interacted through marriage, trade and warfare. The seasonal availability of water and floral and faunal resources influenced seasonal migration rounds with more permanent villages and base camps being occupied primarily during winter and spring months. In the summer months, the village populations divided into smaller units that occupied seasonal food procurement areas. The more permanent settlements tended to be near major waterways and food sources and various secular and sacred activities, such as food production and storage and tool manufacturing, were conducted at these areas (Bean and Smith 1978a).
(2) Historic Background
(a) Rancho Muscupiabe
The Project Site is located within a large section of the historic Rancho Muscupiabe (Muscupiabe), which is named after a nearby Serrano village called Muscupiabit. Muscupiabe encompassed approximately one square league (approximately 4,500 acres) of northwestern San
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Bernardino Valley (L.D. King 2001). In 1843, Governor Manuel Micheltorena gave the Muscupiabe to Michael White, a European settler (Kielbasa 1997). Muscupiabe was abandoned by 1845 because it could not be defended against the local Native Americans. In 1870, the United States Land Commission conducted a survey of Muscupiabe and expanded it to approximately 30,000 acres. The survey was conducted as a result of a dispute over the water rights to Lytle Creek (L.D. King 2001). In 1851, Captain Andrew Lytle led the Mormon Battalion and Mormon settlers to the San Bernardino area. Lytle Creek Wash was named after Captain Lytle. These first Mormon settlers camped at Sycamore Grove, is now California Historical Landmark (CHL) number 573, located within the Glen Helen Regional Park approximately five miles northwest of the Project Site.
(b) Lytle Creek
Lytle Creek Wash has a long history of water capture and conveyance and has been the subject of many water rights disputes. In the mid-to-late 1800s, three ditches were constructed to transport water. These ditches included the Rancheria Ditch, the Old Town Ditch, and the Lloyd Ditch (L.D. King 2001: 4.10-5). At this time, settlers living on Muscupiabe lands fought with the rancho owners over water rights. The Lytle Creek Water Company was formed by 1881 to manage water rights. Soon thereafter, real estate investors changed its name to Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company. It went bankrupt by 1896. Thereafter, numerous companies held the water rights to Lytle Creek Wash. In 1932, the Fontana Union Water Company constructed a series of concrete and stacked-rock water control features located in and around Lytle Creek Wash (Van Wormer and Langenwalter 1990). These flood control features were constructed as part of the Lytle Creek Flood Control Project and were likely damaged or destroyed during major floods in March of1938 (Dice et al. 2004).
(c) City of Rialto
Rialto was founded with the introduction of the Santa Fe Railroad, connecting San Bernardino to Los Angeles, in 1887. The area began initially as a citrus-growing town with over 2,000 residents. Low land prices, soils, and other conditions made it ideal for citrus growing. Citrus groves, eucalyptus tree wind breaks, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains provided a gorgeous backdrop to this agrarian area. In the 1950s, orange groves were replaced by housing subdivisions as Rialto became one of the fastest growing cities in the region (City of Rialto 2010).
(3) Resources Identified within the Project Site and Vicinity (a) Methodology
PCR conducted a program-level Cultural Resources Assessment of the Project Site to identify potential impacts to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources and to develop mitigation measures where appropriate and feasible to avoid, reduce, or mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purpose of complying with CEQA and the City’s General Plan. The scope of work for this Cultural Resources Assessment included a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System-San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center (CHRIS-SBAIC), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and follow-up Native American consultation, and a paleontological records search through the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM). The scope of work also included additional background research, an evaluation of known resources regarding their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, potential Project impacts, and formulation of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts. The detailed methodology and results of these tasks are provided below.
Cultural Resources Records Search
On June 4, 2014, PCR conducted an in-house records search of the Project Site at the CHRIS- SBAIC. The records searches included a review of all recorded archaeological and historical resources within a one-half mile radius of the Project Site. In addition, PCR reviewed the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the CRHR, the NRHP, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings. The purpose of the record search was to identify previously recorded archaeological resources within the boundaries of the Project Site and which may be impacted by the Project. The records search also provides a basis for assessing the potential to encounter additional and/or buried archaeological resources during excavations associated with implementation of the Project.
Paleontological Resources Records Search
On June 3, 2014, PCR commissioned a paleontological resources records search through the SBCM. This records search entailed an examination of current geologic maps and known fossil localities inside and within the general vicinity of the Project Site. Results of the record search indicate whether or not there are previously recorded paleontological resources or fossiliferous geological formations within the Project Site. The results also provide a basis for assessing the sensitivity of the Project Site for additional and buried paleontological resources.
Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation On June 3, 2014, PCR commissioned a SLF records search of the Project Site through the NAHC in Sacramento, California and conducted follow-up consultation with Native American groups and/or individuals identified by the NAHC as having affiliation with the vicinity of the Project Site. Each Native American group and/or individual listed was sent a Project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any knowledge regarding prehistoric or Native American resources (archaeological sites, sacred lands, or artifacts) located within the Project Site or surrounding vicinity. The letter included information such as Project Site location and a brief description of the Project. Results of the search and follow-up consultation provides information as to the nature and location of additional prehistoric or Native American resources to be incorporated in the assessment whose records may not be available at the CHRIS-SBAIC.
Site Visit
On June 16, 2014, PCR conducted a spot-check pedestrian survey of the Project Site to examine existing conditions. Regarding historic resources, PCR visited known potential resource locations to examine their current condition and content and surveyed the Project Site to confirm if any unknown resources exist. Regarding paleontological resources, PCR confirmed the on-site soil
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
types based on records searches to determine the potential for the Site to yield paleontological resources. Regarding archaeological resources, a full coverage archaeological survey was not conducted recognizing that where warranted by level of sensitivity, subsequent more focused environmental review, including full-coverage surveys, would occur as future project-specific development proposals are initiated under the Specific Plan. PCR did visit known archaeological resources within the Project Site to examine their current condition and content. For areas that were surveyed, the ground surface was examined for archaeological resources to assess the general sensitivity to yield archaeological resources.
(b) Results
Cultural Resources Records Search
Based on the records search results from the SBAIC, a total of nine studies have been previously conducted within a one-half mile of the Project Site. Of these nine studies, three (Dice 2005; Dice 2008; and Jones et al. 2012a) have previously encompassed portions of or the entire Project Site.
These four studies are described below:
Dice (2005)
The study by Dice (2005) consisted of a cultural resources assessment for the Pepper Street Specific Plan and encompassed the entire boundaries of the Project Site, plus additional areas to the south and east of the Project Site. This study yielded the identification of two historic period complexes. Historic elements at the first complex included a ditch and a metal-roofed barn located along the northern portion of the Project Site, and immediately east of the newly developed North Pepper Avenue. Historic elements at the second complex included a dry water reservoir and corral remnants. Based on the survey results, Dice (2005) concluded that the majority of the western portion in the Project Site had low sensitivity for cultural resources because this area is located in the old Lytle Creek flood channel. Dice classified the entire eastern portion of the Project Site, a small portion on the western side, and a relatively small portion on the southwest side of the Project Site as having a high sensitivity for cultural resources.
Dice (2008)
Dice (2008) conducted a Cultural Resource Significant Assessment for the North Pepper Avenue Extension Project. This study encompassed an approximately 20-acre area along the newly built North Pepper Avenue that currently bisects the Project Site into eastern and western halves. The study revealed the existence of two cultural resources that Dice designated as Temp #1 and a segment of PSBR-33H. Temp #1 is described as five features, three of which were previously mentioned in the Dice (2005) report as forming part of a second complex identified during a pedestrian survey. The other two features; Feature 4 consisted of a main ranch house and Feature 5 consisted of a large earth-bermed reservoir. Feature 4 is believed to have been located east of a railroad spur and outside the Project Site, while Feature 5 is believed to have been located southeast of the Project Site. Temp #1 was recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register by Dice (2008). The report by Dice (2008) is in draft form and it appears that Temp#1 was never actually recorded in a DPR Form as it is not available at the SBAIC.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
PSBR-33H is described as a historic metal water pipeline that was previously identified and was revisited during Dice’s 2008 study. This resource is located immediately outside of the southwest boundary of the Project Site. The 2008 study mentioned that the segment of PSBR-33H is presently covered with decaying asphalt pavement and that it was possible that this resource could have been unearthed during the Pepper Avenue road construction. PSBR-33H was recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register by Dice. Dice (2008) recommended archaeological monitoring for the North Pepper Avenue Extension Project once earthmoving or grading reached two feet below the modern ground surface.
Jones et al. (2012a)
Jones et al. (2012a) conducted a Cultural Resources Inventory for the Pepper Avenue Extension Project in the City of Rialto. The pedestrian survey for this Project yielded the identification of one historic-period archaeological resource, P36-026760/CA-SBR-16908H, and was recorded on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form. Some elements of this resource were previously identified by Dice (2005, 2008). The resource was evaluated for the California Register and was recommended by Jones et al. (2012a) as ineligible for listing. Jones et al. recommended monitoring during construction activities. A detailed description of P36- 026760/CA-SBR-16908H is provided in the next section. Jones et al. (2012a) also noted that during their survey, the old Rialto Canal (PSBR-33) which was previously mentioned in Dice’s (2005) report could not be relocated. It was mentioned that the Canal was located in the middle of a steep bluff and that it probably got washed away by Lytle Creek or was destroyed during the construction of the houses along the bluff.
P36-026760/CA-SBR-16908H
This resource is a historic period agricultural complex and/or homestead that contains eight features, three of which (Features 1, 2, and 5) are modern. The resource is located in a drainage basin on the south side of the SR-210 overpass and it is surrounded on the south side by a ring of palm trees. Two historic artifacts are also present within this site and these consist of two fragments of sun-colored-amethyst glass dating back to between 1880 and 1918. Feature 1 consists of a large concrete slab foundation that has an entryway with three different rooms. This feature is considered modern as it was built between 1980 and 2005. Feature 2 is a small rectangular concrete structure that is modern and is located east of Feature 1. Feature 1 consists of a broken concrete foundation measuring 13 feet (east-west) by 18 feet (north-south). This feature exhibits signs of having been partially burnt and the foundation is broken into large chunks on the south side. It has been suggested that this feature could be part of a larger rectangular structure as it is depicted on aerial photos. Artifacts around this feature comprise of plastic bowls, a garden hose, one sanitary can, wood pallet debris, metal hardware (washers), particle board, and PVC pipe, and a post similar to the one found in Feature 4. Feature 4 is made up of two posts situated at the northeast corner of Feature 3. The first post is a circular wooden post and similar to an electrical pole. The second post, possibly a railroad tie is hanging down from a rope that is attached to the first pole. Feature 5 is a rectangular concrete structure with a milled lumber pitched roof. This feature may have been possibly used as a septic tank. Feature 6 is made up of a group of four large telephone/electrical posts that can be found on the southwest side of the asphalt drive. A partial spray painted sign is nailed to the center of the grouping of posts. These posts are believed to have been a base for a sign post that marked the entrance to the property.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Feature 7 represents a faint and linear, north-south trending concrete foundation line that is decomposing. The feature is located east of the main house foundation. Strands of wire are embedded in the concrete which suggests that it may have been possibly used as a foundation for a fence of border wall. Feature 8 is a long east-west trending irrigation ditch that is covered with modern refuse and dry scrub. This feature appears on aerial photographs as early as 1938 (Jones et al. 2012b).
Other Resources Located Outside the Project Site
The records search conducted at the SBAIC revealed that three other resources (P1071-8H, PSBR-14 and 36-021326) are located in close proximity to the Project Site, but outside its boundaries. These resources are described in detail below.
P1071-8H
According to records obtained from the SBAIC, a schoolhouse named the “Brooke School Site” (resource P1071-8H) is mapped in the vicinity of the Project Site although it is not depicted in historical topographic maps or aerials from 1908 and later. According to these same records, the school site was the first school house built in the Rialto area in 1886 (SBAIC pending site n.d).
PSBR-14
PSBR-14 is described as a prehistoric Indian village site. Jones et al. (2012a) attempted to relocate the site but was unsuccessful and noted that the resource could have been mapped incorrectly or the resource may have been damaged by Lytle Creek. This resource was presumably located south of the boundaries of the Project Site. 36-021326
36-021326 is a section of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) which is located immediately east of the southeast boundaries for the Project Site. Although this section of the railroad has not been recorded yet, the section is considered an extension of a previously recorded segment for the UPRR Company’s Colton-Palmdale Cutoff and the UPRR bridge over Institution Road (George 2009).
Five other resources (P1071-16H, P1071-23H, P1071-28H, P1074-88H, and CA-SBR-8866H) are also located within the one-half mile radius of the Project Site, but far enough away from the Project Site boundaries to not be impacted by any future developments associated with the Project. Resource P1071-16H is the Micaleff family home. P1071-23H consists of a Rancheria ditch. P1071-28H is a postwar residential tract/commercial development that is associated with the unincorporated community of Muscoy. P1074-88H is a water transportation site. CA-SBR- 8866H is a historic period trash scatter.
Paleontological Records Search
The results of the paleontological records search indicate that the Project Site is located within surface exposures of Holocene-aged (11,000 YBP to present day) wash sediments that overlie Holocene-aged younger alluvium. These units are not old enough to have potential for yielding paleontological resources. Therefore, these sediments have a low paleontological sensitivity. The
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
results of the paleontological records search also did not reveal resources localities within the boundaries of the Project Site nor within one mile of the Project Site (Scott 2014).
Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation Results of the SLF search through the NAHC did not indicate any known Native American cultural resources from NAHC database within the Project Site. The NAHC results also noted, however, that “the absence of archaeological features, Native American cultural resources does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level” (Singleton 2014). Pursuant to NAHC suggested procedure, letters were sent via certified mail on June 24, 2014 to the 12 Native American individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC as being affiliated with the vicinity of the Project Site to request any additional information or concerns they may have about Native American cultural resources that may be affected by the Project. To date, one response has been received by Mr. Andy Salas, Chairman of the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians/Kizh Nation. Mr. Salas considers the Project Site “a highly culturally sensitive area” and mentions that the prehistoric village of Waatsnga is located near the Project Site and that it “covered most of Rialto and Fontana.” Mr. Salas also recommends Native American monitoring during construction of any future projects within the Project Site. Mr. Salas’ email response and the NAHC results letter are included in the cultural resources technical report that is provided in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. No other responses have been received from the Native American contacts.
Site Visit
The eastern portion of the Project Site, which is separated from the western portion by the paved North Pepper Avenue roadway, exhibits previous ground disturbance in the south (consisting of clearing/grading for pad development) as a result of the construction of West Valley Water District (WVWD) facilities. A dry water reservoir which was previously identified by Dice (2005, 2008), but never recorded was observed during the site visit. This reservoir was densely covered with grasses and trees. No evidence of PSBR-14, which was presumably located near and south of the Project Site, was seen. The middle and northern portions were covered with dense vegetation during the site visit. However, it appeared that these areas had been previously plowed. The site visit also confirmed the existence of CA-SBR-16908H, a historic period agricultural complex located on the northern portion and adjacent to the east side of Pepper Avenue. In addition, results of the investigations by PCR revealed the presence of several building foundations and a dry water reservoir located in the southeastern most corner of the Project Site.
The western portion of the Project Site is completely undeveloped and consists of an ephemeral tributary to Lytle Creek, which is covered with natural vegetation. No evidence of the Brooke School site (P1071-8H) from the SBAIC records was observed and no evidence of PSBR-33H was observed during the site visit.
b. Regulatory Framework
Numerous laws and regulations require State and local agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on archaeological and tribal cultural resources. These laws and regulations
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and proscribe the relationship among other involved agencies. Pertinent laws and regulations are described in more detail, as follows:
(1) State Level
(a) California Register of Historical Resources
Created by Assembly Bill 2881, which was signed into law on September 27, 1992, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”1 The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria.2 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.3 To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information importan t in prehistory or history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. (b) California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the State.
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). As defined in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code a “unique archaeological resource” is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1 California Public Resour ces Code Section 5024.1(a). 2 California Public Resour ces Code Section 5024.1(c). 3 California Public Resour ces Code Section 5024.1(d).
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
In addition, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 broadens the approach of classifying archaeological resources by using the term “historical resource” instead of “unique archaeological resource.” The State CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain archaeological resources may also have significance. The State CEQA Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource listed in, or determined by the State Historical Resources Commission to be eligible for listing in, the California Register; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the State CEQA Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, which refer to a unique archaeological resource. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.4 (c) Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) is recent legislation that amends CEQA and requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes to identity, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to a new type of cultural resource called “tribal cultural resources”, if the tribes formally request consultation. To date, the City of Rialto has not received any formal written “request to consult” letters from Native American tribes or individuals pursuant to AB 52.
A tribal cultural resource is any of the following:
Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
– Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.
4 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4).
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
– Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. A historical resource described in California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (3) Local Level
(a) City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto’s General Plan (2010) discusses goals and policies to protect, preserve, and manage the City’s archaeological and historical resources. The goals and policies are provided below:
Policy 7-1.1: Protect the architectural, historical, agricultural, open space, environmental, and archaeological resources in Rialto.
Goal 7-3: Identify, document, and protect significant archaeological resources in Rialto.
Policy 7-3.1: Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all project s in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.
Policy 7-3.2: Actively pursue a comprehensive survey program to identify, document, and protect prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and sites containing Native American human remains.
Policy 7-3.3: Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.
Policy 7-3.4: Reduce adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources that cannot be protected in place through data recovery excavations.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
3. Environmental Impacts
a. Methodology
(1) Historical Resources
The analysis of historic resources is based on a cultural resources records search through CHRIS- SCCIC, historic background research, and a site visit to the Project Site, which are described in detail above.
(2) Archaeological Resources
The analysis of archaeological resources is based on a cultural resources records search through CHRIS-SCCIC, a SLF search conducted by the NAHC, review of historic aerial photographs, and a site visit to the Project Site, which are described in detail above. Since Project impacts are analyzed on a program-level, no formal eligibility evaluations of archaeological resources within the Project Site were conducted.
(3) Paleontological Resources
To develop a baseline paleontological resources inventory of the Project Site and surrounding area and to assess the potential paleontological productivity of each stratigraphic unit present, the published and available unpublished geological and paleontological literature was reviewed; and stratigraphic and paleontological inventories were compiled, synthesized, and evaluated by the staff of the SBCM. These methods are consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines for assessing the importance of paleontological resources in areas of potential environmental effect. PCR also conducted a spot-check pedestrian survey of the Project Site to identify known resources and/or fossiliferous geological formations within the surveyed areas of Project Site. Since no known paleontological resources were identified on the surface within the Project Site, the research described above was conducted to assess the potential for the Project Site to contain buried paleontological resources.
(4) Tribal Cultural Resources
The City of Rialto has not received any formal written “request to consult” letters from Native American tribes or individuals pursuant to AB 52.
b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of the Project Initial Study, which is contained in Appendix A of this EIR. The Initial Study Environmental Checklist questions relating to cultural resources have been utilized as the thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project may create a significant environmental impact if it would result in one or more of the following:
Threshold 1: Would cause a substantial adverse change in the s ignificance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement CUL-1);
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Threshold 2: Would cause a substantial adverse change in the s ignificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement CUL-2); Threshold 3: Would directly or indirectly destroy a unique pal eontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (refer to Impact Statement CUL-3); Threshold 4: Would disturb any human remains, including those i nterred outside of formal cemeteries (refer to Impact Statement CUL-4); or
Threshold 5: Would cause a substantial adverse change in signi ficance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 (refer to Impact Statement CUL-5).
c. Project Design Features
No project design features are applicable to the cultural analysis below. d. Project Impacts
(1) Historical Resources
Threshold CUL-1 : A significant impact would occur if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
Impact Statement CUL-1: Implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Results of the records search revealed that five built environment historical resources have been recorded within a half-mile radius of the Project Site. These resources include an earthen irrigation ditch, a homestead (Micaleff family home), a postwar residential tract and commercial development (Muscoy No. 4), a water transportation feature, and a segment of the Union Pacific Railroad. None of these resources on or near the Project Site and would therefore not be impacted by the Project. Results of the site visit by PCR revealed the presence of several building foundations and a dry water reservoir located in the southeastern most corner of the Project Site.
However, these resources are located within PA-4 which is owned by the West Valley Water District. No development associated with the Project would occur in PA-4; therefore, the Project would not impact this resource.
No additional built environment historic resources were identified during the spot check pedestrian survey of the Project Site. Moreover, review of aerial photographs of the Project Site reveals that there are no additional built environment historical resources within the Project Site.
Therefore, the implementation of the Project or any future project -specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project would have no impact to historical resources.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) Archaeological Resources
Threshold CUL-2 : A significant impact would occur if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Impact Statement CUL-2: Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5. This impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
Results of the records search and site visit revealed that one historic period archaeological resource, P36-026760/CA-SBR-16908H, is located in the north-central portion of the Project Site on the eastern side of North Pepper Avenue. This resource consists of the remains of a historic period homestead that has been recommended by Jones et al. (2012b) as ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. PCR supports the eligibility recommendation by Jones et al. (2012) since there are no intact features associated with the original homestead site that are still extant. As a result, the impacts to resource P36-026760/CA-SBR-16908H from the Project or future Project-specific development proposals initiated under the Project would not be considered a significant impact on the environmental and no additional work is necessary at this resource.
Since PCR conducted a spot check pedestrian survey of the Project Site, it is possible that there are additional archaeological resources within the Project Site that have yet to be discovered.
Moreover, the Project Site is located within close proximity to a major water source (Lyle Creek) which attracted prehistoric and historic period inhabitants to the area who may have left remnants of their occupation. Review of historic aerial photographs reveals the historic period occupation of the Project Site as far back as 1938 and likely earlier. In addition, the record search results indicate that several historic period water control/management resources have been identified in close proximity to the Project Site and according to Mr. Andy Salas, the prehistoric Native American village of Waatsnga was located nearby. These factors demonstrate a moderate to high potential to encounter archaeological resources within the Project Site.
The Project would include significant ground-disturbing activities associated with future development proposals which could have a significant impact on both existing and unidentified archaeological resources within the Project Site. To mitigate such potential impacts, project-level surveys would need to be conducted to confirm if any previously unknown archaeological resources are located on individual development sites and if so, to verify their current condition, contents, and horizontal extent (across the surface); with appropriate treatment and/or preservation methods to be implemented, as necessary. These surveys and management practices are prescribed in Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to CUL-6 in subsection 4 below.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(3) Paleontological Resources
Threshold CUL-3: Would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Impact Statement CUL-3: Implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No impacts would occur in this regard.
No paleontological resources or fossiliferous geological units were identified during the site visit.
The results of the paleontological records search indicate that the Project Site is located within surface exposures of Holocene-aged (11,000 YBP to present day) wash sediments that overlie Holocene-aged younger alluvium. These sediments are not old enough to have potential for yielding paleontological resources. Therefore, the implementation of the Project or any future project -specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project would have no impact to paleontological resources.
(4) Human Remains
Threshold CUL-4: Would disturb any human remains, including those interred out side of formal cemeteries.
Impact Statement CUL-4: Implementation of the Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown human remains to a less than significant level.
As discussed earlier in this report, no known human remains have been identified from the CHRIS-SBAIC records within the Project Site or within the one-half mile buffer. Results of the SLF search through the NAHC also did not indicate known Native American cultural resources within the Project Site.
The site visit by ESA PCR did not reveal the presence of known human remains. Nonetheless, the Project Site is located within close proximity to a major water source (Lyle Creek) which would have attracted prehistoric and historic period inhabitants to the area who may have left remnants of their occupation. Review of historic aerial photographs reveals the historic period occupation of the Project Site as far back as 1938 and likely earlier. In addition, the record search results indicate that several historic period water control/management resources have been identified in close proximity to the Project Site and according to Mr. Andy Salas, the prehistoric Native American village of Waatsnga was located nearby. These factors demonstrate the moderate to high potential to encounter human remains within the Project Site; As a result, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 are prescribed.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Moreover, future Project-specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project that require excavation activities could potentially impact previously unknown human remains. As a result, Mitigation Measure CUL-7 is recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that are unexpectedly discovered during excavations to a less than significant level.
(5) Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold CUL-5: Would cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.
Impact Statement CUL-5: Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. This impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
The City of Rialto has not received any formal written “request to consult” letters from Native American tribes or individuals pursuant to AB 52. Nonetheless, the Project would include significant ground-disturbing activities associated with future development proposals which could have a significant impact unidentified tribal cultural resources within the Project Site. To mitigate such potential impacts, consultations with Native American tribes shall be initiated, if requested by the tribes; with appropriate treatment and/or preservation methods to be implemented, as necessary. This process is prescribed in Mitigation Measure CUL-8 in subsection 4 below. (4) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
The Project with implementation of mitigation measures would comply with applicable State regulations regarding cultural resources. Furthermore, the Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan regarding cultural resources, as discussed below in Table 4.D-1, Consistency of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Cultural Resources Policies of the General Plan. As shown in Table 4.D-1, impacts related to consistency with the Rialto General Plan regarding cultural resources would be less than significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.D-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
Goals/Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Policy 7-1.1: Protect the architectural, historical,
agricultural, open space, environmental, and
archaeological resources in Rialto.
Consistent. As described in Mitigation Measures CUL-1
through CUL-7, measures are prescribed to identify,
record, evaluate, and protect archaeological resources
within the Project Site.
Goal 7-3: Identify, document, and protect significant
archaeological resources in Rialto.
Consistent. As described in Mitigation Measure CUL-1
through CUL-7, measures are prescribed to identify,
record, evaluate, and protect archaeological resources
within the Project Site.
Policy 7-3.1: Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all project s in
archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.
Consistent. As described in Mitigation Measure CUL-1,
archaeological surveys are required in areas of the Project Site that have not been surveyed previously, or an
extended amount of time has passed since a prior survey was conducted.
Policy 7-3.2: Actively pursue a comprehensive survey
program to identify, document, and protect prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and sites containing Native American human remains.
Policy 7-3.3: Avoid impacts to potentially significant
prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains
consistent with State law.
Consistent. As described in Mitigation Measure CUL-1
through CUL-7, measures are prescribed to identify,
record, evaluate, and protect archaeological resources and human remains within the Project Site.
Policy 7-3.4: Reduce adverse impacts to significant
archaeological resources that cannot be protected in place through data recovery excavations.
Consistent. As described in Mitigation Measure CUL-3,
data recovery excavations are prescribed as an option to reduce adverse impacts to significant archaeological
resources that cannot be protected in place.
SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2016.
e. Cumulative Impacts
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR describes planned or recent related projects near the Project Site. Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map, illustrates the locations of all related projects. Related projects, in combination with the Project, have the potential to contribute to, or generate, cumulative impacts.
(1) Historical Resources
Many of the cumulative projects identified in Chapter 3would require demolition and excavation activities that could potentially expose or damage potential historical resources. However, in association with CEQA review, mitigation measures would be required for projects that have the potential to cause significant impacts to historical resources. Implementation of such mitigation measures would avoid significant impacts. Regardless, the Project would result in no impacts to historic resources. Therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative historic resources impacts.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) Archaeological Resources
Many of the cumulative projects identified in Chapter 3 would require excavation that could potentially expose or damage potential archaeological resources. However, these cumulative projects are primarily located in developed areas with sites that have been previously disturbed, and the potential to encounter and cause a significant impact on surface resources is unlikely.
Further, in association with CEQA review, and depending on the depth of excavation and sensitivity of respective sites, mitigation measures would be required for projects that have the potential to cause significant impacts to undiscovered resources. Implementation of such mitigation measures would avoid significant impacts. State requirements regarding impacts on archaeological resources and CEQA compliance require monitoring of excavation activities and treatment and/or curation of discovered resources where appropriate (CEQA Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Such standard construction practices, particularly over a range of project sites, provide for protection, recovery and curation of discovered resources and preserve their contributions to the knowledge base of past population activity in the area. For those projects not subject to CEQA review, there would be some potential for impacts on archaeological resources in the event there are excavations that extend into native soils.
Therefore, the cumulative effects from cumulative projects are considered potentially significant.
The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 which require additional studies at the Project Site and regulations cited above in the event resources are found, thus ensuring proper identification, treatment and preservation of any resources, and reducing significant impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant levels. These regulations require excavation monitoring, and treatment and curation of discoveries. Therefore, to the extent impacts on archaeological resources from cumulative projects may occur, further contribution from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
(3) Paleontological Resources
While cumulative projects would involve excavation in the Project vicinity with the potential to encounter paleontological resources, they would be expected to implement standard mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects on paleontological resources. Such measures would include a monitoring program and treatment/curation of discovered fossils. Further, the Project Site is located within surface exposures of Holocene-aged (11,000 YBP to present day) wash sediments that overlie Holocene-aged younger alluvium. These sediments are not old enough to have potential for yielding paleontological resources. Therefore, the implementation of the Project or any future Project-specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project would have no impact to paleontological resources nor would any cumulative impacts to paleontological resources occur.
(4) Human Remains
The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-7 and regulations cited above in the event resources are found, thus ensuring proper identification, treatment and preservation of any resources, and reducing significant impacts on human remains to less than significant levels.
These regulations require excavation monitoring, and treatment and curation of discoveries.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Therefore, to the extent impacts on human remains resources from cumulative projects may occur, further contribution from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant. (5) Tribal Cultural Resources
No known tribal cultural resources have been identified in the Project Site or nearby vicinity to date. In association with CEQA review, future AB 52 consultations with Native American tribes could identify tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures would be required for projects that have the potential to cause significant impacts to known or undiscovered tribal cultural resources and the implementation of such mitigation measures would avoid significant impacts. Further, the Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-8 which requires additional consultations with Native American groups regarding the identification of tribal cultural resources, if requested. Therefore, to the extent impacts on tribal cultural resources from cumulative projects may occur, further contribution from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
4. Mitigation Measures
a. Archaeological Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Conduct Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessments. For specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project that require excavation (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) or demolition activities, the City shall require Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessments on a project-by-project basis within the Specific Plan area to identify any archaeological resources within the footprint or immediate vicinity. The level of effort for a Phase I assessment shall include a Sacred Lands File search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and a full-coverage pedestrian survey of the Project Site. In addition, the assessment shall include a review available geotechnical studies, site plans, and drilling/grading studies to determine the nature and depth of the construction activities to assist in determining the depths of fill versus native soils across the improvement footprint. If no resources are identified as a result of the pedestrian survey, it does not preclude the existence of buried resources within the improvement footprint. If this is the case, a qualified archaeologist shall determine the potential for the Project to encounter buried resources during construction based on the results of the record searches, depth of native versus fill soils, and proposed excavation parameters.
The following scenarios shall be followed depending on the results of the Phase I assessment:
If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, then a Phase II evaluation shall be required, as described in CULT-2.
If no resources are identified as part of the assessment, no further analyses or mitigation shall be warranted, unless it can be determined that the Project has a moderate to high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources. If it is determined that there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources, appropriate mitigation such as archaeological and/or Native
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
American construction monitoring construction monitoring shall be required as described in CULT-4, -5, and -6.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Conduct a Phase II Archaeological/ Resources Evaluation. If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, a Phase II Archaeological Resources Evaluation may be warranted if impacts from the improvements cannot be avoided. The Phase II assessment shall evaluate the resource(s) for listing in the California Register and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to CEQA. If enough data is obtained from the Phase I assessment to conduct a proper evaluation, a Phase II evaluation may not be necessary. Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not limited to:
subsurface archaeological test excavations, additional background research, property history research, and coordination with Native Americans and other interested individuals in the community.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Conduct a Phase III Assessment if Resources are Eligible. If, as a result of the Phase II evaluation, resources are determined eligible for listing in the California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, potential impacts to the resources shall be analyzed and if impacts are significant (i.e., the improvement will cause a “substantial adverse change” to the resource) and cannot be avoided, mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented, such as archaeological data recovery excavations to reduce impacts to the resources to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring. If it is determined by the qualified archaeologist preparing the Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment that: 1) there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources; and 2) that construction monitoring is required during construction excavations such as clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the proposed improvements, then the City shall require future development/Project applicants on a project-by-project basis within the Specific Plan area to retain a qualified archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor who shall be present during construction excavation activities.
The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the archaeological monitor.
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the archaeologist. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources ar
e prehistoric in age) to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
excavations to remove the resource or preserve it in place. The Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources are prehistoric in age), shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered.
Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Prepare Archaeological Monitoring Report. The archaeological monitor shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA, and treatment of the resources.
b. Human Remains
Mitigation Measure CUL -7: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during construction exaction activities, the construction contractor shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The contractor and Project applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the landowner, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the landowner means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the landowner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and cultural items associated with Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. MLDs in the region typically recommend reburial of the remains as close to the original burial location as feasible accompanied by a ceremony.
The MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the Project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SBAIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the facility property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. A record of the reburial shall be filed with the NAHC and the CHRIS-SBAIC.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
c. Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-8: If a tribe formally requests, in writing, to be notified of future specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project, the City shall begin AB 52 consultations with those particular tribes for all future development proposals within the Project Site. The purpose of those consultations would be to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources from a given development proposal.
5. Level of Significance After Mitigation
a. Historic Resources
Not applicable. No impacts would to historic resources. b. Archaeological Resources
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures provide for appropriate treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. c. Paleontological Resources
Not applicable. As the sediments within the Project Site are not old enough to have potential for yielding paleontological resources, no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
d. Human Remains
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, the Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The implementation of the above mitigation measures provide for appropriate treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Potentially significant impacts to human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level.
e. Tribal Cultural Resources
With implementation of the prescribed mitigation above, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. The implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would provide for appropriate treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
6. References
Bean and Smith, 1978a. Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
_____.1978b. Serrano. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 570-574. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Chartkoff and Chartkoff, 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park: Stanford University Press.
City of Rialto, 2010. City of Rialto General Plan. Adopted December 2010. Accessed online at:
http://www.ci.rialto.ca.us/documents/downloads/General_Plan_Update_2010.pdf, July 2014.
Dice et al. 2004. Extended Cultural Resource Survey and Architecture Evaluation of Site CA- SBR-6706H within the Project Footprint of the Lytle Creek North Tentative Tract Map (Map #15900), County of San Bernardino, California. Prepared for Lytle Development Company. Michael Brandman and Associates, July 15, 2004. Unpublished report on file at CHRIS-SBAIC, Redlands, CA.
Dice, 2005. Final Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Pepper Street Specific Plan, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Report on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
2008. Cultural Resource Survey, Cultural Resource Significant Assessment, and Paleontological Records Review, North Pepper Avenue Extension Project , City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Report on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
George, 2009. Site Form for 36-021326. On file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
Grenda, 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Technical Series 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.
Heizer, 1978. California. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Jones et al., 2012a. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Pepper Avenue Extension Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. On file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
Jones et al., 2012b. Site form for CA-SBR-16908H/36-026760. On file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
Kowta, 1969. The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. Berkeley: University of California Publications in Anthropology 6.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
D. Cultural Resources
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.D-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
L. D. King, Inc., 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lytle Creek North Planned Development Project . SCH No. 99051013, Volume I. Report Prepared for Lytle Creek Land and Resources. Lead agency: County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department, Planning Division.
Moratto, 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.
Morris and Erlandson, 1993. 9,500 Year-Old Human Burial from CA-SRI-116, Santa Rosa Island. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 15(1):129-134.
SBAIC pending site, n.d. P1071-8H/Brooke School. Pending site sheet on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
Scott, 2014 . Paleontology Literature and Records Review, Peppe r Avenue Specific Plan Project , City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Report on file at PCR Services Corporation, Irvine, CA.
Wormer and Langenwalter, 1990. Lytle Creek Wash Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Resource Management Corp., January 9, 1990.
Wallace, 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
Warren, 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin-Williams, ed, pp. 1-4. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology. Portales.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Introduction
This section describes applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change in California and the City of Rialto. Existing climate conditions and influences on global climate change are also described, and an analysis is provided to assess potential cumulative and project related contributions to global climate change. The analysis accounts for energy and resource conservation measures that have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Project and pertinent State mandated GHG emission reduction measures. GHG emission calculations prepared for the Project are provided in Appendix A-1 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report.
2. Environmental Setting
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Historical records indicate that global climate changes have occurred in the past due to natural phenomena; however current data increasingly indicate that the current global conditions differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude. Global climate change attributable to anthropogenic (i.e., human) GHG emissions is currently one of the most important and widely debated scientific, economic and political issues in the United States and the world. The extent to which increased concentrations of GHGs have caused or will cause climate change and the appropriate actions to limit and/or respond to climate change are the subject of significant and rapidly evolving regulatory efforts at the federal and state levels of government.
GHGs are those compounds in the Earth’s atmosphere which play a critical role in determining temperature near the Earth’s surface. More specifically, these gases allow high-frequency shortwave solar radiation to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, but retain some of the low frequency infrared energy which is radiated back from the Earth towards space, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.
Not all GHGs possess the same ability to induce climate change; therefore, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in the units of equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (CO2e), as carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant GHG in the atmosphere. Mass GHG emissions are calculated by converting pollutant specific emissions to CO2e emissions by applying the proper global warming potential (GWP) value, tabulated in metric tons per year (IPCC, 1996). These GWP ratios are available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Historically, GHG emission inventories have been calculated using the GWPs from the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). The IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The updated GWPs in the IPCC AR4 have begun to be used in recent GHG emissions inventories. Typically, the GWP ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used as a baseline. The CO2e values are calculated for construction years as well as existing and Project build-out conditions in order to generate a net
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
change in GHG emissions for construction and operation. Compounds that are regulated as GHGs are discussed below.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): CO2 is the most abundant GHG in the atmosphere and is primarily generated from fossil fuel combustion from stationary and mobile sources. CO2 is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining the GWPs of other GHGs.
Methane (CH
4): CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources (i.e., resulting from the activity of living organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. The GWP of CH4 is 25 in the IPCC AR4.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O): N2O produced by human-related sources including agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of N2O is 298 in the IPCC AR4.
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Worldwide, annual man-made emissions of GHGs totaled approximately 49,000 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e including ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources and emissions from land use changes (e.g., deforestation) (IPCC, 2014). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes accounts for 65 percent of the total, while CO2 emissions from all sources accounts for 76 percent of the total. CH4 emissions account for 16 percent and N2O emissions for 6.2 percent. In 2013, the United States was the world’s second largest emitter of CO2 at 5,300 MMT (China was the largest emitter of CO2 at 10,300 MMT) (PBL Netherlands, 2014).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based on the 2014 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available from CARB), California emitted 441.5 MMT CO
2e including emissions resulting from
imported electrical power and 406.2 MMT CO2e excluding emissions related to imported power (CARB, 2016). Between 1990 and 2015, the population of California grew by approximately
9.3 million (from 29.8 to 39.1 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). This represents an increase of approximately 31.2 percent from 1990 population levels. In addition, the California economy, measured as gross state product, grew from $773 billion in 1990 to $2.46 trillion in 2015 representing an increase of approximately 218 percent (California Department of Finance, 2015).
Despite the population and economic growth, California’s net GHG emissions only grew by approximately 4 percent between 1990 and 2014. The California Energy Commission (CEC) attributes the slow rate of growth to the success of California’s renewable energy programs and its commitment to clean air and clean energy (CEC, 2006). Table 4.E-1, State of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions, identifies and quantifies statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks (e.g., carbon sequestration due to forest growth) in 1990 and 2014 (i.e., the most recent year in which data are available from CARB). As shown in Table 4.E-1, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to statewide GHG emissions at 37 percent in 2014.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.E-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Category
Total 1990
Emissions using
IPCC SAR
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of Total
1990 Emissions
Total 2014
Emissions
using IPCC AR4
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of
Total 2014
Emissions
Transportation 150.7 35% 159.5 37%
Electric Power 110.6 26% 88.2 20%
Commercial 14.4 3% 13.6 5%
Residential 29.7 7% 24.7 6%
Industrial 103.0 24% 93.3 24%
Recycling and Waste a – – 8.9 2%
High GWP/Non-Specified b 1.3 <1% 17.2 4%
Agriculture/Forestry 23.6 6% 36.1 8%
Forestry Sinks -6.7 -- c - -
Net Total (IPCC SAR) 426.6 100% -- --
Net Total (IPCC AR4) d 431 100% 441.5 100%
a Included in other categories for the 1990 emissions inventory. b High GWP gases are not specifica lly called out in the 1990 emissions inventory. c Revised methodology under devel opment (not reported for 2013). d CARB revised the State’s 1990 level GHG emissions using GWPs f rom the IPCC AR4.
Sources: California Air Resources Board, Staff Report – California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit, (2007); California Air Resources Board, “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2014 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category – Summary,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed August 2016.
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy to address GHGs. The federal government administers a wide array of public- private partnerships to reduce the GHG intensity generated in the United States. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane and other non-CO2 gases, agricultural practices, and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. The USEPA implements numerous voluntary programs that contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.
These programs (e.g., the Energy Star labeling system for energy-efficient products) play a significant role in encouraging voluntary reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings, and many major industrial sectors. (2) State
California has promulgated a series of executive orders, laws, and regulations aimed at reducing both the level of GHGs in the atmosphere and emissions of GHGs from commercial and private activities within the State.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
a. California Air Resources Board
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan, for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts. The State Implementation Plan is required for the State to take over implementation of the federal Clean Air Act.
b. Executive Order S-3-05
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following GHG emission reduction targets:
By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Secretary of CalEPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Representatives from these agencies comprise the California Climate Action Team (CAT). The CAT provides biennial reports to the Governor and Legislature on the state of GHG reductions in the state as well as strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The first CAT Report to the Governor and the Legislature in 2006 contained recommendations and strategies to help meet the targets in Executive Order S 3-05 (CalEPA, 2006). The 2010 CAT Report, finalized in December 2010, expands on the policy oriented 2006 assessment. The new information detailed in the CAT Report includes development of revised climate and sea-level projections using new information and tools that have become available in the last two years; and an evaluation of climate change within the context of broader social changes, such as land-use changes and demographic shifts. c. Executive Order B-30-15
California Governor Edmund G. Brown issued on April 29, 2015, through Executive Order B-30- 15, the following GHG emission reduction target:
By 2030, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Executive Order B-30-15 represents the most aggressive emissions reduction benchmark by any government in North America. Executive Order B-30-15 aligns California's greenhouse gas reduction targets with those of leading international governments of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
d. California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, Nunez) (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, focusing on reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. As required by AB 32, CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was originally set at 427 MMT CO
2e using the GWP values from the IPCC SAR. CARB
also projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under business-as-usual (BAU) conditions – that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions. CARB originally used an average of the state’s GHG emissions from 2002 through 2004 and projected the 2020 levels at approximately 596 MMTCO 2e (using GWP values from the
IPCC SAR). Therefore, under the original projections, the state must reduce its 2020 BAU emissions by 28.4 percent in order to meet the 1990 target of 427 MMTCO2e. In 2014, CARB revised the target using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4 and determined that the 1990 GHG emissions inventory and 2020 GHG emissions limit is 431 MMTCO2e. CARB also updated the State’s 2020 BAU emissions estimate to account for the effect of the 2007–2009 economic recession, new estimates for future fuel and energy demand, and the reductions required by regulation that were recently adopted for motor vehicles and renewable energy. CARB’s revised 2020 BAU emissions estimate using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4 is 509.4 MMTCO 2e.
Therefore, the emission reductions necessary to achieve the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e would be 78.4 MMTCO2e, or a reduction of GHG emissions by approximately 15.4 percent. A summary of the GHG emissions reductions required under AB 32 is provided in Table
4.E-2, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Required by AB 32.
TABLE 4.E-2
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS REQUIRED BY AB 32 Emissions Category GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)
2008 Scoping Plan (IPCC SAR)
2020 BAU Forecast (CARB 2008 Scoping Plan Estimate) 596 2020 Emissions Target Set by AB 32 (i.e., 1990 level) 427 Reduction below Business-As-Usual necessary to achieve
1990 levels by 2020
169 (28.4%) a
2011 Scoping Plan (IPCC AR4)
2020 BAU Forecast (CARB 2011 Scoping Plan Estimate) 509.4 2020 Emissions Target Set by AB 32 (i.e., 1990 level) 431 Reduction below Business-As-Usual necessary to achieve
1990 levels by 2020
78.4 (15.4%) b
MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents a 596 – 427 = 169 / 596 = 28.4%
b 509.4 – 431 = 78.4 / 509.4 = 15.4%
Source: California Air Resources Board, Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED), Attachment D, August 19, 2011; California Air Resources Board, 2020 Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection, 2014 Edition, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Accessed November 2015.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
AB 32 defines GHGs as CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 and represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit emissions of these GHGs from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. The law further requires that reduction measures be technologically feasible and cost effective. Under AB 32, CARB has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions. CARB is required to adopt rules and regulations directing state actions that would achieve GHG emissions reductions equivalent to 1990 statewide levels by 2020. e. California Assembly Bill No. 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley), (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO2 emissions, AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is non-commercial personal transportation manufactured in and after 2009. In setting these standards, CARB must consider cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, economic impacts, and provide maximum flexibility to manufacturers.
However, as discussed previously, the USEPA and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) have adopted federal standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles.
In light of the USEPA and USDOT standards, California has agreed to defer to the proposed national standard through model year 2016. The 2016 endpoint of the federal and state standards is similar, although the federal standard ramps up slightly more slowly than required under the state standard. The state standards (called the Pavley standards) require additional reductions in CO2 emissions beyond model year 2016 (referred to as Pavley Phase II standards). On November 15, 2012, CARB approved an amendment that allows manufacturers to comply with the 2017- 2025 national standards to meet state law.
f. Executive Order S-01-07
Executive Order S-01-07 was enacted by the Governor on January 18, 2007. The order mandates the following: (1) that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020; and (2) that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established in California. g. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97, Dutton) (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007) Senate Bill (SB) 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007), enacted in 2007, amended CEQA to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directed the California Office of Planning and Research to develop revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions” and directed the Resources Agency to certify and adopt these revised State CEQA Guidelines by January 2010.
h. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375, Steinberg) (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. Under SB 375, CARB is required, in consultation with each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the State, to set regional GHG reduction targets for
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
the passenger vehicle and light-duty truck sector for 2020 and 2035. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated MPO under federal law and Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law for the County of San Bernardino. As a result, San Bernardino County is subject to the GHG reduction requirements of SB 375. i. Title 24, Building Standards Code and CALGreen Code
The CEC first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1, 2014. The 2016 California Energy Code is currently under review and the updated version will be effective on January 1, 2017.
j. Renewables Portfolio Standard
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor- owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expands the State's Renewables Portfolio Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020.
Pursuant to Executive Order S‐21‐09, CARB was also preparing regulations to supplement the Renewables Portfolio Standard with a Renewable Energy Standard that will result in a total renewable energy requirement for utilities of 33 percent by 2020. But on April 12, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB X1-2 to increase California’s RPS to 33 percent by 2020. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statues of 2015), signed into law on October 7, 2015, further increased the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030. The legislation also included interim targets of 40 percent by 2024 and 45 percent by 2027.
(3) Local
a. SCAQMD
As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a CEQA significance threshold, interim or otherwise, for GHG emissions associated with residential/commercial development, such as the Project. b. County of San Bernardino General Plan
The County of San Bernardino’s General Plan does not contain a Greenhouse Gas Element nor a Climate Change Element, however one policy related to Greenhouse Gasses is discussed in the Air Quality Element:
Policy CO 4.13: Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions within the County boundaries.
Programs:
1. Emission Inventories. The County will prepare GHG emissions inventories including emissions produced by: (1) the County’s operational activities, services and facilities, over which the County has direct responsibility and control, and (2) private industry and development, that is located within the area subject to the County’s discretionary land use authority.
a) Establish an inventory of existing GHG emissions.
b) Establish a projected inventory for year 2020.
2. GHG Emissions Reduction Plan . The County will adopt a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan that includes:
a) Measures to reduce GHG emissions attributable to the County’ s operational activities, services and facilities, over which the County has direct responsibility and control; and,
b) Measures to reduce GHG emissions produced by private industr y and development that is located within the area subject to the County’s discretionary land use authority and ministerial building permit authority; and,
c) Implementation and monitoring procedures to provide periodic review of the plan’s progress and allow for adjustments over time to ensure fulfillment of the plan’s objectives.
c. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan In response to initiatives for the reduction of GHG emissions, a partnership led by the San Bernardino Associated Governments, in cooperation with 21 cities within the County (including the City of Rialto), compiled an inventory of GHG emissions and provided an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 21 Partnership Cities of San Bernardino County called the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (SBC Reduction Plan). Published in March 2014, the SBC Reduction Plan includes a comprehensive analysis and inventory of GHG emissions within the unincorporated County areas and emissions from County government operations within municipalities, 2020 forecasted emissions, a set of reduction measures used to reduce 2020 emission levels down to the reduction targets for the County, and a
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
monitoring and updating framework designed to keep the County on track toward achieving the reduction targets.
Each of the 21 partnership cities participating in the SBC Reduction Plan has adopted a series of city-specific GHG reduction measures in order to meet each individual city’s reduction goal. The reduction measures adopted by each city, such as the City of Rialto, are incorporated into the SBC Reduction Plan to serve as a foundation upon which each individual jurisdiction may decide to develop its own customized and comprehensive climate action plan. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) anticipates that individual cities may choose to use the plan to complete and adopt their own climate action plans with individual programs and policies tailored to each city’s needs.
d. City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto’s General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to GHG reductions and climate change are as follows:
Goal 2-38: Mitigate against climate change.
Policy 2-38.1: Consult with State agencies, SCAG, and the SANBAG to implement AB 32 and SB 375 by utilizing incentives to facilitate infill and transit-oriented development.
Policy 2-38.2: Encourage development of transit-oriented and infill development, and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation in Downtown and along Foothill Boulevard.
Policy 2-38.3: Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Policy 2-38.4: The City shall participate in the San Bernardino Regional Greenhouse Inventory and Reduction Plan.
3. Environmental Impacts
a. Methodology
The evaluation of potential impacts to GHG emissions that may result from the construction and long-term operations of the Project is conducted as follows:
(1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For the purposes of this EIR, total GHG emissions from the Project were quantified to determine whether the emissions would substantially help or hinder the state’s ability to attain the goals identified in AB 32 (i.e., reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020). As stated above, the mandate of AB 32 demonstrates California’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions and the state’s associated contribution to climate change, without intending to limit population or economic growth within the state.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The California Climate Action Reserve (CCAR) has prepared the General Reporting Protocol for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from a number of general and industry-specific activities. No specific protocols are available for land use projects, so the General Reporting Protocol has been adapted to address GHG emissions from the Project. The information provided in this section is consistent with the General Reporting Protocol minimum reporting requirements. The General Reporting Protocol recommends the separation of GHG emissions into three categories that reflect different aspects of ownership or control over emissions. They include:
Scope 1: Direct, on-site combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas, propane, gasoline, and diesel).
Scope 2: Indirect, off-site emissions associated with purchased electricity or purchased steam. Scope 3: Indirect emissions associated with other emissions sources, such as third-party vehicles and embodied energy.1
CARB believes that consideration of so-called indirect emissions provides a more complete picture of the GHG footprint of a facility: “As facilities consider changes that would affect their emissions – addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it increases direct emissions, for example – the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by the facility should be monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation awareness of the facility and provides information” to CARB to be considered for future strategies by the industrial sector. For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements.
Additionally, the Office of Planning and Research directs lead agencies to “make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate…GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities.” Therefore, direct and indirect emissions have been calculated for the Project.
For purposes of this analysis, it is considered reasonable and consistent with criteria pollutant calculations to consider those GHG emissions resulting from Project-related incremental (net) increase in the use of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, and natural gas compared to existing conditions. This includes Project construction activities such as site preparation, grading, hauling, and construction worker trips. This analysis also considers indirect GHG emissions from water conveyance, wastewater generation, and solid waste handling. Since potential impacts resulting from GHG emissions are long-term rather than acute, GHG emissions are calculated on an annual basis. In order to report total GHG emissions using the CO 2e metric, the GWP ratios
corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used in this analysis.
Construction activity that would occur as a result of the Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from construction sites. Specific project- level developments are not proposed as part of the Specific Plan. As a result, specific project-
1 Embodied energy includes energy required for water pumping and treatment for end-uses.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
level information, such as construction schedules and import and export soil quantities, are not known. For the purposes of conducting a programmatic assessment of the Project, construction- and operation-related GHG impacts are qualitatively assessed by evaluating consistency with applicable CARB and SCAQMD measures to reduce emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The analysis of a project’s impact on GHG emissions during long-term project operations typically considers emissions from mobile sources, stationary area point sources, energy and water demand, and wastewater and solid waste generation. Operational air quality impacts are assessed based on the incremental net increase in emissions compared to the existing baseline conditions.
The incremental net change in operational emissions are estimated using CARB’s updated version of the on-road vehicle emissions factor (EMFAC) model and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software. Mobile source emissions are estimated based on CARB’s updated version of the EMFAC model. The most recent version is EMFAC2014, which represents CARB's current understanding of motor vehicle travel activities and their associated emission levels. Mobile source emissions are based on the CalEEMod generated VMT estimates, obtained from the trip generation rates provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project (Urban Crossroads, 2016). The emission factors from EMFAC2014 are applied to the VMT to obtain mobile source emissions. See Chapter 4.B, Air Quality, for more information.
With regard to energy usage, the consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity and to provide heating and hot water generates GHG emissions. Fuel consumption is estimated based on specific square footage of the commercial, retail, and residential land uses, as well as predicted water supply needs of the Project. Energy usage (electricity and natural gas consumption) for the Project is calculated within CalEEMod using the CEC’s CEUS data set. This data set provides energy intensities of different land uses throughout the state and different climate zones.
However, since the data from the CEUS is from 2002, the CalEEMod software incorporates correction factors to account for compliance with the 2008 Title 24 Building Standards Code.
Water demand and wastewater generated from the Project require energy to supply, distribute and treat.
Emissions from solid waste handling generated as a result of the Specific Plan are also accounted for in the GHG emissions inventory.
Operational GHG impacts are assessed based on the Project-related incremental increase in GHG emissions compared to baseline conditions. Under CEQA, the baseline environmental setting is established at the time that environmental assessment commences. The net change in Project VMT is based on the Project VMT minus the existing VMT. Similarly, the net change in the Project’s energy, waste, and water GHG emissions are based on the Project’s emissions minus the emissions from the existing land uses. However, since the Project Site in its current state is mostly vacant, net operational emissions are considered net new emissions as a result of full buildout of the Specific Plan. Detailed GHG emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A-1 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As previously discussed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of the EIR, the Specific Plan consists of two future development scenarios. For the purpose of this analysis, Project impacts will be analyzed based on these two different development scenarios of the Specific Plan. Scenario 1 would consist of the development of community commercial, open space, and public facility uses on the Project Site.
Scenario 2 would consist of the development of community commercial, open space, and public facility uses, as well as the development of a residential overlay that would transfer retail uses to open space area.
(2) Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Policies, and Actions In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the Office and Planning and Research encourages lead agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. The SCAQMD has not established numerical significance thresholds for quantitatively determining GHG emission impacts in accordance with the CEQA criteria listed below. The County of San Bernardino has adopted the SBC Reduction Plan as recommended in the relevant amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The SBC Reduction Plan includes city-specific reduction measures for the City of Rialto; thus, consistency with the City’s reduction measures would result in the Project’s consistency with the overall SBC Reduction Plan. In addition, the City of Rialto has adopted the CALGreen Code that requires applicable projects to implement energy efficiency measures. The California CAT Report provides recommendations for specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. Thus, if the Project is designed in accordance with these policies and regulations, it would result in a less than significant impact, since it would be consistent with the overarching State regulations on GHG reduction (AB 32).
b. Thresholds of Significance
For purposes of this EIR, the City of Rialto has utilized the checklist questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance to determine whether a project would have a significant environmental impact regarding GHG emissions. Based on applicable Project components and Appendix G questions, the Project would result in a significant impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions if the Project would:
Threshold 1: Generate greenhou se gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance (refer to Impact Statement GHG-1).
Threshold 2: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regu lation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement GHG-2).
As noted previously, the increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has been linked to global warming, which can lead to climate change. Construction and operation of the Project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with other past, present, and future
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of the Project’s GHG emissions are analyzed here on a cumulative basis.
The California Supreme Court recently considered the CEQA issue of determining the significance of GHG emissions in its decision, Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (CBD vs. CDFW). The Court questioned a common CEQA approach to GHG analyses for development projects that compares project emissions to the reductions from BAU that will be needed statewide to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by AB 32. The court upheld the BAU method as valid in theory, but concluded that the BAU method was improperly applied in the case of the Newhall project because the target for the project was incorrectly deemed consistent with the statewide emission target of 29 percent below BAU for the year 2020. In other words, the court said that the percent below BAU target developed by the AB 32 Scoping Plan is intended as a measure of the GHG reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and it cannot necessarily be applied to the impacts of a specific project in a specific location. The Court provided some guidance to evaluating the cumulative significance of a proposed land use project’s GHG emissions, but noted that none of the approaches could be guaranteed to satisfy CEQA for a particular project. The Court’s suggested “pathways to compliance” include:
1. Use a geographically specific GHG emission reduction plan (e.g., climate action plan) that outlines how the jurisdiction will reduce emissions consistent with State reduction targets, to provide the basis for streamlining project-level CEQA analysis, as described in CEQA § 15183.5.
2. Utilize the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual reduction goal, but provide substantial evidence to bridge the gap between the statewide goal and the project’s emissions reductions;
3. Assess consistency with AB 32‘s goal in whole or part by loo king to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities; as an example, the Court points out that projects consistent with an SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) may need to re-evaluate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.
4. Rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GH G emissions, such as those developed by an air district.
According to the SBC Reduction Plan, following completion and approval of its Program EIR, partnership cities may adopt the regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) or Reduction Plan as their local CAP. The City of Rialto, as one of the 21 partnership cities of San Bernardino County, has adopted the CEQA-qualified SBC Reduction Plan, in absence of developing its own local CAP at this time, and will implement the City-specific reduction measures outlined in the Plan as project design features, as applicable. Therefore, Compliance Pathway #1, listed above, is a viable method for determining significance for this project and will be used in the following analysis. c. Project Design Features
The Specific Plan encourages the implementation of realistic sustainable design strategies into the Project design, which would reduce GHG emissions. As discussed in Chapter 4, Design
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Guidelines, of the Specific Plan, sustainable design strategies that may be utilized in the Specific Plan include the following:
(1) Site Planning
Elements of sustainable design and site planning may include, but not be limited to, the following:
Encourage developing a Traffic Demand Management program that supports alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.
Provide physical linkages throughout the Project Site that promote bicycling and walking. Concentrate development near local services and amenities. Encourage shared parking where determined possible.
(2) Energy Efficiency
Most buildings can reach energy efficiency levels that exceed California Title 24 standards, yet many only strive to meet the standard. It is reasonable to strive for energy reduction in excess of that required by Title 24 standards. At a minimum, all projects would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards. Where feasible and appropriate, the following strategies are encouraged, but not required:
Passive design strategies can dramatically affect building energy performance. These measures include, but are not limited to, building shape and orientation, passive solar design, and the use of natural lighting.
Incorporate the use of low-E windows or use Energy Star windows. Use a properly sized and energy-efficient heating/cooling system in conjunction with a thermally efficient building shell.
Consider utilizing light colors for wall finish materials. Install high R-value wall and ceiling insulation.
Installation of solar water heating systems that use rooftop solar technologies to offset natural gas use.
Encouragement for new commercial businesses to install rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. Encouragement of new commercial and industrial facilities greater than 100,000 SF to install co-generation facilities that combine heat and power systems for energy output.
Development within the Project is encouraged to implement some of the strategies of the Energy Star program, which is an energy performance rating system developed by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The program certifies products and buildings that meet strict energy-efficiency guidelines. Involvement in the Energy Star program would be completely optional at the discretion of the developer/builder.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(3) Materials Efficiency
Select sustainable construction materials and products by evaluating characteristics such as reused and recycled content, zero or low off gassing of harmful air emissions, zero or low toxicity, sustainably-harvested materials, high recyclability, durability, longevity, and local production. Such products promote resource conservation and efficiency. Using recycled-content products also helps develop markets for recycled materials that are being diverted from California’s landfills, as mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act. Encourage the use of low VOC paints and wallpapers.
Encourage the use of low VOC Green Label carpet.
Use dimensional planning and other material efficiency strategies. These strategies reduce the amount of building materials needed and cut construction costs. Design with adequate space to facilitate recycling collection and to incorporate a solid waste management program that prevents waste generation.
Establish a construction waste recycling program with a local waste management company, with a goal of recycling no less than 50 percent of the construction waste generated by construction of the project. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris does not contribute to this requirement.
The waste disposal company shall be responsible for providing recycle bin(s) to facilitate recycling.
(4) Water Efficiency
Elements of water efficiencies may include, but not be limited to, the following:
Minimize water usage by installing ultra low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads and other water conserving fixtures.
Use state-of-the-art irrigation controllers and self-closing nozzles on hoses. Minimize turf areas within the community.
Use a climate driven plant selection that specifies native, non-invasive, and drought tolerant plants requiring minimal or no irrigation.
Use green waste mulch and soil amendments to retail soil moisture. d. Project Impacts
(1) GHG Emissions
Threshold GHG-1: A significant impact would occur if the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a s ignificant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Impact Statement GHG-1: The Project would generate GHG emissions due to construction and operational activities; however, the net increase in annual GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, would be consistent with the City of Rialto GHG reduction measures and SBC Reduction Plan. Therefore, as the Project would be consistent with the applicable City’s goals and actions for GHG emissions, GHG emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant.
Construction activities of the Project would generate temporary, short-term emissions of GHGs during site preparation, grading, building construction, and architectural coating activities.
Information regarding project-specific development would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. It is recognized that construction-related GHG emissions from implementing specific projects would “occur over a relatively short-term period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions” (SCAQMD, 2008). Construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State and SCAQMD regulations including the CARB on-road and off-road vehicle rules that limit idling to five minutes and require construction fleets to meet stringent exhaust standards. Compliance with these regulations would minimize construction GHG emissions.
Operation of the land uses developed pursuant to implementation of the Specific Plan would result in area and mobile source emissions generated by future development and population growth. According to the Project CalEEMod outputs based on the trip generation rates of the Traffic Impact Analysis, the annual VMT would be approximately 40.1 million miles for Scenario 1 and approximately 46.3 million miles for Scenario 2. Since the current land uses existing on the parcels are mostly vacant and undeveloped, it is assumed that the Specific Plan would not involve demolition and all operational emissions generated represent net new emissions for the Project. Operational uses on the Project Site could be active as early as 2017, and the Project is anticipated to be fully built out and operational in 2035. Table 4.E-3 and Table
4.E-4 shows annual GHG emissions from the full operation of the Project in 2035 under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Specific Plan will need to demonstrate the incorporation of project design features in order to achieve a regional emissions reduction goal outlined in the SBC Reduction Plan, and a reduction of state-wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, pursuant to AB 32. Table 4.E-5 shows the applicable GHG reduction measures selected by the City of Rialto in order to meet its local goal of reducing GHG emissions to a level of 15 percent below its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2020, and their consistency and applicability with the Project. The City of Rialto reduction measures evaluated below are adopted directly from the SBC Reduction Plan. Therefore, Project consistency with the City of Rialto reduction measures below would indicate consistency with the SBC Reduction Plan.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.E-3
SCENARIO 1 – ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS AT BULIDOUT YEAR 2035 Emission Sources
Estimated Emissions
CO2e (MT/yr)
Construction
Annual Mitigated Construction
(amortized over 30 years)a
15 Operations
Area <1
Energy (Electricity) 4,026
Energy (Natural Gas) 1,001
Mobile 4,368
Water Use 332
Solid Waste 122
Total GHG Emissions 9,864
a According to SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold R ule, construction emissions will be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016
TABLE 4.E-4
SCENARIO 2 – ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS AT BULIDOUT YEAR 2035 Emission Sources
Estimated Emissions
CO2e (MT/yr)
Construction
Annual Mitigated Construction
(amortized over 30 years)a
23 Operations
Area 71
Energy (Electricity) 4,319
Energy (Natural Gas) 1,140
Mobile 8,193
Water Use 391
Solid Waste 168
Total GHG Emissions 14,305
a According to SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold R ule, construction emissions will be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.E-5
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF RIALTO REDUCTION MEASURES Measure Number Measure Description Consistency Analysis State-1 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS):
Obligates utility and energy service providers
to procure 33% of retail sales from eligible
renewable sources by 2020.
Consistent. The Project would be provided
energy by Southern California Edison, which
is subject to the RPS standard for renewable
energy.
State-2 Title 24 (Energy Efficiency Standards):
Requires that building shells and building
components be designed to conserve energy
and water. 2013 T24 standards represent a
21% and 30% increase in energy efficiency
for residential and non-residential buildings,
respectively.
Consistent. The Project has incorporated
Title 24 measures in its project design and
modeling scenarios. The GHG emissions
presented above demonstrate
implementation of Title 24.
State-3 AB 1109 (Lighting Efficiency and Toxics
Reduction Act): Structured to reduce
statewide electricity consumption by 1) at
least 50% reduction from 2007 levels for
indoor residential lighting, and 2) at least 25%
reduction from 2007 levels for indoor
commercial and outdoor lighting, by 2018.
Consistent. The Project would be subject to
AB 1109, as required by the CEC. Therefore,
the Project is consistent with this regulation
and would not conflict with implementation of
reduced lighting energy standards.
State-4 AB 1470 Solar Water Heating: Creates a
$25 million per year, 10‐year incentive
program to encourage the installation of solar
water heating systems that offset natural gas
use in homes and businesses throughout the
state.
Consistent. The Project encourages the
installation of solar water heating systems
that use rooftop solar technologies to offset
natural gas use, where feasible and
appropriate.
State-6 AB 1493 (Pavley) and Executive Order S-1-
07 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard): AB 1493
will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles
and light duty trucks by 30% from 2002 levels
by the year 2016. The Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS) reduces GHG emissions by
requiring a low carbon intensity of
transportation fuels sold in California by at
least 10% by the year 2020.
Consistent. The Project is not a vehicle
manufacturer or refinery that produces fuels,
therefore the Project has no direct control
over AB 1493 and LCFS reductions.
However, as the Project tenants would be
purchasing and operating vehicles that are
governed by AB 1493 and LCFS reductions,
it would not conflict with the implementation.
State-7 AB 32 Transportation Reduction
Strategies: AB 32 Scoping Plan includes
vehicle efficiency measures that focus on
maintenance practices, including engine
efficiency, vehicle technology improvements,
and fuel usage reduction.
Consistent. The Project is not a vehicle
manufacturer that incorporates vehicle
technology improvements, therefore the
Project has no direct control over AB 32
reductions. However, as the Project tenants
would be purchasing and operating vehicles
that are governed by AB 32 reductions, it
would not conflict with the implementation.
State-8 Executive Order S-1-07 (LCFS): Requires a
10% reduction in the carbon intensity of
California’s transportation fuels by 2020.
Consistent. The Project is not a vehicle
manufacturer or refinery that produces fuels,
therefore the Project has no direct control
over LCFS reduction. However, as the
Project tenants would be purchasing and
operating vehicles that are governed by
LCFS reduction, it would not conflict with the
implementation
PS-1 GHG Performance Standard for New
Development: This measure would include a
performance standard for new private
developments as part of the discretionary
approval process under CEQA. New projects
would be required to quantify project‐
generated GHG emissions and adopt feasible
reduction measures to reduce project
emissions to a level which is a certain
percent belo
w BAU project emissions.
Consistent. As a new development, the
Project would be subject to the performance
standard measures adopted by the City of
Rialto. The Project includes sustainable
design strategies that will be implemented in
the development, which would reduce
Project-related GHG emissions to meet the
City’s reduction goal. Therefore, the Project
would be consistent with this standard.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Measure Number Measure Description Consistency Analysis Energy-5 Solar Installations for New Commercial:
Encourage new businesses to install rooftop
solar using Power Purchase Agreements and
other low or zero up‐front cost options for
installing solar photovoltaic systems. This
measure only affects new nonresidential
buildings.
Consistent. The Project encourages new
commercial businesses to install rooftop solar
photovoltaic systems, where feasible and
appropriate, to offset electricity provided by
utilities.
Energy-9 Install Co‐Generation Facilities: Co‐
generation facilities simultaneously generate
electricity and useful heat, typically used in
district heating systems. As feasible,
encourage co‐generation facilities to supply
15% of building energy in new commercial
and industrial facilities greater than 100,000
square feet.
Consistent. The Project encourages new
commercial and industrial facilities greater
than 100,000 SF to install co-generation
facilities that combine heat and power
systems for energy output, where feasible
and appropriate.
Transportation-1 SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS): SB 375 requires regional
transportation plans (RTPs), developed by
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
to incorporate a SCS in their RTPs. The goal
of the SCS is to reduce regional VMT through
land use planning and consequent
transportation patterns.
Consistent. The Project identifies
sustainable design features that will
encourage sustainable transportation efforts,
including a Traffic Demand Management
program that supports alternatives to single
occupancy vehicle use and physical linkages
that promote bicycling and walking.
Transportation-2 Smart Bus Technologies: Smart Bus
Technologies include Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL) systems and real‐time
passenger information at bus stations.
Implementing these technologies system‐
wide on all bus routes serving San
Bernardino Valley would enable information
sharing, enhance rider services, and attract
potential riders.
Consistent. The Project identifies
sustainable design features that will
encourage sustainable transportation efforts,
including a Traffic Demand Management
program that supports alternatives to single
occupancy vehicle use and physical linkages
that promote bicycling and walking.
OffRoad-1 Electric‐Powered Construction
Equipment: Offer incentives to construction
contractors that utilize electric equipment in a
certain percentage of their fleet.
Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure AIR-1 would require all off-road
construction equipment to have USEPA
certified Tier 4 engines or engines that are
certified to meet or exceed the emission
ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines, resulting in
a comparable emissions reduction to electric-
powered construction equipment.
OffRoad-2 Idling Ordinance: Adopt an Ordinance that
limits idling time for heavy‐duty construction
equipment beyond CARB or local air district
regulations. California state law currently
requires all off-road equipment fleets to limit
idling to no more than 5 minutes.
Consistent. As required by state law,
construction equipment used during
construction would be idle for no more than 5
minutes. Therefore, the Project is consistent
with the state law regarding off-road
equipment idling limits.
Water-1 Require Tier 1 Voluntary CALGreen
Standards for New Construction:
Recommend use of certain water‐efficient
appliances, and plumbing and irrigation
systems, as well as more aggressive water
savings targets, including A 30‐40%
reduction over B
AU conditions in indoor
water use, and a 55‐60% reduction in outdoor
potable water use
Consistent. The Project includes the
installation of water efficiency measures,
such as low-water irrigation, water-efficient
plumbing, and rainwater/graywater systems,
as elements of its sustainable design
features. Therefore, the Project is consistent
with this water conservation standard.
Water-3 Water‐Efficient Landscaping Practices:
Encourage water‐efficient landscaping
practices. Adopt a landscaping water
conservation plan that exceeds the
requirements in the Model Landscape
Ordinance.
Consistent. The Project includes the use of
water irrigation controllers and drought
tolerant plants as elements of its sustainable
design features. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with this water conservation
standard.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Measure Number Measure Description Consistency Analysis Water-4 SB X7‐7 Water Conservation Act of 2009:
SB X7‐7 was enacted in November 2009 and
requires urban water agencies throughout
California to increase conservation to achieve
a statewide goal of a 20 percent reduction in
urban per capita use by December 31, 2020.
Consistent. The Project is not an urban
water agency, and therefore the Project has
no direct control over this reduction.
However, as the Project tenants would be
supplied water by West Valley Water District
that is governed by this reduction, it would
not conflict with the implementation.
As shown in Table 4.E-5, the Project with the implementation of the applicable sustainable design strategies would be consistent with the City of Rialto reduction measures that would reduce GHG emissions to meet the City goal of 15 percent below its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2020. The measures would be implemented on a project-by-project basis as applicable to each individual project within the Specific Plan.
With implementation of these sustainable design strategies into the Specific Plan, the Project would be consistent with SBC Reduction Plan, according to CEQA § 15183.5 in Compliance Pathway #1 described above. Thus, the Project would reduce GHG emissions consistent with the SBC Regional Plan and would result in GHG emissions that would be considered a less than significant impact.
(2) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
Threshold GHG-2: A significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict w i t h a n y applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Impact Statement GHG-2: The Project would be consistent with the AB 32 goals and CARB guidelines for assessing GHG emissions. Further, the Project would include land use characteristics and design strategies that would be consistent with State, Regional, and Local Regulations for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, as the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, impacts regarding greenhouse gas reduction plans would be less than significant.
a. Consistency with SBC Reduction Plan
The SBC Reduction Plan was created as a tool for inventorying municipal GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 21 Partnership Cities to reduce local GHG emissions. The SBC Reduction Plan presents the collective results of all local efforts to reduce GHG emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets expressed in AB 32, which calls for a reduction of state-wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and SB 375, which requires regional transportation planning to promote reductions in passenger and light duty vehicle emissions.
The SBC Reduction Plan outlines reduction measures for each city to reduce its GHG emissions to the state-wide reduction goals. The City of Rialto’s reduction measures that are applicable to
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
the Project are shown in Table 4.E-5. By meeting the reduction measures selected by the City of Rialto, the Project would be consistent with the statewide GHG targets indicated in AB 32 and the transportation planning goals indicated in SB 375. As discussed under Impact Statement GHG-1, with implementation of the Specific Plan’s sustainable design strategies, the Project would not conflict with the SBC Reduction Plan.
b. Consistency with California Green Building Standards Code In addition, the Project would incorporate strategies and measures that would reduce GHG emissions by increasing energy-efficiency building requirements, reducing indoor and outdoor water demand, and incorporating waste reduction measures. In accordance with the CALGreen Code, implementation of the Specific Plan would incorporate the following features supportive of goals to reduce GHG emissions:
Energy Conservation: New development would be required to reduce energy demand in accordance with the Title 24 Building Standards Code.
Water Conservation: New development would be required to reduce indoor and outdoor water demand by 20 percent in accordance with the Title 24 Building Standards Code. Resource Conservation: New development would be required to recycle, reuse, or divert from landfills at least 50 percent of nonhazardous construction waste (by weight). c. Consistency with Executive Orders
Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are for the purpose of reducing statewide GHG emissions.
Executive Orders S-3-05’s goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32. As analyzed above, the implementation of the Project would be consistent with AB 32.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with this component of these Executive Orders.
Although the Project’s emissions levels in 2030 and 2050 cannot yet be reliably quantified, Statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State’s achievement of those goals and it is reasonable to expect the Project’s incremental emissions to decline as the regulatory initiatives identified by CARB in the First Update are implemented, and other technological innovations occur. Stated differently, the Project’s emissions total at buildout represents the maximum emissions inventory for the Project as California’s emissions sources are being regulated (and foreseeably expected to continue to be regulated in the future) in furtherance of the State’s environmental policy objectives. As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in Project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the Project would be consistent with the Executive Orders’ goals.
In conclusion, as the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, impacts regarding greenhouse gas reduction plans would be less than significant.
e. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative construction- and operational-related impacts resulting from the emissions of GHG is worldwide. Construction and operation of the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions as analyzed for the “project level” in this section also represent the cumulative analysis.
As discussed under Impact Statement GHG--1, annual emissions of GHGs from implementation of the Project would result in a maximum total of 14,305 MTCO2e per year at full buildout. It was determined that consistency with the SBC Reduction Plan would result in the Project meeting the City-wide goal of reducing GHG emissions to a level of 15 percent below its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2020. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions.
As discussed in Impact Statement GHG-2, the Project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new on-site developments would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and substantially reduce pollution and waste, according to Title 24. The Project would also comply with the goals set by AB 32, SB 375, and Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30- 15 through consistency with the SBC Reduction Plan. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to applicable GHG plans and policies.
4. Mitigation Measures
The Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to emissions of GHGs and consistency with applicable GHG emissions reductions plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.
5. Level of Significance After Mitigation
Not applicable. Impacts regarding emissions of GHGs and consistency with applicable GHG emissions reductions plans, policies, or regulations would be less than significant.
6. References
Anderegg, William R. L., J.W. Prall, J. Harold, S.H., Schneider, 2010. Expert Credibility in Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Available at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert- credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/. August 3, 2010 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2016. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2013 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category – Summary.” Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed June 2016.
____, 2015. Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection, 2014 Edition, Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Accessed November 2015. ____, 2013. “Advanced Clean Cars Summary,”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/clean_cars/acc%20summary-final.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
____, 2011. Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED), Attachment D, August 19, 2011;
____, 2007. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2013 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category – Summary.” Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed June 2016.
California Building Standards Commission, 2010. California Green Building Standards Code, 2010.
California Department of Finance, “Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product, California.” Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm. Accessed June 2016.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources. July 2006.
Available at:
http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/climatechange/DWRClimateChangeJuly06_update8-2-
07.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. December 2006.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), 2006. “Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/#2006. April 3, 2006.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. “A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13- 2008.” Published 2009.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2016. IPCC Second Assessment Report:
Climate Change 1995. Published 1996.
____, 2015. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Summary for Policy Makers. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Published 2015.
____, 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Synthesis Report. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Published 2014.
National Research Council, 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Published 2010.
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, (2003). Environment and Security, Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature. Available at:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/climate_change_and_california_water_resources.pdf.
Published July 2003.
Parmesan, C., 2004. Ecological and Evolutionary Response to Recent Climate Change.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.E-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2014 Report. Published 2014.
San Bernardino Associated Governments, 2014. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhous Gas Reduction Plan. March 2014.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, (2008).
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. “California, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990.” Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000lk.html. Accessed June 2016.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. “EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017- 2025 Cars and Light Trucks,” Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf. 2012.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
F. Land Use and Planning
1. Introduction
Future development within the Specific Plan Site is guided by policies and regulations set forth in local and regional plans. The provisions set forth in these plans have been adopted for eliminating or reducing potential land use impacts as a result of development within their jurisdictional boundaries. This section provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan regarding consistency with applicable land use regulations, as well as the compatibility of the Project with the surrounding uses in the area. Secondary environmental effects caused as a result of the land use relationships analyzed in this section are addressed in other sections of the Draft EIR.
2. Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Project Site Conditions
The approximately 101.7-acre Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Site is located south of the 210 Freeway and along Pepper Avenue in the northeastern portion of the City of Rialto. The 210 Freeway and Pepper Avenue interchange project is currently under construction and anticipated for completion in 2017. The Project Site is mostly vacant except for the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, which bisects the Site, and the West Valley Water District (WVWD) Lord Ranch Facility. The WVWD facility includes water wells, a pump station, and a reservoir on approximately 13.7 acres. An unnamed wash drains southeasterly through the Project Site, eventually emptying into Lytle Creek, and is roughly eight feet lower than the portions of the site that are designated for development. The construction of the 210 Freeway and the completion of the Pepper Avenue extension between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue have made the Site a viable development site prospect and potential gateway element for the City of Rialto.
(2) Surrounding Uses
The City is primarily surrounded by the developed cities of Fontana, Colton, and San Bernardino, although unincorporated portions of the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside also abut the City. The Riverside Highland Water Company property, the BNSF Railroad, and the Lytle Creek Wash (trending in a southeast/southwest) in the City of San Bernardino immediately to the east.
The Lytle Creek – Island Levee System protects the Project Site from potential flooding associated with Lytle Creek. In addition, a semi-rural residence is located to the east of the Site just beyond the railroad line to the east of the WVWD facility.
Single-family residential uses in the North Pepper Avenue Neighborhood and Frisbie Park are located to the west. Frisbie Park includes six lighted baseball/softball fields and children’s play areas. The wash, vacant land, and single-family homes are located to the south.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(3) Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
The Project Site is comprised of 12 parcels, ten of which are privately owned with two parcels in the southern portion of the Site owned by WVWD. The current zoning for the Project Site is Single-Family Residential (R-1A), which was automatically applied when the property was annexed into the City of Rialto. The corresponding General Plan land use designation is Residential 6. The Residential 6 designation permits a density range of 2.1-6 du/acre consisting of detached units in suburban-style subdivisions, with one unit per lot. b. Regulatory Framework
The following discussion identifies and generally describes the regulatory plans and policies and ordinances that would be applicable to development at the Project Site. Specific provisions of those documents that pertain to the project are listed in the Impact Analysis section below and evaluated for consistency with the project features.
(1) State Level
(a) California Government Code Section 65450
The State of California utilizes Section 65450 of the California Government Code to regulate the implementation of specific plans. A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a General plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision.
Section 65451 of the California Government Code sets forth a range of requirements that any specific plan must address. The statutory requirements include:
a. A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
i. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
ii. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. iii. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. iv. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
b. The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act similar to adoption of a general plan or zoning ordinance. However, unlike a general plan, which is required to be adopted by resolution, two options are available for the adoption of a specific plan: 1) adoption by resolution, which is designed to be policy driven; or 2) adoption by ordinance, which is regulatory by design. (2) Regional Level
(a) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG is the designated regional planning agency for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is a joint powers agency with responsibilities pertaining to regional issues. SCAG’s current land use policies are set forth in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Toward a Sustainable Future. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region, which is composed of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is the culmination of a multi-year effort involving stakeholders from across the SCAG Region, and includes short- and long-range population, housing, and employment projections for local, subregional, and regional geographies that are utilized for regional planning efforts.
The 2012 RTP/SCS presents the transportation vision for the region through the year 2035 and provides a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s transportation and related challenges. Also, the 2012 RTP/SCS contains baseline socioeconomic projections that are used as the basis for SCAG’s transportation planning and the provision of services by other regional agencies. The SCS portion presents an overall land use concept for the region with increasing focus on densification of urban areas and development around transit stations and increased focus on use of transit and active transportation. The RTP includes goals and policies that seek to:
Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness;
Maximize mobility and accessibility;
Ensure travel safety and reliability;
Preserve and ensure a regional transportation system; Maximize productivity of the transportation system;
Protect the environment and health of residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking); Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible; encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation; and Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies.
Policies included in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS that are applicable to the Project (as well as an analysis of Project consistency) are identified in the Impact Analysis below. Certain goals of the 2012/2035 RTP/SCS, including Goals G1 through G9 are intended to provide guidance for
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
considering the Project within the context of the regional goas and policies (Chang, 2016). These are evaluated in relation to the Specific Plan in Subsection 3.d, below. (b) Air Quality Management Plan
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) presents strategies for achieving the air quality planning goals set forth in the Federal and California Clean Air Acts (CCAA), including a comprehensive list of pollution control measures aimed at reducing emissions. The SCAQMD, which was established in 1977 pursuant to the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, is responsible for bringing air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) into conformity with federal and State air pollution standards. The SCAQMD is also responsible for monitoring ambient air pollution levels throughout the Basin and for developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within federal and State standards. The AQMP, adopted in 2012, is addressed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR (please refer to Section 4.B for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with the AQMP).
(c) Congestion Management Program
Proposition 111, passed in June 1990, provided additional transportation funding to cities and counties in California. Included with the provision for additional transportation funding was a requirement to undertake a Congestion Management Program (CMP) within each county with an urbanized area having a population of 50,000 or more, to be developed and adopted by a designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Within the County of San Bernardino (County), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) was designated the CMA by the County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. The original document was adopted in November 1992. It has been updated eight times, the latest in December 2007. The CMP defines a network of state highways and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures, and provides technical justification for its approaches. Key intersections include all CMP intersections plus others identified by local jurisdictions as being important to maintaining mobility on the CMP system.
For the CMP, intersections operating at level of service (LOS) D or lower will normally be considered key intersections, in addition to the intersections of two CMP roadways. All projects that meet the threshold for the CMP are subject to preparation of CMP Traffic Impact Analyses per CMP Guidelines. CMP Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) identify various local and regional circulation system improvements and impact shares as conditions for the development of the subject project. The conditions help to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. Baseline Avenue and SR-210, which are located near or at the border of the Project Site, are designated CMP roadways.
(3) Local Level
(a) City of Rialto General Plan
The State of California mandates that every city and county adopt a general plan. The City of Rialto adopted its most recent General Plan in December 2010 for the purpose of identifying goals and objectives to implement the community’s vision for the City over the next 20 to 30
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
years. The community’s vision statement is based on four guiding principles: (i) Rialto is a “family first” community; (ii) Rialto shall attract high-quality new development and improve its physical environment; (iii) Rialto’s economic environment is healthy and diverse; and (iv) Rialto is an active community.
According to the General Plan, within these vision statements is the understanding that neighborhoods will be a safe place to call home; community services must meet the needs and desires of the City’s families; high-quality housing will be required; the quality of streetscape and public spaces will be high quality; infrastructure shall keep pace with growth; businesses that provide goods and services desired by the community will be attracted and retained; the City’s standards and codes will be enforced; business, government, and economic development organizations will continue to work together; the community will support the creation and maintenance of attractive parks, recreational facilities, and gathering places; the community will continue to participate in community-based events; and the City will be committed to environmental sustainability so that the needs of the present will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Rialto, 2010). The General Plan is expected to provide clear direction to the City leaders regarding land use and related decisions affecting growth and development. The goals and policies of the General Plan are intended to implement the community’s vision, and the implementation of these goals and policies are set forth in the City’s regulatory documents.
The Land Use, Conservation, Economic Development, Circulation, Safety and Noise, and Housing Elements are applicable to the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan.
Land Use Element
The Land Use section describes the general location, type, and intensity of development, and designates the distribution of land uses throughout Rialto. Land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and public uses are planned to meet the needs of residents, support the local economy, achieve the City’s fiscal goals, and create an environment that fosters a high quality of life in Rialto. The Land Use section sets policies for land uses in the City and the Sphere of Influence, establishing the foundation for future development. It also addresses the permitted density and intensity of various land uses.
Open Space and Conservation Element
The General Plan defines open space as land that is not developed with buildings or has limited improvements complementary to their intended use, such as parks. The Open Space and Recreation component of this General Plan outlines strategies to preserve the special open space areas in Rialto and to meet the community’s recreational and conservation needs. Open space serves many functions in Rialto such as public parks; open space areas along Lytle Creek, which help protect against flooding; open spaces in conservation areas to provide habitat for wildlife and plant species; and landscaped areas between buildings and the street represent private open spaces that provide greenery and visual enhancement. The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies park acreage, population and ration of park acres to residents. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element, the City also mitigates for deficiencies in parkland acreage through capital intensive community facilities such as the community center, an indoor
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
swimming pool, a racquet and fitness center, a senior center, and a community theatre. The Open Space and Conservation Element states that, because the City is largely built out, limited opportunities are available to develop open spaces. Thus, the City’s efforts are, thus, focused on making improvements to established parks that enhance safety, maintenance efficiency, esthetics, and conservation; completing programming and construction on undeveloped portions of established parks, and developing additional acres of planned parks and open spaces within Specific Plan areas (Rialto, 2010).
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element describes the challenges facing the business community and sets forth goals and policies to guide the City’s economic development decisions. According to the Economic Development Element, the City’s economic development programs and policies must respond to respond to challenges, such as loss of retail revenue to surrounding cities, aging commercial centers, and modest demand in office space, and take advantage of Rialto’s strengths.
As discussed in the General Plan, Rialto has limited freeway frontage and visibility on both the SR-210 and I-10 freeways due to physical constraints at the City/freeway boundaries. The SR- 210 frontage is depressed in a trench, impeding the visibility of projects. According to the General Plan, these can be overcome with strategies involving economics and development incentives. With limited vacant land remaining, the few areas available for future development (or redevelopment) represent the last best chance to create economic benefits on a large scale and for the long term. As discussed in the General Plan, the City will collaborate with the business community to facilitate growth, development, and infrastructure improvements that benefit residents and businesses alike. Decisions will be made with an eye toward the long-term vision and goal for economic viability and not simply to respond to immediate proposals or market fluctuations (Rialto, 2010).
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element is one of seven mandated elements of the General Plan and is intended to guide the development of the City's circulation system in a manner that is compatible with the Land Use Element. The Circulation Chapter provides policy direction to create a system of Complete Streets. Complete Streets refers to a multi-modal transportation network designed and operated meet the needs of all users. With Complete Streets, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, persons with disabilities, movers of commercial goods, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely access and use streets and transportation modes to reach their destinations. In addition to street classifications, the Circulation Element outlines traffic management strategies, measures to address parking, and identifies the need for Park-and-Ride facilities. According to the Circulation Element, the City will monitor the need for Park-and-Ride facilities near SR-210 (Rialto, 2010).
Safety and Noise Element
The Safety and Noise Element of the General Plan Rialto emphasizes a proactive approach to planning which involves mitigating hazards present in the environment that may adversely affect property and threaten lives. The Safety and Noise Element addresses potential safety conditions in the City related to seismic and geologic, flood, fire, and wind hazards, as well as hazardous
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
materials, gangs, and emergency response. The Safety and Noise Element recognizes the importance of providing a safe living environment for the City’s residents and, while the Safety and Noise Element acknowledges that the City may not be able to prevent most hazards, it can set forth policies that can help minimize their effects. By addressing issues of crime, hazardous materials use, and other human caused conditions, and preparing a response to uncontrollable natural hazards, such as earthquakes and fires, the Safety and Noise Element states that Rialto can be better prepared to deal with emergency situations and adverse conditions and events that threaten the community (Rialto, 2010). The intent of the Noise section is to set goals to limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion on sensitive land uses and to set acceptable noise levels for varying types of land uses. To this end, the City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise.
Housing Element
The Housing Element provides the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all within the community.
According to the Housing Element, housing and neighborhood conservation are important to maintaining and improving quality of life. According the Housing Element, although the majority of the City’s housing stock is new, some of the older neighborhoods show signs of inadequate maintenance and deterioration (Rialto, 2010). Under the Housing Element, efforts to improve and revitalize housing must not only address existing conditions, but also focus on preventative repairs to ensure the quality of the housing stock is maintained. The Housing Element also encourages a balanced inventory of housing by promoting and encouraging housing development that meets the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community and region. (b) City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 18 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code serves as the City’s Zoning Ordinance. All development projects within the City are subject to compliance with the regulations and standards set forth in the Municipal Code. Title 18 includes provisions, procedures, and specific use and design standards for each of the City’s zoning districts. Title 18 also provides standards related to flood plain management, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones, transportation control, signage, specific plans, design guidelines and other issue areas, designed to mitigate or avoid potential environmental impacts. The Site’s existing R-1 A zone (Sec. allows one single family home, within a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and 2 ½-story (35-foot) maximum building height. Chapter 18.78, Specific Plans, gives the city council authority to prepare, adopt and implement specific plans for areas within the incorporated city and unincorporated sphere of influence.
The purpose and intent of Chapter 18.78 is to establish uniform procedures for the adoption and implementation specific plans and set forth detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and proposed legislation necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of the General Plan in regard to the location of uses together with regulations establishing height, bulk, and setback limits; the location and extent of existing or proposed streets, standards for building density, permissible types of construction and provisions for services. With regard to specific plans, this chapter also establishes standards for conservation, development, and utilization of
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
natural resources, implementation of the open space element of the General Plan, and other requirements as deemed necessary (Sec. 18.78.050). Sec. 18.78.060 sets forth procedures for the adoption or amendment of specific plans, including the initiation of specific plans by the Planning Commission and authorization by resolution by the City Council.
3. Project Impacts
a. Methodology
The analysis of potential land use impacts considers consistency of the Specific Plan with adopted plans and policies that regulate land use on the Project Site. The determination of consistency with applicable land use policies and ordinances is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions pertaining to the Project Site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address. Evaluations are made as to whether a project is inconsistent with such plans. Projects are considered consistent with regulatory plans if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. The intention of the evaluation of consistency with regulatory plans is to determine if non-compliance would result in a significant physical impact on the environment.
b. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of questions to assist in determining whether a proposed project would have a significant impact related to various environmental issues including land use and planning. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to land use and planning would occur if the Project would result in one or more of the following:
Threshold 1: Physically divide an established community (refer to Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the Initial Study contained in Appendix A. No impact would occur in this regard.);
Threshold 2: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy , or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement LU-1 below); or
Threshold 3: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (refer to Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR for a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures related to biological resources.).
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
c. Project Design Features
Future implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would require several necessary approvals, including the following:
A General Plan Amendment from the existing Residential 6 designation to the Specific Plan designation;
A zone change to change the zoning of the property from Single-Family Residential (R-6000) to the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan;
Adoption of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan;
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit from United States Army Corps of Engineers, as necessary;
CWA Section 401 Permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary;
Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as necessary; Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, as necessary;
Subsequent discretionary approvals (i.e., Conditional Permit, Site Development Permit); and Other permits or approvals, as necessary.
The Specific Plan would comprise nine planning areas (PAs) and is designed to be a commercial center with community commercial and business park uses, as well as natural open space, public facility uses, and the option to incorporated multi-family residential uses. The Specific Plan would focus on creating a high-quality development that efficiently utilizes the property and provides commercial opportunities to residents of Rialto. The Specific Plan would provide 36.2 acres of land for community commercial uses to be zoned PA 1, PA 2, PA 5, and PA 6; 9.4 acres of residential overlay uses to be zoned PA 3; 26.5 acres for open space to be zoned PA 9; 6.3 acres of community commercial overly to be zoned PA 7 and PA 8; and 13.7 acres of public facility uses to be zoned PA 4. These areas would total 95.1 acres. The remaining 6.6 acres of the 101.7-acre site would comprise the Pepper Avenue right of way. Two maximum development scenarios could occur in association with the proposed commercial and residential overlay areas.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR, Scenario 1 would allow a maximum of 462,000 square feet of retail uses and 125,000 square feet of business park uses.
Scenario 2 would allow a maximum of 275 residential units, 346,000 square feet of retail uses, and 125,000 square feet of business park uses. Potential land uses and development for each of the planning areas are summarized in Table 2-1, Planning Area Land Use Summary, in Chapter 2 of this EIR.
Community commercial uses would be permitted within PAs 7 and 8, or these areas could be retained as open space with the allowable density transferred to other community commercial areas within the Project Site. These uses would primarily be located adjacent to the 210 Freeway
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
and Pepper Avenue. Community commercial designated areas would include uses such as retail, office, business park, medical office, light industrial and other uses typically found within business parks and community shopping centers. Buildings would be up to four stories in height, although the Concept Plan anticipates two-story commercial buildings.
Based on market conditions and the discretion of the private property owners, up to 275 multi- family residential units could be developed within PA 3 in lieu of up to 116,000 square feet of retail uses. The multi-family residential units could be constructed within buildings up to a maximum of three stories and at a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre. No parks are proposed within the Specific Plan area; however, the Specific Plan is proposing that at minimum, PA 9 would remain as open space. PA 9 consists primarily of RAFSS habitat and jurisdictional drainage features located on/near its eastern boundary.
If PA 7 and PA 8 are not improved with community commercial uses, they would remain as open space. Thus, the total open space could increase to 35.8 acres under this scenario. Similar to PA 9, PAs 7 and 8 consist primarily of RAFSS habitat, with jurisdictional drainage features just beyond their western boundaries. Uses allowed within both community commercial and open space zones would be allowed in the Community Commercial Overlay.
The designated Public Facility area (PA 4) is currently developed with the WVWD Facility.
Although no future development is proposed on this portion of the Site, WVWD is currently considering improvements to the facility including the addition of a 1million-gallon steel-welded reservoir and new pump station within a concrete masonry building to be completed in 2016- 2017.
As part of the Specific Plan, Chapter 3, Plan Elements, discusses the various plan elements for the Specific Plan including the Land Use Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Circulation Plan, Grading Plan and Infrastructure Plans (water, sewer, and drainage). Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, contains the site planning, architectural, and landscaping design guidelines for the Specific Plan. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that the Project would develop as a quality retail center with consistent design elements. Chapter 5, Development Standards, establishes the permitted uses and physical development standards for development in the Specific Plan Project Site. Standards in the Specific Plan supersede those of the Rialto Municipal Code, unless otherwise stated. Definitions are the same as described in Chapter 18.08 of the Municipal Code, except as otherwise defined. Land use designations include community commercial, open space, public facility, residential overlay and community commercial overlay.
The plans, guidelines and standards included in the Specific Plan serve to reduce and/or minimize impacts, as discussed throughout the environmental analysis in this EIR.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies
Threshold LU-1: The Project would create a significant impact if it would conf lict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency wi th jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, th e general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Statement LU-1: Implementation of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project, including California Government Code 65450, SCAG policy documents, the City of Rialto General Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, land use impacts are considered less than significant.
(a) California Government Code Section 65450
The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would meet the requirements of State of California Government Code Section 65450, which supersedes local codes in regulating the development of and approval of specific plans. The Specific Plan Chapter 3.0, Plan Elements, would meet the State’s statutory requirement for information regarding the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan and the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. Chapter 2.0, Planning Context; Chapter 4.0, Design Guidelines; Chapter
5.0, Development Standards would meet the State’s requirement for the Specific Plan to set forth standards and criteria by which development would proceed. Chapter 6.0, Implementation would meet the State’s requirement for a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the development standards set forth in the Specific Plan. Also, as required by Government Code Section 65450, Specific Plan Appendix A provides a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. Because the proposed Specific Plan would comply with the requirements of Section 65450, it would not conflict with these established regulations. Land Use impacts with respect to Government Code Section 65450 would be less than significant. (b) SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Table 4.F-1, Consistency of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Goals of the RTP/SCS, below, evaluates the consistency of the Specific Plan with the applicable goals and policies of the 2012- 2035 SCAG RTP/SCS Goals 1 through 9. As shown in Table 4.F-1, the Specific Plan would not conflict with the applicable goals and policies of the RTP/SCS with respect to regional transportation infrastructure, mobility and accessibility, and non-motorized transportation. The Project would provide a new development with retail uses, work opportunities and potential residential uses in proximity to an existing regional freeway and proposed interchange, as well as
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
established industrial and residential communities. The Project would provide a potential bridge to the residential community and existing Frisbie Park, which would maximize pedestrian access.
Because the Specific Plan would be consistent with the policies of the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, impacts related to consistency with the RTP/SCS would be less than significant.
TABLE 4.F-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH GOALS OF THE 2012-2035 RTP/SCS RTP/SCS Goals Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 1: Align the plan investments and policies with
improving regional economic development and
competitiveness.
Consistent. The City of Rialto would increase economic
opportunities for the community and region through
implementation of the Specific Plan and allowing
development of a currently under-utilized site, thus,
aligning public policy with economic growth. Consistent with RTP/SCS policies, the Specific Plan would provide
regional economic opportunities in an infill area located adjacent to regional transportation systems.
Goal 2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent. The Specific Plan would encourage
commercial, light industrial, and potential residential uses near the new 210 Freeway/Pepper Avenue interchange,
and would also provide circulation improvements to Pepper Avenue, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and potential bus shelters that would foster the efficient movement of all people and goods.
Goal 3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent. The Specific Plan would provide for street
improvements, such as new or modified signals, additional lanes, turning lanes, medians, and other reconfiguration to reduce traffic congestion and support alternative modes of travel, such as cycling, and pedestrian access. Pepper
Avenue would contain adequate right-of-way to
accommodate public transit. Improvements would be
designed and constructed to meet applicable safety
requirements and design standards that would ensure that travel safety and reliability are maximized.
Goal 4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional
transportation system.
Consistent. The Specific Plan entails future development projects within the Specific Plan boundaries. Developers would be required to construct on-site traffic system
improvements as well as pay applicable fair-share
contributions to local and regional off-site improvements to mitigate project-related traffic impacts. With implementation of applicable improvements, the Specific Plan would not hinder the preservation or sustainability of the regional transportation system.
Goal 5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
Consistent. As noted above, the Specific Plan would
require the construction of traffic improvements or payment of applicable fees to help fund additional improvements, which would reduce the Specific Plan’s impact on, and
maximize the productivity of, the region’s transportation system.
Goal 6: Protect the environment and health of our
residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as
bicycling and walking).
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a bicycle and
pedestrian network and enhancements that encourage
biking and walking. The Circulation Plan identifies the development of Class II bike lanes on Pepper Avenue and a potential pedestrian bridge to connect the retail uses with Frisbie Park to the west. Bicycle storage is required under Chapter 18.58 of the Zoning Code for uses within the
Project Site. Pedestrian crossings for major streets would be delineated using textured, stamped, or stained paving techniques. Crossing distances would be reduced with curb extensions where feasible. Bollards, landscaping buffers, and other techniques that define pedestrian spaces would also be utilized as appropriate. Other pedestrian
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
RTP/SCS Goals Evaluation of Consistency
enhancements include the use of street furniture, such as benches, planters, bike racks, pedestrian level signage, lighting fixtures, and trash receptacles. In areas with high levels of expected pedestrian activity developers would be encouraged to generate visual interest at the pedestrian level. The variety of goods, services, businesses, and
potential housing anticipated under the Project would
provide for pass-by/local interaction, thus reducing overall vehicle trips.
Goal 7: Actively encourage and create incentives for
energy efficiency, where possible.
Consistent. The Design Guidelines Element of the
Specific Plan includes sustainability elements including compliance with CalGreen building standards, which are
intended to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use.
Development within the Project is encouraged to
implement some of the strategies of the Energy Star
program, an energy performance rating system developed
by the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA.
Development associated with the Specific Plan would
comply with City of Rialto GHG reduction measures and
the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan.
Goal 8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that
facilitate transit and non-motorized Transportation.
Consistent. The Specific Plan would be developed
adjacent to the SR-210/Pepper Avenue interchange, which would maximize accessibility for future transit. The Project also allows potential pedestrian access (a bridge) between the Site and adjacent Frisbie Park and residential
neighborhood to encourage non-motorized access.
Goal 9: Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid
recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies.
Not Applicable. This goal relates to SCAG’s ongoing
efforts to maintain security within the regional
transportation system, which would not be affected by the Specific Plan.
SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2016.
(c) City of Rialto General Plan
Table 4.F.3, Comparison of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Applicable Policies of the General Plan, evaluates the Specific Plan’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City of Rialto General Plan. Goals and policies associated with design and aesthetic considerations, such as community design, commercial and industrial development design, and planned development design are evaluated in Section 4.A, Aesthetics, of this EIR. As shown in Table 4.F-2, the Specific Plan would not conflict with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan’s Land Use, Conservation, Economic Development, Circulation, Safety and Noise, and Housing Elements. Although a General Plan Amendment would be required to change the existing land use designation from “Residential 6” to “Specific Plan,” once the amendment has been adopted, the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Therefore, the Specific Plan would be considered consistent with the General Plan and land use impacts related to General Plan consistency would be considered less than significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.F-2
COMPARISON OF THE PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Land Use Element
Neighborhood Preservation
Goal 2-8: Preserve and improve established residential neighborhoods in Rialto.
Policy 2-8.1: Promote neighborhood identity and
preservation of individual neighborhood character by
preserving or creating neighborhood gateway features.
This includes the Las Colinas Core Group and the North
End (Pepper Avenue) Neighborhood Group.
Policy 2-8.3: Require all new housing built adjacent to designated major or secondary highways to face a
residential street, with driveways on the side street.
Require landscaped barrier walls to preserve the privacy of residential side yards and protect them from traffic noise and pollution.
Consistent. The Project site is separated from the North End Neighborhood Group by an unnamed wash. The southern portion of the site consists of the WVWD facility and a wash. These uses will not be altered as part of the Project. The Project includes gateway features, which will announce the Project site as the northeastern entrance into Rialto.
The Project includes an option to allow for multi-family residential in the eastern portion of the Project site in PA3. This area is not located adjacent to Pepper Avenue and will require internal private drives to access Pepper Avenue. The Design Guidelines chapter of this Specific Plan identifies that the multi-family residential should be designed to interact with the adjacent commercial uses. However, if a residential development is adjacent to the side or rear portions of the commercial development, the residential development should have walls and/or landscape that will be provided between the residential and commercial developments to function as a barrier.
Incompatible Land Uses
Goal 2-9: Protect residential, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses from the impacts associated with
industrial and trucking-related land uses, as well as
commercial and retail areas.
Policy 2-9.1 Require mitigation and utilize other
techniques to protect residential development and other sensitive land uses near industrial land uses or within identified health risk areas from excessive noise,
hazardous materials and waste releases, toxic air
pollutant concentrations, and other impacts.
Consistent. The design of the Project, identified in the Specific Plan, will buffer existing residential development from proposed uses by preserving the natural drainage feature in the western and southern portions of the site. The significance of impacts resulting from retail and business park uses upon surrounding residential neighborhoods will be buffered by this open space.
Furthermore, hazardous and toxic wastes will not occur from permitted uses on the site. Should any hazardous materials associated with certain uses be proposed (i.e. service stations), a Conditional Development Permit will be required to study and appropriately mitigate any potential impacts from hazardous materials. Additionally, the Project will implement all applicable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential impacts.
Public Realm - Gateways
Goal 2-10: Create distinctive gateways at all entry points into Rialto and for individual districts or neighborhoods.
Policies
2-10.1: Continue the use of monument signs at focal
points within the community and at major and minor
gateways. Establish unified entry treatments at major
entries into the City.
2-10.2: Design and implement themed landscape
treatments near freeway off- and on-ramps to announce
entry into Rialto.
2-10.3: Encourage new and established neighborhoods
to provide ground signs and landscaping at a major street entrance to reinforce their identity.
Consistent. Signage and monumentation for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project is outlined in Chapters 4, Design Guidelines and 5, Development Standards. Since the Project is the gateway to the northeastern area of the City, the Project will incorporate freeway-oriented signage, where appropriate, and monument signage that will contribute to the overall sense of place. The signage shall be well designed and will be consistent with the Project’s high quality architecture.
Landscaping within the Pepper Avenue median and parkway is planned to be implemented as part of the Project. This landscape theme is consistent with the existing landscape already installed in Pepper Avenue, as identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines.
This landscaping will be attractively designed and announce the entry into both the Project and the City. Medians and parkways on the “main street” within the Project will reinforce the commercial identity by utilizing special landscaping treatments.
Special signage will be incorporated into the Project and tailored in design to effectively communicate directional information throughout the site and establish retail and/or residential character.
Public Realm - Streetscapes
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-11: Design streetscapes in Rialto to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live,
work, shop, and dine.
Policies
2-11.1: Require the screening of commercial or industrial parking areas, storage yards, stockpiles, and other
collections of equipment from the public right-of-way.
2-11.2: Provide and maintain street trees and parkway
landscaping within the public right-of-way for developed properties within Rialto. Require private development to do the same as per City design regulations.
2-11.4: Incorporate street trees and other landscape
treatments along corridors to provide sufficient shade
canopy and promote pedestrian comfort.
2-11.5: Require that projects with perimeter walls
(including gated residential communities) provide an
interesting streetscape, with pedestrian access to major travel ways.
Consistent. On the east side of Pepper Avenue, the Project will screen loading and service areas from public view through the building orientation, design, walls and/or landscape. On the west side of Pepper Avenue, walls and landscape screen will detract from the overall aesthetic of the site and be an inappropriate buffer from the adjacent natural open space. However, service areas will be screened by using unique architectural and landscape treatments, as indicated in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines. Also, these buildings require architecture and appropriate landscape treatments on all exposed elevations, similar to the level of design on the front elevation. The Design Guidelines include sample, innovative treatments to reduce the visual impact of service areas.
Medians are provided, where feasible, within the public right-of- way of the Project. Trees, shrubs and ornamental landscaping shall be planted within medians and parkways throughout the public realm. Ornamental and functional landscaping within the private realms of the project shall be consistent with that of the public realm, such that landscaping in both areas demonstrates the desired Mediterranean, “Veneto” aesthetic and contributes to the overall sense of place of the Project. Pedestrian comfort will be considered when designing landscaping along sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Where feasible, canopy trees will be planted to shade pedestrian walkways
Public Realm - Pedestrian Friendly Environment
Goal 2-12: Design new streets to be pedestrian friendly.
Policies
2-12.1: Require the use of attractive street furniture
(benches, trash receptacles, planters, bicycle racks) in the Downtown area, along Foothill Boulevard, and other
highly visible areas to communicate the City’s identity and pride.
2-12.2: Use textured paving or similar design features to define pedestrian crossings, particularly near pedestrian activity areas such as Downtown.
2-12.3: Install curb extensions (i.e., bulb out or similar enhancements) at pedestrian crossings to shorten the
crossing distance required, wherever feasible. Additional pedestrian protections, including bollards and defensible space landscape treatments, should be utilized as well. 2-12.4: Enhance pedestrian walkways directly under
building canopies by one or more of the following
techniques: interlocking or textured paving, turf block walls, theme plantings, trees projecting through canopies, bollards and kiosks, pavilions or gazebos, and trellises and arbors planted with flowering vines.
2-12.5: Maximize potential pedestrian connections
through the use of highly visible gateways, walkways, and directional signs and the installation of traffic-calming devices where appropriate.
2-12.6: Require landscape screens in new commercial
developments larger than 15,000 square feet directly in front of the stores rather than leaving the façade barren.
The intent of the landscape screen is to improve the scale by visually lowering the building height and mass without impeding access or identity of the buildings function.
2-12.7: Shade bus shelters and other outdoor use areas
from the sun. Commercial projects along major corridors in Rialto shall incorporate at least one bus shelter, taxi stop, bicycle rack, and/or similar transportation or
Consistent. The Project will enhance pedestrian experience by creating an attractive and safe environment suitable and desirable for pedestrian use. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the design and use of street furniture, such as benches, planters, bike racks, pedestrian level signage, lighting fixtures, trash receptacles, etc., will bolster the Project’s character and create an approachable, enjoyable environment.
In areas with high levels of expected pedestrian activity, textured, stamped, or stained paving will be encouraged to generate visual interest at the pedestrian level. Pedestrian crossings for major streets will be delineated using one of the aforementioned paving techniques, and will reduce the crossing distance by using curb extensions where feasible or appropriate. Bollards, landscaping buffers, and other techniques that define pedestrian spaces can also be utilized as appropriate.
Highly visible gateways will communicate the pedestrian nature of the walkway and denote the beginning and end of major
pedestrian paths. Landscaping, signage, and traffic calming design features installed at these pedestrian activity areas will further encourage pedestrian usage.
As described in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, landscape screening shall be implemented upon commercial buildings that exceed 15,000 square feet in size to reduce the negative visual impacts of large, uninterrupted facades upon the pedestrian and to create articulation that improves the pedestrian experience.
Pepper Avenue north of Baseline Road does not currently have any public transit services. With the recent opening of the Pepper Avenue extensio
n, bus services could be extended to the Project
site. Chapter 5, Development Standards requires that all major developments (new construction over 20,000 square feet) shall work with Omnitrans in determining if bus services shall service the Project site. Should services be provided to the site, the developer shall install a bus shelter consistent with the Mediterranean “Veneto” architectural theme of the Project.
Bicycles racks are also to be provided as part of the Project.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
pedestrian features. The design of these features shall be consistent with the identity, feel, and theme of that
corridor.
Public Realm - Signage
Goal 2-13: Achieve quality aesthetic design of all signage in the City of Rialto.
Policies
2-13.2: Require consistent design quality and themes for directional signage along public streets.
2-13.3: Require that all ground signs incorporate
landscape treatment to reduce visual height and impact
from the street.
Consistent. Directional, tenant, and pageantry signage shall be placed in a logical manner that effectively orients and directs people through the site. Rather than detracting from the aesthetic experience of the site, all signage will exhibit thoughtful and consistent design that will be pleasing, rather than visually obstructive. Interplay between landscape and signage elements shall reduce the negative visual impacts of signs while emphasizing and contributing to the architectural character of the Project.
Public Realm – Public Art
Goal 2-15: Establish a public art program that engages
the public and enriches the pedestrian experience.
Policies
2-15.1: Encourage the incorporation of public art into
large-scale development projects.
2-15.3: Encourage the creation of art pieces that
represent the agricultural history of the community,
family-first values, and vision for the future.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, public art is encouraged be incorporated into high visibility areas of the Project. Specifically, public art should be considered for implementation along the “main street”, the community
commercial plaza, and the welcome plaza adjacent to the potential pedestrian bridge. This art may take the form of murals, sculptures, fountains, unique landscaping features or architectural elements that are specifically designed for the Project and contribute to the high-quality design and character of the Specific Plan area. Public art is encouraged to represent the agricultural history of the City and the site, or the community, family-first or family-first values.
Private Realm
Goal 2-16: Improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto.
Policies
2-16.1: Require new development and construction to
exhibit a high level of quality architectural design to emphasize community uniqueness, individuality, and
historical references.
2-16.2: Require architectural identity for individual
commercial corridors, while also encouraging a variety of architectural features to create visual interest and
pedestrian scale.
2-16.3: Discourage architectural monotony.
2-16.4: Discourage the design of boxy structures;
emphasize articulation of the front façade and the
horizontal plane with multi-story structures.
2-16.5: Require developers to vary building and parking setbacks along the streetscape to create visual interest. 2-16.6: Require architectural treatments on all façades facing rights-of-way, public streets, and alleys, including windows, doors, architectural details, and landscape
treatment.
Consistent. Chapter 4, Design Guidelines include provisions that will ensure a high-level of quality architectural design that is consistent throughout the Project and provides a unique retail experience within the City of Rialto. Where appropriate, historical references will be made through the incorporation of design themes and public art.
Variations in scale, massing, setbacks and design of commercial areas will be designed to reinforce the identity of the Project through architecture style and thematic landscaping, while allowing for unique and interesting architectural features throughout the planning areas. Highly articulated façades and rooflines will create visual interest and discourage architectural monotony.
Goal 2-17: Provide high-quality and environmentally
sustainable landscaping.
Policies
2-17.1: Require the planting of street trees along public streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for private developments to improve air shed, minimize urban heat
island effect, and lessen impacts of high winds.
Consistent. The Project will comply with these policies by requiring medians and parkways in the right-of-way and other public realms to be planted with trees and thoroughly landscaped with ornamental drought tolerant landscaping. Trees planted within community commercial and multifamily residential areas shall be dense enough to provide shade and will minimize urban heat island effect, especially within parking lots and open spaces.
As indicated in Section 4.8, Sustainable Design Strategies, the Project encourages implementation of a design that drought
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
2-17.2: Require all new development to incorporate tree plantings dense enough to shade and beautify residential and commercial areas.
2-17.3: Require the use of drought-tolerant, native
landscaping and smart irrigation systems for new
development to lower overall water usage.
tolerant, incorporates the use of state-of-the-art irrigation controllers, and green waste mulch to reduce overall water usage, as compared to developments consisting of turf.
Goal 2-18: Protect Rialto’s small-town character.
Policies
2-18.1: Require all new development and renovations
within residential neighborhoods to be consistent with the existing scale, massing, and landscaping of that
neighborhood.
2-18.2: Protect, to the extent feasible, the natural
character of the areas bordering or in close proximity to the Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek.
Consistent. The Specific Plan design considers the scale, massing, landscaping and typology of the existing development near the Project site. The site is currently undeveloped, and is close to some existing single-family homes, across a natural wash to the south and west of the Project site. This neighborhood will be buffered by the large natural open space that
encompasses the natural drainage features in PA 9. Furthermore, height restrictions for the Project are similar to those in other commercial areas of the City. Given the distance from existing single-family homes and the height limitations of the Project, there are no inconsistencies in scale, massing, and landscape between the Project site and the nearby single-family residential.
The Project preserves a large open space wash that will continue to function as a natural habitat area and drainage feature that flows into Lytle Creek.
Residential Design
Goal 2-19: Encourage neighborhood preservation,
stabilization, and property maintenance.
Policies
2-19.1: Require that new construction, additions,
renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to
neighborhood context and building form and scale.
2-19.2: Encourage property maintenance by requiring
new development to submit precise plans of design to
maintain landscape areas that incorporate property
maintenance standards from the City’s property
maintenance ordinance.
2-19.5: Integrate residential developments with their built surroundings, and encourage a strong relationship
between dwelling and the street.
Consistent. Due to the height and massing restrictions including within Chapter 4, Design Guidelines and Chapter 5, Development Standards of this Specific Plan, the new residential development will respect the scale and massing of these nearby
neighborhoods. Additionally, the Project’s Multi-Family Overlay zone is located on a lower grade than the nearby single-family residential. With the multi-family portion limited to three stories in height and the distance of the multi-family housing from the existing single-family homes (1,500 feet), the multi-family housing will not be incompatible with the nearby single-family homes.
As mentioned in Chapter 5, Development Standards, plans for future development will include the specific design and maintenance standards identified in the City’s Landscaping Maintenance specifications.
Chapter 4, Design Guidelines include design guidelines that will ensure development within the multi-family overlay zone will integrate into surrounding development, with units having a strong interrelationship with the street and open spaces in PA3.
The multi-family development within the overlay zone will be designed so that it does not appear as a “residential island,” isolated amid community commercial uses. The multi-family residences will be physically separated from community
commercial uses, but require strong pedestrian connections between the uses.
Goal 2-20: Require high-quality multi-unit design,
landscaping, and architecture.
Policies
2-20.1: Require multi-unit buildings design to be visually and architecturally pleasing by varying the height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim and roof shape.
2-20.2: Do not allow box-like forms with large, unvaried roofs by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes by creating clusters of units, variations in height, setback, and roof shape.
2-20.3: Require use of porches, stairs, railings, fascia boards, and trim to enhance multi-unit buildings’
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, multi- unit residential buildings shall be architecturally pleasing by incorporating varying height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim and roofs within the multi-family overlay zone.
These design features will create visual interest and contribute to the Mediterranean, “Veneto” character of the Project. Functional aspects of the unit designs, such as porches, stairs, and railing shall be designed to be aesthetically appealing, consistent with the desired community aesthetic while performing their practical purpose as a functional architectural element.
As described in the design guidelines, units should be clustered and will incorporate ground level entries that face the street to promote a strong relationship between the residences with the public realm. Parking lots should be located in the rears to reduce the visual impact of parked cars upon the public realm, and
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
character.
2-20.4: Provide for multi-unit buildings to relate to the street and be located to reinforce street frontages.
2-20.5: Emphasize private, ground-level entries to
individual units so that primary building entries are
prominent and visible.
2-20.6: Require pedestrian accessibility to adjacent uses with paseos, gates, pedestrian walkways, crossings, and sidewalks.
2-20.7: Require parking lots to be located at the rear or side of a site to allow a majority of dwelling units to front on the street.
2-20.8: Encourage that each unit have some form of
useful private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck, balcony, yard, or shared entry porches or balconies.
promote residential character of the multifamily residential zone by having units fronting onto the streets/drives. As identified in Chapter 5, Development Standards, each individual multi-family unit will be required to have some form of private open space, such as a patio or balcony. Residential projects within the multi- family overlay will have a series of internal sidewalks, paseos and crossings to provide a pedestrian-friendly environment, and to connect the dwellings to the community commercial uses and facilitate access between the two uses.
Planned Development
Goal 2-21: Ensure high-quality planned developments in
Rialto.
Policies
2-21.1: Require the provision of landscape buffers, walls, additional setbacks, and landscaped parking lots as
buffers between commercial and/or industrial uses with
residential land uses.
2-21.2: Require that the layout of units and/or buildings be staggered to maximize visual interest and individual identity.
2-21.3: Discourage rectangular building footprints that lack visual interest or articulation along street frontages, and encourage the arrangement of structures on the site to allow for adequate screening of parking and loading
areas as well as alleys on all industrial and commercial sites.
2-21.4: Encourage creative site planning, making use of patio homes, zero lot line units, planned unit “cluster” development, attached townhouse products, and auto
courts.
2-21.5: Encourage the clustering of residential units
which provide semi-private common areas, maximize
views, and provide passive open space and recreation
uses within multi-unit developments.
2-21.6: Encourage developments to incorporate
meandering greenbelts into subdivision projects,
particularly along trails, collector streets, secondary streets, and major highways, protected environmental
areas, or other special features. Bicycle and pedestrian trails should be connected with similar features in
neighboring projects so that upon completion newer
neighborhoods will be linked at the pedestrian level.
2-21.7: Require parkways to be placed on the outside of the public sidewalk immediately adjoining the curb to
provide shade for pedestrians, and provide a canopy of
trees to be either uniformly spaced or informally grouped. 2-21.8: Require that new residential subdivisions adjacent to secondary or major highways be oriented inward and
provided with buffers to reduce exposure to traffic and noise.
Consistent. The Design Guidelines chapter of this Specific Plan identifies that the multi-family residential should be designed to interact with the adjacent commercial uses. However, in the event that the residential development is adjacent to the side or rear portions of the commercial development, the residential should have walls and landscape to function as a barrier to reduce impacts associated with an undesirable commercial edge.
In accordance with Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, multi-family units shall be staggered and designed to generate visual interest and contribute to the Mediterranean, “Veneto” character of the overall project. Articulated walls and footprints will discourage monotony in architecture, and a well-designed and creative site plan will promote the livability, walkability, aesthetics, and inviting open spaces. Sidewalks and paseos within each developed planning area will make internal connections to various points of interest within that planning area, and will also connect to surrounding uses.
Public parkways will be placed on the outside of the sidewalk, separating the curb and the pedestrian walkway. Trees will be planted in these landscaped parkways to shade sidewalks and encourage walkability.
Residential units are only permitted to be located within PA3, which is separated from both Pepper Avenue and the 210
Freeway by community commercial uses.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Commercial and Industrial Development Design
Goal 2-22: Promote commercial and/or industrial
development that is well designed, people-oriented,
environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the needs of the visitor or resident, and functionally efficient for its purpose.
Policies
2-22.1: Require that developments incorporate varied
planes and textures and variety in window and door
treatments on building façades.
2-22.2: Encourage architecture which disaggregates
massive buildings into smaller parts with greater human scale.
2-22.3: Require that landscape plantings be incorporated into commercial and industrial projects to define and
emphasize entrances, inclusive of those areas along the front of a building facing a parking lot.
2-22.4: Require all major commercial developments to
incorporate theme elements to create a distinct identity, foster individuality, and provide gathering opportunities. 2-22.5: Require developments to provide pedestrian and
vehicle connections and pathways between parking lots
at the rear and front of buildings.
2-22.6: Require delivery areas to be separated from
pedestrian areas.
2-22.7: Require outdoor storage areas, where permitted, to be screened from public view.
2-22.8: Insist that full architectural treatments and details be provided on all facades visible to the street of
development projects.
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, commercial buildings within the Specific Plan are encouraged to be arranged to minimize the appearance of long, unbroken, rectangular axes, where feasible, without compromising the efficiency of the site design and layout. Landscaping will be used to visually “break up” long, straight axes. For smaller buildings, treatments may include clustering them together around a small plaza, green space, or other focal point. To the extent feasible, large commercial buildings should be visually broken into smaller components by changes in color, texture, rooflines, window and door spacing, or massing. Landscaping and vertical trees will also help to visually break up building massing, and will also be used to highlight building entries and architectural features.
Commercial building facades will incorporate varied planes, colors, and textures to promote interest. Architectural detailing should take place upon any building façade that is visible from a public street, 210 Freeway, or the unnamed wash to the west and south of the Project site.
Community commercial development are encouraged to
incorporate theme elements intended to distinguish them from other developments, foster individuality, and promote gathering opportunities. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, outdoor cafes, gateways, kiosks, flag courts, trellises and arbors, bell towers, theme towers, galleries, patios and plazas, water elements, booths, outdoor markets, colonnades, and arcades.
Commercial developments will provide either mid-building pedestrian access or fully treated rear entrances. Service and delivery areas shall be separated from pedestrian areas such that they will not interfere with pedestrian traffic and will have minimal aesthetic impact on pedestrian nodes.
Any accessory outdoor storage areas will be reviewed as part of the project’s design and be appropriately screened from public view.
Parking Lot Design
Goal 2-23: Minimize the visual impact of parking lots.
Policies
2-23.1: Require mature trees and landscaping in off-
street parking areas to make them more inviting and
aesthetically appealing, and to provide sufficient shading to reduce heat.
2-23.2: Encourage the inclusion of textured paving along pedestrian walkways and under building canopies.
2-23.3: Require use of drainage improvements designed,
with native vegetation where possible, to retain or detain water runoff and minimize pollutants into drainage
system.
Consistent. Chapter 18.58 of the City of Rialto Zoning Code requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the parking area shall be landscaped. Design guidelines are included in this Specific Plan that encourage parking lots to include a combination of landscaping belts, planters, and design features that reduce the massive and unbroken appearance of paved surfaces. Where appropriate and feasible, parking lot drainage design should utilize landscaping planters to reduce runoff. Native vegetation should be planted where possible to reduce the amount of water required for irrigation.
Open Space and Recreation
Goal 2-24: Take advantage of opportunities to increase
and enhance open spaces throughout Rialto.
Policy
Policy 2-24.1: Identify and explore opportunities for
acquisition of land in the Lytle Creek floodplain and fault- impacted areas for use as open space, parkland, or
recreational areas.
Consistent. A significant portion of the Specific Plan area includes a fault hazard and the portion closest to the identified fault line is zoned as “Open Space.” This area of the Project also consists of protected habitat. The potential pedestrian bridge connecting Frisbie Park and the community commercial uses within the Project will provide species information and offer views of the habitat to visitors of the Project site.
Goal 2-26: Maximize open spaces in urban areas.
Policies
Consistent. As indicated in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the Project design includes plazas and resting areas within the “main
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Policy 2-26.1: Require that private open space be
integrated into new development by providing green
spaces and landscaped plazas between buildings.
Policy 2-26.2: Enhance street corridors by incorporating small green areas, extensive landscaping, and street
trees.
Policy 2-26.3: Explore opportunities to create pocket
parks within urbanized areas for public and/or private use. street” area, as well as a welcoming plaza at the terminus of the potential pedestrian bridge into the Project. The main street will also feature special landscape treatment on both sides of the street for an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian experience. The Pepper Avenue right-of-way will be enhanced by incorporating street trees, small green areas and extensive landscaping into medians and parkways.
Where appropriate, additional private green spaces will be incorporated into the site design. Opportunities for the implementation of pocket parks within the multi-family overlay zone will be reviewed at the subsequent development design- level. In any case, each multi-family residential will be required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit, as indicated in Chapter 5, Development Standards.
Recreation
Goal 2-27: Provide a variety of park facilities that meet the diverse needs and interest of the community.
Policy
Policy 2-27.1: Establish a Master Plan for Parks and
Recreation that achieves a park ratio of 3.0 acres per
1,000 residents, evenly distributes park facilities
throughout the community, and contains strategies for
funding facilities and maintenance.
Consistent. Chapter 5, Development Standards, requires that each multi-family development shall provide a minimum of 400 square feet of open space per unit and will be evaluated at the subsequent development review. This open space may or may not qualify as “parkland” and will be dependent on the ultimate size, location and design of the common open space area.
Should an individual project provide less parkland than the 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, the Project shall provide additional, off- site parkland or pay park in-lieu fees to meet this requirement.
Conservation Element
Water Resources
Goal 2-29: Conserve water resources.
Policies
Policy 2-29.1: Require new development to use features, equipment, technology, landscaping, and other methods
to reduce water consumption.
Policy 2-29.2: Use reclaimed water as available for
irrigation of City parks, median strips, and other public areas, and encourage its use in industrial applications, large turf and expansive landscaped areas, golf courses, mining, and other uses where potable quality of water is not necessary to its application.
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the Specific Plan encourages sustainable building techniques and design strategies intended to help conserve, protect and enhance natural resources in the community. The use of irrigation timers, automatic sprinklers, drip irrigation (where appropriate), low flush toilets, low water use shower heads, and other water
conservation measures are strongly encouraged. Native, drought tolerant vegetation will be planted where possible and
aesthetically appropriate to reduce the water required to adequately irrigate landscaping. Public education in the form of signage, pamphlets, etc. may be implemented in pedestrian areas near the proposed natural open space to communicate to the community on the importance of surface water quality and conservation.
Sustainable Building Practices and Energy Conservation
Goal 2-30: Incorporate green building and other
sustainable building practices into development projects.
Policies
Policy 2-30.2: Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy-efficient
design elements, as appropriate.
Policy 2-30.3: Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote
environmental quality, economic vitality, and social
benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment.
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, sustainable building practices are encouraged, including, but not limited to passive design strategies, low-E/Energy Star windows, use of low VOC paints, wallpapers, and carpets, and minimize turf areas. These practices promote building methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality and social benefit through the design, construction and operation of the built environment. All construction will meet or exceed Title 24 building standards for energy efficiency, as applicable.
Goal 2-31: Conserve energy resources.
Policy
Policy 2-31.1: Require the incorporation of energy
conservation features into the design of all new
construction and site development activities.
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the Project encourages energy conservation features. All future projects shall meet Title 24 requirements and the California Green Building Standards.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Air Quality and Climate
Goal 2-35: Reduce air pollution emissions from both
mobile and stationary sources in the City.
Policies
Policy 2-35.2: Require that new development projects
incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and
pedestrian circulation.
Policy 2-35.3: Establish a balanced land use pattern, and facilitate developments that provide jobs for City residents in order to reduce vehicle trips citywide.
Policy 2-35.4: Require new development and significant
redevelopment proposals to incorporate sufficient design and operational controls to prevent release of noxious
odors beyond the limits of the development site.
Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the Project encourages transportation demand management
strategies. The Circulation Plan identifies the development of Class II bike lanes on Pepper Avenue and a potential pedestrian bridge to connect the retail uses with Frisbie Park to the west.
Bicycle storage is also indicated as a requirement in Chapter
18.58 of the Rialto Zoning Code for uses within the Project site.
The Project proposes 462,000 square feet of retail uses and 125,000 square feet of business park uses. Up to 275 multi-family units are permitted as an option, with a corresponding reduction of 106,000 square feet of retail. In either case, the Project is predominately commercial within an area generally consisting of single-family uses, providing Rialto residents jobs for which would result in a reduction of vehicle trips citywide.
The Specific Plan does not permit by right any uses that could potentially release noxious odors. Some uses that may release noxious odors will be reviewed under a Conditional Development Permit.
Goal 2-38: Mitigate against climate change.
Policy
Policy 2-38.3: Provide enhanced bicycling and walking
infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Consistent. The Circulation Plan for the Project identifies the development of Class II bike lanes on Pepper Avenue and a potential pedestrian bridge to connect the retail uses with Frisbie Park to the west. Bicycle racks are also indicated as a requirement for uses within the Project site. Bus services currently are not available to the Project site. However, should Omnitrans desire to offer services to the site, the Specific Plan does not prohibit these services.
Biological Resources
Goal 2-39: Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological
resources.
Policy
Policy 2-39.2: Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
Consistent. Open Space land use designation within the Specific Plan identifies areas within the Project that are preserved as natural habitat open space. The Project’s open space functions as a natural drainage feature, but also acts as natural habitat and allows for wildlife migration through the Project into adjacent open spaces and eventually into Lytle Creek.
Economic Development Element
Economic Development
Goal 3-1: Strengthen and diversify the economic base
and employment opportunities, and maintain a positive
business climate.
Policy
Policy 3-1.6: Attract regional commercial uses along the SR-210 and I-10 freeways, particularly at on- and off-
ramps, by providing incentives such as fast-tracking
review of projects and fee credits.
Consistent. The Project will contribute to the economic base of Rialto by providing new retail and business opportunities within the City. These new uses will provide tax revenue to the City and will provide new and existing residents important services and employment opportunities. The Project will allow for businesses of varying size and type to locate within the Project site. It is envisioned that smaller businesses will locate in the “main street” area and larger businesses in other portions of the Project site.
Infrastructure
Goal 3-6: Require that all developed areas within Rialto are adequately served with essential public services and infrastructure.
Policies
Policy 3-6.1: Coordinate all development proposals with other affected public entities to ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and infrastructure services.
Policy 3-6.2: Work with the school districts to
ensure that local school facilities can support the pace of residential development and growth.
Consistent. As part of the development of the environmental documentation for the Project, the Project team reached out to all public entities, including the City of Rialto (Sewer and Parks), Rialto Fire Department, Rialto Police Department, West Valley Water District, Rialto Unified School District, CalTrans, San Bernardino County (Library and Flood Control), Omnitrans, AT&T, SCE, Southern California Gas Company, and Time Warner Cable to ensure adequate infrastructure, public facilities and services are provided to the site. The details can be found in the EIR for this project.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 3-7: Upgrade public infrastructure as an inducement to promote private investment.
Policy
Policy 3-7.1: Link redevelopment tools with the processes of community facilities district formation and other similar funds to improve roadway and utility systems in areas
with the greatest need for upgrades.
Consistent. The Project infrastructure report identifies the infrastructure improvement needs to serve the site, including a sewer lift station and extending a potable water line. The project may use a variety of funding mechanisms to implement these improvements. These mechanisms are identified in Chapter 6, Implementation.
Water
Goal 3-8: Promote affordable and quality water service capable of adequately meeting normal and emergency
water demands to all areas in Rialto.
Policies
Policy 3-8.1: Require that all new development or
expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the water system to handle the increased demands which
they are expected to generate.
Policy 3-8.10: Support water conservation through
requirements for landscaping with drought-tolerant plants and efficient irrigation for all new development and City projects.
Consistent. The Project infrastructure report identifies the infrastructure improvement needs to serve the site, including the possibility of extending a potable water line to the Project site. As part of any new development, new projects will be required to pay for their connections to the potable water source, in accordance with applicable WVWD fees and regulations.
The Specific Plan includes a drought-tolerant landscape palette and encourages efficient irrigation methods, as identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines. Furthermore, the Specific Plan includes sustainability provisions, which include water conservation, also identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines.
Goal 3-9: Upgrade and maintain an improved
wastewater system with adequate plant efficiency and
capacity to protect the health and safety of all Rialto residents, businesses, and institutions.
Policy
Policy 3-9.1: Require that all new development or
expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the wastewater disposal system to handle the increased
loads which they are expected to generate.
Consistent. The Project infrastructure report identifies the infrastructure improvement needs to serve site, including a sewer lift station. As part of any new development, new projects will be required to pay for their connections to the wastewater service system in accordance with applicable City of Rialto fees and regulations. The report identifies that there is sufficient capacity in the existing sewer system to accommodate the proposed Project.
Circulation Element
Expanding Rialto’s Mobility
Goal 4-1: Provide transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion associated with regional and local trip increases.
Policies
Policy 4-1.20: Design City streets so that signalized
intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or
better during the morning and evening peak hours, and
require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. The one exception will be Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.
Policy 4-1.21: Design City streets so that unsignalized intersections operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during the
morning and evening peak hours, and require new
development to mitigate traffic impacts that increase
delay above that level.
Consistent. As indicated in the traffic study for the Project, roads and intersections within the Project will be designed such that they meet or exceed the level of service requirement of D during morning and evening peak hours, and unsignalized intersections shall be designed to operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during morning and peak hours (see section 4.H, Transportation, in this EIR).
Goal 4-3: Protect residences, sensitive land uses, and pedestrians from activities along rail corridors.
Policy
Policy 4-3.1: Require that development projects within rail corridors provide protective fencing, landscaping, and/or walls between rail tracks and new residences or other
new development sensitive to noise or danger from rail
operations.
Consistent. The Project includes the option for up to 275 multi- family dwelling units within PA3, which is partly adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad spur. As indicated in Chapter 5, Development Standards, should multi-family housing be
considered in PA 3, the multi-family property abutting the railroad spur shall provide protective fencing, landscape and/or walls between any multi-family development and the railroad spur.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Meeting Our Parking Needs
Goal 4-5: Ensure the provision of adequate, convenient, and safe parking for all land uses.
Policies
Policy 4-5.1: Support provision of park-and-ride facilities near the I-10 and SR-210 freeways to encourage
carpooling, van pooling, and other ride sharing
opportunities.
Policy 4-5.4: Allow for joint use and the sharing of parking facilities in mixed-use developments and for other
projects which demonstrate the benefits of alternative
parking approaches.
Consistent. Park-and-ride facilities are allowed as a permitted use within the Project. As indicated in Chapter 5, Development Standards, shared parking may be allowed, provided a shared parking study is performed by a qualified traffic engineer and demonstrates no significant negative impacts associated with shared off-street parking.
Encouraging Rail and Bus Ridership
Goal 4-6: Provide for all residents and businesses to
have equal access to reliable and convenient public
transit services.
Policies
Policy 4-6.2: Establish new bus turnouts along
appropriate arterials based on and in coordination with local and regional transit providers’ master plan of stops.
Policy 4-6.3: Require major developments to include bus turnouts, bus shelters, and other transit facilities as appropriate.
Policy 4-6.5: Encourage clean, lighted, and convenient
bus shelters and transit stops that are within walking
distance of major activity areas and residential
neighborhoods and along arterial roadways.
Consistent. Pepper Avenue north of Baseline Road does not currently have any public transit services. With the recent opening of the Pepper Avenue extension, bus services could be extended to the Project site. Chapter 5, Development Standards requires that all major developments shall work with Omnitrans in determining if bus services shall service the Project site. Should bus services be provided, there is adequate space within the Pepper Avenue right-of-way to accommodate a bus turnout between the Project’s two signalized intersections. Furthermore, the project will provide bus shelters and other illuminated transit facilitates, should it be determined that transit services be provided to the site.
Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Goal 4-8: Establish and maintain a comprehensive
system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City.
Policies
Policy 4-8.1: Expand Class I bicycle trails with amenities, particularly adjacent to open space areas, utility and flood control corridors, and abandoned rail corridors.
Policy 4-8.4: Require provision of secure bicycle storage, including bicycle racks and lockers, at the Metrolink
station, public parks, schools, shopping centers, park- and-ride facilities, and other major activity centers.
Policy 4-8.5: Require major developments to include
bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers.
Consistent. The Project includes a potential pedestrian bridge that connects the Community Commercial area to Frisbie Park to the west. Internally, the Project contains numerous design guidelines in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, which encourage pedestrian connectivity between Planning Areas, including the welcoming plaza located at the terminus of the pedestrian bridge within the Community Commercial zone. Due to the location, size and scope of the project, regional Class I bike paths and trails will not be extended to reach the Project.
As indicated in Chapter 18.58 of the City of Rialto Zoning Code, all projects will provide secure bicycle storage as required per the Planning Division. This storage will be incorporated throughout the site and distributed through both the Community Commercial and Residential Overlay designations. The location of the bike racks should be concentrated in areas of high expected
pedestrian activity, such as plazas, bus stops, and other major activity centers.
Goal 4-9: Promote walking.
Policies
Policy 4-9.2: Require sidewalks and parkways on all
streets in new development.
Policy 4-9.3: Provide pedestrian-friendly and safety
improvements, such as crosswalks and pedestrian
signals, in all pedestrian activity areas.
Policy 4-9.4: Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists —
in addition to automobiles — when considering new
development projects.
Policy 4-9.6: Encourage new development to provide
pedestrian paths through projects, with outlets to adjacent Consistent. The Specific Plan will promote walking as a means of transportation in accordance with the intent described in the General Plan. As indicated in Chapter 3, Plan Elements, the design of Pepper Avenue includes sidewalks and parkways.
Internal drives will also provide sidewalks and parkways at select locations to foster a pedestrian-friendly environment. As discussed throughout the Specific Plan, the pedestrian circulation network will include amenities and safety improvements, such as crosswalks, pedestrian signals and pinched curbs to reduce crossing distances. Furthermore, the layout of the Project will consider pedestrian, cyclist, and automobile traffic at the design- level.
The pedestrian circulation network will make meaningful connections within and outside of the project site. Areas of activity
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
collector, secondary, and arterial roadways.
Policy 4-9.7: Require ADA compliance on all new or
modified handicap ramps.
and interest within the Project will be connected and walkable to one another. These places will also be connected to Frisbie Park, located to the west of the Project site. Whenever possible, all new pedestrian infrastructure in the site shall be designed such that it is ADA compliant.
Facilitating Goods Movement
Goal 4-10: Provide a circulation system that supports
Rialto’s position as a logistics hub.
Policy
Policy 4-10.4: Encourage the development of adequate
on-site loading areas to minimize interference of truck loading activities with efficient traffic circulation on adjacent roadways.
Consistent. As indicated in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, loading areas shall be designed so that they minimize impacts to traffic circulation.
Safety and Noise Element
Seismic Hazards
Goal 5-1: Minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare associated with geotechnical hazards.
Policies
Policy 5-1.1: Require geotechnical investigations by
certified engineering geologist or other qualified
professionals for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture,
severe ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and
collapsible or expansive soils. Particular attention should be paid to areas within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
Policy 5-1.2: Require all construction to be in
conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and
the California Building Code (CBC), and to be consistent with the Municipal Code as it provides for earthquake
resistant design, excavation, and grading.
Consistent. As described in the environmental documentation for the Project, future developments will need to provide a geotechnical study and comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements as it applies to Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. All construction will conform to all applicable state and municipal regulations regarding building and grading design (See PFD GEO-1 in this EIR).
Flood Hazards
Goal 5-2: Minimize the risk and damage from flood
hazards.
Policies
Policy 5-2.2: Require the implementation of adequate
erosion control measures for development projects to
minimize sedimentation damage to drainage facilities.
Policy 5-2.4: Require water retention devices in new
developments to minimize flooding of the surface
drainage system by peak flows.
Consistent. The Specific Plan incorporates Best Management Practices and erosion control measures to minimize
sedimentation damage to drainage facilities. Planning and design for water quality protection employs three basic strategies in the following order of relative effectiveness: 1) reduce or eliminate post-project runoff; 2) control sources of pollutants; and 3) treat contaminated stormwater runoff before discharging it to natural water bodies. These principles are consistent with the typical permit and local program requirements for projects that require a consideration of a combination of source control BMPs (that reduce or eliminate runoff and control pollutant sources) and treatment control BMPs with specific quantitative standards.
Fire Hazards
Goal 5-3: Increase the City’s fire protection capabilities, and implement fire prevention regulations and standards that minimize potential fire hazards and fire losses.
Policies
Policy 5-3.3: Require that development be phased in
relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, as per the City standards.
Policy 5-3.4: Require that all site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations.
Consistent. Development of the Specific Plan shall be phased such that growth does not outpace the City of Rialto’s ability to provide adequate levels of fire protection. All site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Noise
Goal 5-11: Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise.
Policy
Policy 5-11.2: Require development which is, or will be, affected by railroad noise to include appropriate
measures to minimize adverse noise effects on residents and business persons.
Consistent. As indicated in the environmental documentation for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, the Project incorporates mitigation measures to ensure that any noise emanating from nearby trains and/or the Project are reduced to minimize noise impacts (see Section 4.K, Noise, of this EIR).
Housing Element
Housing Availability and Production
Goal 6-2: Promote and encourage housing development
that adequately meets the needs of all socioeconomic
segments of the community and region.
Policy
Policy 6-2.6: Promote the phased and orderly
development of new neighborhoods consistent with the
provision of infrastructure improvements.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 6, Implementation, of the Specific Plan, adequate infrastructure will be provided to the Project Site prior to any occupancy approvals for growth to occur in an orderly manner.
Housing Affordability
Goal 6-3: Maximize the use of available financial
resources and pursue creative and resourceful methods
to reduce the overall cost of housing.
Policies
Policy 6-3.4: Support the development of rental units with three or more bedrooms to provide affordable housing
that adequately accommodates larger families, thereby
reducing overcrowding and overpayment.
Policy 6-3.5: Encourage the construction of apartment
complexes with strong on-site management to ensure
that housing is well maintained.
Consistent. The Project’s proposed Residential Overlay is expected to develop with multi-family dwelling units, a portion of which may contain rental units consisting of three or more bedrooms. The exact number three bedroom of units will be determined by the developer of the future project. The Specific Plan includes development standards that encourage the
construction of apartment complexes with strong on-site management to ensure that housing and its associated
landscaping and amenities are well-maintained.
SOURCE: City of Rialto, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Appendix A, General Plan Consistency, 2016.
(d) Rialto Zoning Ordinance
Title 18 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code establishes land use requirements for all new development in the City. All new development would be reviewed by the City’s Department of Building and Safety to ensure compliance with all aspects of the Municipal Code, including Title
18. The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would meet the requirements of Sec. 18.78, which provides procedures for the adoption of specific plans. The Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines (Chapter
4.0) and Development Standards (Chapter 5.0) would meet the requirements of Title 18 for the systematic implementation of the General Plan regarding the location of uses together with regulations establishing height, bulk, and setback limits; the location and extent of existing or proposed streets, standards for building density, permissible types of construction and provisions for services.
Overall, future development associated with the Project would be subject to review through the development application process and would be analyzed by the City to ensure that the development is consistent with the development regulations and requirements. Where the Specific Plan is silent on a development standard or design requirement, the City’s Municipal Code
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
applies. Although a zone change from the existing Single-Family Residential (R-1A) would be required as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan, compliance with the development standards of the Specific Plan, once it has been adopted, would ensure that development would not conflict with the standards and regulations of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, with approval of the proposed zone change, the Specific Plan would be considered consistent with the regulations of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and respective land use impacts would be less than significant.
e. Cumulative Impacts
Development of the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in cumulative significant land use impacts relative to compliance with the applicable principles, goals, objectives, and/or policies of California Government Code Section 65450, the SCAG RTP/SCS or the City of Rialto General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Future related projects, identified in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, would be required to meet applicable regulations, such as plan review for conformance with land use and zoning designations. Any future development occurring as part of the Specific Plan in addition to identified cumulative development must undergo a project review process to preclude potential planning policy conflicts. Each development project would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well as within the context of existing and planned developments to ensure that the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and all other applicable policies and development guidelines are consistently upheld. Thus, the Specific Plan along with identified related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, and the Project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.
4. Mitigation Measures
The Specific Plan would not result in less than significant impacts regarding consistency with applicable land use policies and regulations and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
5. Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the existing regulatory framework relative to land use, including California Government Code Section 65450, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the City of Rialto General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant without the implementation of mitigation measures.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
F. Land Use and Planning
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.F-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
6. References
Chang, 2016. Comments prepared by Ping Chang, SCAG Program Manager II, on the Notice of Preparation for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR, February 19, 2016. Contained in Appendix A of this EIR.
Rialto, 2010. Rialto General Plan. Adopted December 2010, pages 1-2 through 1-4. Available at:
http://www.rialtoca.gov/documents/downloads/General_Plan_Update _2010.pdf. ________. Op Cit, pages 3-1 through 3-3.
________. Op Cit, pages 4-1 through 4-4.
________. Op Cit, page 5-1.
________. Op Cit, page 6-83.
SCAG, 2012. 2012-2035Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2012. Available at: http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
G. Noise
1. Introduction
This section analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts that could result from the Project. The analysis describes the existing noise environment within the Project area, estimates future noise and vibration levels at surrounding land uses associated with construction and operation of the Project, identifies the potential for significant impacts, and provides mitigation measures to address significant impacts, as feasible. An evaluation of the potential cumulative noise impacts of the Project and cumulative projects is also provided. Noise worksheets and technical data used in this analysis are included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
2. Environmental Setting
a. Noise and Vibration Basics
(1) Noise
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound level can be easily measured, the perceptibility of sound is subjective and the physical response to sound complicates the analysis of its impact on people. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels (dB).
The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. To approximate this human, frequency-dependent response, the A-weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The A-weighted sound level is expressed in “dBA.” This scale de- emphasizes low frequencies to which human hearing is less sensitive and focuses on mid- to high-range frequencies. The range of human hearing is approximately 3 to 140 dBA, with 110 dBA considered intolerable or painful to the human ear. A comparison of types of commonly experienced environmental noise is provided in Figure 4.G-1, Common Noise Levels.
Although the A-weighted scale accounts for the range of people’s response and, therefore, is commonly used to quantify individual event or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response effects also depends on several other perceptibility factors. These factors include:
Ambient (background) sound level;
Magnitude of sound event with respect to the background noise level; Duration of the sound event;
Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness; and Time of day that the event occurs.
People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation by subjective terms such as “loudness” or “noisiness.” That is, in a non-controlled environment a change in sound level of 3 dB is considered “just perceptible,” a change in sound level of 5 dB is considered “clearly noticeable, and a change in 10 dB is recognized as “twice as loud.” Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.G-1
Common Noise Levels
SOURCE: Caltrans Noise Manual, California Department of Transportation, 1980 Noise Level
(dBA)
110
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Common Indoor Noise Levels
Rock Band
Inside Subway Train
Food Blender @ 3 feet
Garbage Disposal @ 3 feet
Shouting @ 3 feet
Vacuum Cleaner @ 10 feet
Normal Speech @ 3 feet
Large Business Office
Dishwasher next room
Small Theater/Conference Room
(background)
Library
Bedroom at Night
Concert Hall (background)
Broadcast & Recording Studio
Threshold of Hearing
Common Outdoor Noise Levels
Jet Flyover @ 1,000 feet
Gas Lawn Mower @ 3 feet
Diesel Truck @ 50 feet
Gas Lawn Mower @ 100 feet
Commercial Area
Quiet Urban Daytime
Quiet Urban Nightime
Quiet Suburban Nightime
Noisy Urban Daytime
Heavy Traffic @ 300 feet
Quiet Rural Nightime
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
In an outdoor environment, sound levels attenuate (reduce) through the air as a function of distance. Such attenuation is called “distance loss” or “geometric spreading” and is based on the source configuration, point source or line source. For a point source, the rate of sound attenuation is 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source. For example, a sound level of 50 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source would attenuate to 44 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. For a line source, such as a constant flow of traffic on a roadway, the rate of sound attenuation is 3 dB per doubling of distance. In addition, structures (e.g., buildings and solid walls) and natural topography (e.g., hills) that obstruct the line-of-sight between a noise source and a receptor further reduce the noise level if the receptor is located within the “shadow” of the obstruction, such as behind a sound wall. This type of sound attenuation is known as “barrier insertion loss.” If a receptor is located behind the wall but still has a view of the source (i.e., line-of-sight not fully blocked), some barrier insertion loss would still occur, however to a lesser extent.
Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as a noise source may actually experience an increase in the perceived noise level as the wall reflects noise back to the receptor, thereby compounding the noise. Noise barriers can provide noise level reductions ranging from approximately 5 dBA (where the barrier just breaks the line-of-sight between the source and receiver) to an upper range of 20 dBA with a more substantial barrier.
Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent sound level (L
eq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is the equivalent steady-state A- weighted sound level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying A- weighted sound level during the same time interval. For intermittent noise sources, the maximum noise level (Lmax) is normally used to represent the maximum noise level measured during the measurement. Maximum and minimum noise levels, as compared to the Leq, are a function of the characteristics of the noise source. As an example, sources such as generators have maximum and minimum noise levels that are similar to Leq since noise levels for steady-state noise sources do not substantially fluctuate. However, as another example, vehicular noise levels along local roadways result in substantially different minimum and maximum noise levels when compared to the Leq since noise levels fluctuate during pass-by events. The City of Rialto Noise Ordinance uses the Leq for evaluation of noise violation.
To assess noise levels over a given 24-hour time period, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is used in land use planning. CNEL is the time average of all A-weighted sound levels for a 24-hour period with a 10 dBA adjustment (upward) added to the sound levels that occur at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) and a 5 dBA adjustment (upward) added to the sound levels that occur in the evening (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.). These “penalties” attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter nighttime periods, particularly where sleep is the most probable activity. CNEL has been adopted by the State of California to define the community noise environment for development of a community noise element of a General Plan and is also used by City of Rialto for land use planning in the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan.
Sound Transmission Class (STC) is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. In the USA, it is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings/floors, doors,
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
windows and exterior wall configurations. The STC rating figure very roughly reflects the decibel reduction in noise that a partition can provide.
(2) Ground-Borne Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The response of humans, buildings, and equipment to vibration is more accurately described using velocity or acceleration.
Vibration amplitudes are often described as peak, as in peak particle velocity (PPV). The peak level represents the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. In addition, vibrations can be measured in the vertical, horizontal longitudinal, or horizontal transverse directions.
Ground vibrations are most often greatest in the vertical direction. Therefore, the analysis of ground-borne vibration associated with the Project is addressed in the vertical direction.
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Man-made vibration issues are therefore usually confined to short distances (i.e., 50 feet or less) from the source.
TABLE 4.G-1
GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA b. Existing Conditions
(1) Noise-Sensitive Receptors Locations
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to intrusive noise than others due to the types of activities and characteristics associated with particular land uses. Specifically, residences, schools, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals and nursing homes are generally more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. Existing noise sensitive land uses are limited to residential uses, which include the following:
Frisbie Park, 50 feet west of the Project boundary or over 700 feet from nearest potential area of construction within the Project Site;
Semi-rural residence, 200 feet east of the Project boundary, and Human Response
Maximum PPV (inch per second)
Transient Sources a
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources b
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
a Transient sources created a sin gle isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. b Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-an-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Source: Caltrans, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, 2004.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Single-family residences, 200 feet southwest of the Project boundary or approximately 800 feet from nearest potential area of construction within the Project Site. (2) Ambient Noise Levels
The predominant existing noise source surrounding the Project Site is traffic noise from the 210 Freeway and from Pepper Avenue.
Ambient noise measurements were conducted at six locations, representing the nearby land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site to establish conservative ambient noise levels. The measurement locations along with existing development and nearby future development are shown on Figure 4.G-2, Noise Measurement Locations. Long-term (24-hour) measurements were conducted at locations R1 and R2 and short-term (15-minute) noise measurements were conducted at locations R3 through R6. Ambient sound measurements were conducted from Wednesday, May 18, through Thursday, May 19, 2016, to characterize the existing noise environment in the Project vicinity.
The ambient noise measurements were conducted using the Larson-Davis 820 Precision Integrated Sound Level Meter (“SLM”). The Larson-Davis 820 SLM is a Type 1 standard instrument as defined in the American National Standard Institute S1.4. All instruments were calibrated and operated according to the applicable manufacturer specification. The SLM microphone was placed at a height of 5 feet above the local grade, at the following measurement locations, as shown in Figure 4.G-2:
R1: represents the existing noise environment of the location of the potential future multi- family residences on the Project Site which could be located approximately 120 feet from the existing BNSF railroad tracks. The SLM was placed on the eastern boundary of the Project Site, nearest to the BNSF railroad tracks.
R2: represents the existing noise environment of the Project Site along Pepper Avenue, and the southern boundary of the future open space land use at the Project Site. The SLM was placed on the southern boundary of the Project Site on the west side of Pepper Avenue. R3: represents the existing noise environment of the Project Site along Pepper Avenue, and the central portion of the Project Site which will be dedicated to community commercial uses.
The SLM was placed along the west side of Pepper Avenue in the central portion of the Project Site.
R4: represents the existing noise environment of single-family residential uses to the south and west of the Project Site. The SLM was placed at southwestern corner of the Project Site near the intersection of East Walnut Avenue and North Chestnut Avenue. R5: This measurement location represents the existing noise environment of the southern boundary of Frisbie Park. The SLM was placed at the western boundary of the Project Site across Eucalyptus Avenue from Frisbie Park.
R6: This measurement location represents the existing noise environment of the northeastern boundary of Frisbie Park near State Route 210 (SR-210). The SLM was placed at the northwestern boundary of the Project Site to the northeast of the intersection of Easton Street and Eucalyptus Avenue.
Noise Measurement Locations
R4R4
R2R2
R3R3
R5R5
R6R6
R1R1
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.G-2
Noise Measurement Locations
SOURCE: KTGY Architecture+Planning, July 2015; ESA PCR, 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
A summary of noise measurement data is provided in Table 4.G-2, Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements. Daytime noise levels ranged from 48 dBA to 73 dBA, Leq and nighttime noise levels ranged from 41 dBA to 73 dBA, Leq.
TABLE 4.G-2
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location, Duration, Existing Land Uses
and, Date of Measurements
Measured Ambient Noise Levels,a (dBA)
Daytime
(7 A.M. to 10 P.M.)
Hourly Leq
Daytime
Average
Hourly Leq
Nighttime
(10 P.M. to 7 A.M.)
Hourly Leq
Nighttime
Average
Hourly Leq
R1 –
5/18/16 (5:00 P.M. to 11:59 P.M. )/Wednesday
5/19/16 (12:00 A.M. to 7:59 P.M. )/Thursday
48 – 72
45 – 73
68 48 – 71
41 – 73
67 R2
5/18/16 (8:00 P.M. to 11:59 P.M. )/Wednesday
5/19/16 (12:00 A.M. to 7:59 P.M. )/Thursday
61 – 62
53 – 66
64 58 - 61
52 – 64
61 R3
5/18/16 (6:51 P.M. to 7:06 P.M.)/Wednesday
61 N/A
N/A
N/A
R4
5/18/16 (6:19
P.M. to 6:34 P.M.)/Wednesday
57 N/A
N/A
N/A
R5
5/18/16 (5:44 P.M. to 5:59 P.M.)/Wednesday
58 N/A
N/A
N/A
R6
5/18/16 (5:08
P.M. to 5:23 P.M.)/Wednesday
59 N/A
N/A
N/A
a Detailed measured noise data, including hourly Leq levels, are included in Appendix F.
SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2016.
To further characterize the Project area’s ambient noise environment, the CNEL noise levels attributed to existing traffic on local roadways were calculated using a noise prediction model which was developed based on calculation methodologies provided in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) document and traffic data provided in the Project Traffic Study (see Appendix G of this Draft EIR). This methodology, considered an industry standard, allows for the definition of roadway configurations, barrier information (if any), and receiver locations.
A traffic model calibration test was performed to establish the noise prediction model’s accuracy between 6
P.M. and 8 P.M. on May 18, 2016. The road segments included in the calibration test were along Pepper Avenue, between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue, south of Easton Street. At the noted locations, a 15-minute noise recording was made concurrent with logging of actual traffic volumes and auto fleet mix (i.e., standard automobile, medium duty truck, or heavy duty truck). The traffic counts were entered into the noise model along with the observed speed, lane configuration, and distance to the roadway to calculate the traffic noise levels. The results of the traffic noise model calibration are provided in Table 4.G-3, Traffic Noise Model Calibration Results. As indicated, the noise model results are within 1 dBA
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
of the measured noise levels, which is within the industry standard tolerance of the noise prediction model. Therefore, the Project specific traffic noise prediction model is considered accurate and reflective of the Project’s physical setting.
TABLE 4.G-3
TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL CALIBRATION RESULTS
Road Segment/
Noise Measurements
Locations
Traffic Counts during noise
readings,
15-minutes Measured
Traffic Noise
Levels,
L
eq (dBA)c
Project Traffic
Noise Model
Predicted Noise
Levels,
L
eq (dBA)
Difference between
Predicted and
Measured Levels,
dBA
Autos
Medium
Trucks
a
Heavy
Trucks
b
Pepper Avenue 103 0 0 61.3 61.8 -0.5
Eucalyptus Avenue 62 0 0 58.9 59.5 -0.6
a Medium Truck – 2 axle trucks based on field observations. b Heavy Truck – 3 or more axle tr ucks and buses based on field observations.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016.
Because the monitoring data validates the use of a project-specific traffic noise prediction model, the ambient noise environment of the Project vicinity can be characterized by 24-hour CNEL levels attributable to existing traffic on local roadways. As indicated in Table 4.G-4, Predicted Existing Vehicular Traffic Noise Levels, the calculated CNEL (at a distance of 25 feet from the roadway right-of-way) from actual existing traffic volumes on the analyzed roadway segments ranged from 42.6 dBA to 68.2 dBA for residential areas and commercial areas. (3) Vibration-Sensitive Receptor Locations
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities (i.e., rail and roadway traffic, mechanical equipment and typical construction equipment) diminishes rapidly as the distance from the source of the vibration become greater. The Federal Transportation Association (FTA) uses a screening distance of 100 feet for high vibration sensitive buildings (e.g., hospital with vibration sensitive equipment) and 50 feet for residential uses (FTA year). When vibration sensitive uses are located within those distances from a project site, vibration impact analysis is required. With respect to structures, vibration-sensitive receptors generally include historic buildings with construction susceptible to damage, buildings in poor structural condition, and uses that require precision instruments (e.g., hospital operating rooms or scientific research laboratories). There are no vibration sensitive buildings within 100 feet and no residences within 50 feet of the Project Site.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-4
PREDICTED EXISTING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Adjacent
Land Use
Existing Noise
Exposure Compatibility
Category b,c
Existing CNEL (dBA)
at Referenced
Distances from
Roadway Right-of-
Way a
25 Feet
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue Residential/
Commercial
Normally Incompatible 67.8
Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue Residential Normall y Incompatible 66.3 Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road Residential Normally Compatible 66.3 Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive Residential Normally C ompatible 61.5 Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive Residential Normall y Compatible 60.2 Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue Residential Clearl y Compatible 42.6 Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue Commercial Norma lly Compatible 64.3 Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street Commercial/
Residential
Normally Compatible 64.3
Between Macy Street and State Street Commercial Normally Compat ible 66.0 Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street Commercial Normal ly Compatible 64.1 State Street
North of Highland Avenue Commercial/
Residential
Normally Incompatible 65.4
South of SR-210 EB Ramps Residential Normally Compatible 64.9 Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive Residential Normally Compatible 60.4 Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road Residential Normally Compatible 63.1 Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue Residential Normall y Compatible 59.2 Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue Residential Normall y Incompatible 68.2 Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue Residential Normally Incompatible 67.5 Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps Commercial/
Residential
Normally Incompatible 69.5
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street Commercial Normally I ncompatible 72.1
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Adjacent
Land Use
Existing Noise
Exposure Compatibility
Category b,c
Existing CNEL (dBA)
at Referenced
Distances from
Roadway Right-of-
Way a
25 Feet
Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue Commercial/ Residential
Normally Compatible 64.9
West of Riverside Avenue Commercial/
Residential
Normally Compatible 64.5
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue Residential Normally Compatible 55.3 East of Pepper Avenue Residential Clearly Compatible 53.6 Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue Residential Normally Compatible 60.5 East of Pepper Avenue Residential Normally Compatible 60.7 Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue Residential/School Normally Incompatible 65.9 East of Pepper Avenue Residential Normally Incompatible 67.0
a Calculated based on existing traffic volumes.
b Based on noise level s at 25 feet distance from the roadway and residential uses if residential uses are shown along roadways. c See Table 4.G-5 for a descripti on of the compatibility categories.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016.
c. Regulatory Framework
(1) City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto has established guidelines for land use compatibility, which is similar but modified version of the State’s land use noise compatibility standards. The City’s guidelines are provided in the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan and are presented in Table 4.G-5.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-5
CITY OF RIALTO LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR
COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
(2) City of Rialto Municipal Codes
The City of Rialto Noise Ordinance (Rialto Municipal Code, RMC) restricts unnecessary or excessive noise. The Noise Ordinance does not define what constitutes a noise violation in terms of numeric standards. Rather, it characterizes a noise violation as any noise that is unreasonably loud, unnecessary or unusual that disturbs the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity [Section
9.50.030]. Among others, specific examples of violations cited in the Noise Ordinance that would pertain to the Project include the following:
Loading and unloading any vehicle, or operating or permitting the use of dollies, carts, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any impulsive sound, raucous or unnecessary noise within one thousand feet of a residence, between the hours of 8:00 P.M.
and 8:00 A.M. in residential zones or 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. in all other zones [Section
9.50.050(B)];
Activities conducted on the grounds of any public or private schools during regular hours of operation are exempt from the Noise Ordinance [Section 9.50.060(B)].
Community Noise Exposure CNEL, dBA
Land Use
Clearly
Compatible
Normally
Compatible
Normally
Incompatible
Clearly
Incompatible
Residential - Single-Family, Duplex, Multiple Family,
Mobile Homes
Up to 55 55 to 65 65 to 70 Above 70
Commercial - Hotels, Motels, Transient Lodging Up to 55 55 to 6 5 65 to 80 Above 80 Institutional – Hospitals, Schools, Churches,
Libraries
Up to 55 55 to 65 65 to 75 Above 75
Institutional - Auditoriums, Meeting Halls Up to 55 55 to 60 60 to 70 Above 70 Open Space - Parks, Playgrounds Up to 65 65 to 70 70 to 75 Abov e 75 Commercial – Office Buildings Up to 60 60 to 75 75 to 80 Above 80 Commercial - Commercial Retail, Banks, Theaters,
Restaurants
Up to 60 60 to 80 Above 80 --
Commercial/Industrial - Wholesale Warehousing,
Manufacturing, Auto Dealership
Up to 65 65 to 80 Above 80 --
Agricultural - Farming/Groves Up to 85 -- -- --
Clearly Compatible: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Normally Compatible: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Incompatible: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Incompatible: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Rialto, November 1, 1991.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
With regard to construction noise, the City of Rialto does not specify quantitative limits. Rather, the City sets limits on when construction activity can occur. Therefore, pursuant to the City’s Noise Ordinance, the Project construction related noise impacts would not be considered significant unless construction occurs outside the City’s allowed duration as follows:
1. October 1 st through April 30th - 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays.
2. May 1 st through September 30th - 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays.
(3) Ground-Borne Vibration Guidelines
The City of Rialto has not adopted policies or guidelines relative to ground-borne vibration.
However, Caltrans has produced a guidance manual for evaluating potential vibration impacts (“Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual” dated June 2004). The manual provides thresholds for potential impacts on human comfort and damage to buildings, as well as guidance for reducing potential vibration impacts and addressing vibration issues. The manual contains data from multiple sources including the FTA. Tables 4, 5 and 6 of the Caltrans guidance manual provide criteria for identifying potential annoyance from vibration activity, as measured in inches per second PPV. For example, 0.035 inches per second PPV is identified as a level that is “distinctly” or “barely” perceptible, and 0.08/0.1 inches per second PPV is identified as “readily” or “strongly” perceptible. Levels above 0.08/0.1 inches per second PPV represent levels that begin to annoy human beings.
Tables 9 through 15 of the Caltrans guidance manual provide criteria for identifying potential damage to buildings. The values vary depending on the types and conditions of buildings considered. According to those guidelines, buildings that are extremely old and fragile can be subject to damage from vibration levels as low as 0.1 inches per second PPV. Table 10, based on FTA data, provides a conservative estimate for well-constructed buildings of 0.5 inches per second (PPV). Tables 9, 14, and 15 assign the 0.5 standard to residential structures and some older buildings, and assign levels of 1.0 to 2.0 inches per second PPV for newer, more substantial, better engineered buildings.
3. Environmental Impacts
a. Methodology
(1) On-Site Construction Noise
Noise impacts from on-site construction, staging area, and truck hauling are evaluated by determining the noise levels generated by the different types of construction activity, calculating the construction-related noise level at nearby sensitive receptor locations, and comparing these construction-related noise levels to existing ambient noise levels (i.e., noise levels without construction noise). More specifically, the following steps were undertaken to calculate construction-period noise impacts:
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
1. Ambient noise levels at surrounding sensitive receptor locat ions were estimated based on field measurement data (see Table 4.G-1);
2. Typical noise levels for each type of construction equipment were obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) roadway construction noise model (RCNM); and
3. Construction noise levels were then estimated in terms of ho urly Leq, at varying distances based on the standard point source noise-distance attenuation factor of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance.
Construction noise is a short-term temporary event, expected to occur only during daytime hours, typically from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and considered a common necessity for new development.
There are residential uses in the City that are in proximity to the Project Site and could potentially be impacted by the Project construction noise. While the City does not have an established significance threshold for construction noise, compliance with the RMC (construction hours limits as described Section 2.b.(2)) shall be considered to result in a less than significant impact for purposes of this Project.
(2) Off-Site Roadway Noise (Construction and Operation) Roadway noise impacts have been evaluated using the Caltrans TeNS methodology based on the roadway traffic volume data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the Project. 1 This methodology allows for the definition of roadway configurations, barrier information (if any), and receiver locations. Roadway noise attributable to Project development was calculated and compared to baseline noise levels that would occur under the “without Project” condition.
According to the TIA, the Specific Plan’s Development Scenario 1 (without residential overlay) would generate more traffic than Scenario 2 (with residential overlay). Therefore, Scenario 1 only is evaluated in the TIA to present a conservative or worst-case assessment of traffic impacts.
Similarly, roadway noise impacts for Scenario 1 have been evaluated herein to provide a worst- case assessment of traffic noise impacts.
(3) Stationary Point-Source Noise (Operation)
Stationary point-source noise impacts have been evaluated by identifying the noise sources such as rooftop mechanical equipment and loading dock activities, estimating noise levels from noise sources at surrounding sensitive receiver property line locations, and comparing such noise levels to existing ambient noise levels. As previously discussed, with respect to the community noise assessment, changes in noise levels of less than 3 dBA are generally not discernable to most people, while changes greater than 5 dBA are readily noticeable and would be considered a significant increase.
(4) Ground-Borne Vibration (Construction and Operation) Ground-borne vibration impacts were evaluated by identifying potential vibration sources, measuring the distance between vibration sources and surrounding structure locations, and making a significance determination based on the significance thresholds described below.
1 Marlie Whiteman, P .E, June 2015, January 2016 (Revised). Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a set of screening questions that address impacts with regard to Noise Impacts. These questions are as follows:
Would the Project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project above levels existing without the Project; or
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
(1) Construction
The following thresholds of significance are set forth in the RMC, which states that a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if construction activities would occur outside of the following hours:
Threshold 1: October 1 st through April 30th - 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays; and May 1st through September 30th - 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday.
Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays.
Additionally, construction activities would result in a significant impact if they were to occur on a Sunday or State holiday.
(2) Operation
The City of Rialto General Plan provides land use compatibility guidelines for defining significant noise impacts due to operations. A significant impact related to operational noise would result if:
Threshold 2: The Project would cause ambient noise levels to in crease by 5 dBA, CNEL or more and the resulting noise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “clearly compatible” or “normally compatible” (see Table
4.G-5 for description of these categories); or cause ambient noise levels to increase by 3 dBA, CNEL or more and the resulting noise falls on a noise- sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “normally incompatible” or “clearly incompatible.”
(3) Ground-Borne Vibration
The City of Rialto has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction. Thus, the Caltrans standards described above are used to evaluate potential impacts
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
related to Project construction. Generally, the threshold for human annoyance (0.035 inches per second [PPV]) is used to evaluate the significance of all vibration impacts at off-site sensitive uses. The thresholds for structural damage to residential and commercial buildings are 0.5 inches per second and 1.0 inches per second (PPV), respectively, in accordance with Caltrans guidance.
The City of Rialto has not adopted a significance threshold to assess long-term vibration impacts, such as those potentially arising from operation of the Project. Vehicles passing by off-site sensitive uses are the primary source of long-term Project-related vibration. The level of human annoyance, 0.035 inch per second PPV, has been selected.
Impacts relative to ground-borne vibration would be considered significant if either of the following were to occur:
Threshold 3: Project construction activities cause a ground-bor ne vibration level to exceed
0.5 inches per second PPV (potential for structural damage) at the nearest off-site residential uses.
Threshold 4: Project construction or operation activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.035 inch per second PPV (potential human annoyance level) at the nearest off-site residential uses.
c. Project Design Features
No project design features are applicable to the Noise analysis below. d. Project Impacts
(1) Construction Noise
(a) On-site Construction Noise
Threshold Noise 1: The Project would have a significant impact if construction a ctivities occur outside of the following hours: October 1 st through April 30 th - 7 : 0 0 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays; and May 1 st through September 30th - 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays.
Impact Statement Noise-1: Construction activities associated with Project implementation would be conducted within the allowable hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code.
Compliance with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant.
The timing of development within the Project Site would be subject to local, regional, and national market conditions. Accordingly, the Project Site could be developed in one or more phases, with the earliest construction beginning in late 2016. No uses would be opened prior to 2017 (opening year). The build-out year would be 2035.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would likely be used for Project construction produce maximum noise levels of 75 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 4.G-6, Maximum Noise Levels and Estimated Usage of Typical Construction Equipment. These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions or during “impact” activities, such as jack hammering or sawing.
However, equipment used on construction sites often operate under less than full power conditions, or part power. To more accurately characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (Hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage and are typically attributable to multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
TABLE 4.G-6
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS AND ESTIMATED USAGE OF TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Estimated Usage Factor Reference Noise Level at 50 feet, Lmax Aerial Lift 20% 75
Air Compressor 50% 78
Cement and Mortar Mixer 40% 79
Concrete Saw 20% 90
Crane 40% 81
Dozer 40% 82
Excavator 40% 81
Forklift 10% 75
Grader 40% 85
Rubber Tired Loader 40% 82
Other Equipment 50% 85
Paver 50% 77
Pavement Scarifier 20% 90
Roller 20% 80
Scraper 40% 84
Tractor / Loader / Backhoe 25% 80
Vacuum Street Sweeper 10% 82
Source: FHWA 2005.
Construction noise levels were estimated based on an industry standard sound attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance for point sources (e.g., construction equipment). Within the analysis, all construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously at the construction area nearest to potentially affected residential receptors. These assumptions represent a worst- case noise scenario as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site further away from noise sensitive receptors. In addition, noise from different
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
construction stages, which have the potential to occur simultaneously were added together to provide a composite construction noise level.
A summary of noise level increases by receptor location and phase of construction activity is provided in Table 4.G-7, Estimate of Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receiver Locations. The estimated noise levels represent a worst-case scenario and the actual sound occurring at various locations would be less than that indicated in Table 4.G-7 due to four factors:
1) the construction activities are analyzed as if they were occurring along the perimeter of the Project Site, whereas construction would typically occur throughout the site and only periodically at the perimeter of the site; 2) there are times when the construction activities are fewer than the maximums identified here; 3) there are times when the construction equipment operates at less than full power level, and 4) noise sensitive receptors that are located farther away from the Project Site would experience less construction noise, as sound diminishes away from the source, and due to intervening buildings between the source and receiver.
TABLE 4.G-7
ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS Noise Sensitive Receptor
Nearest Distance
(feet)from
Construction Activity
to Noise Receptor
Estimated Construction Noise Levels at the Noise
Sensitive Receptor by Construction Phase a
Hourly Leq (dBA)
Site Grading
Fine
Grading/
Foundation
Building
Construction Paving
Frisbie Park east of the
Project Site
700 65 63 65 65
Residential uses east of the
Project Site
200 75 73 76 75
Residential uses southwest of
the Project Site
800 63 61 64 63
a Estimated construction noise levels represent the worst-case scenario when noise generators are located closest to the receptors and are not expected to last the entire construction duration.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016.
Estimates of the greatest impacts that might occur during construction hours at nearby sensitive receptors are shown in Table 4.G-7. Construction activities would temporarily increase the existing ambient noise for receptors in proximity to construction sites. Construction activities would temporary increase the existing ambient noise in proximity of the construction site.
Construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s allowable construction hours as described above and would be temporary in nature. Since temporary construction noise levels are exempt from the City’s noise ordinance requirements, construction-related noise would result in a less than significant noise impact.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) Operational Noise Impacts
(a) Offsite Project Traffic
Threshold Noise 2 : The Project would have a significant impact if it would cause ambient noise levels to increase by 5 dBA, CNEL or more, and the resulting no ise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “clearly compatible” or “normally compatible” (see Table
4.G-5 for description of these categories); or cause ambient noise levels to increase by 3 dBA, CNEL or more and the resulting noise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “normally incompatible” or “clearly incompatible.” Impact Statement Noise-2: The Project’s noise impacts on existing development from operational on-site stationary noise sources would be less than significant. Project operational traffic would increase ambient noise levels at off-site noise-sensitive uses in the Project area; however, the increases would not exceed the established thresholds.
Operational traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. Potential future residences could be exposed to traffic-related noise levels that would exceed thresholds.
However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would ensure this potentially significant noise impact is reduced to a less than significant level. (i) Impacts Under Existing Traffic Baseline Conditions
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated along various arterial segments adjacent to the Project Site based on traffic volumes in the TIA. Roadway noise attributable to Project development was calculated using the traffic noise model previously described and was compared to existing baseline noise levels that would occur under the “No Project” condition.
Project impacts are shown in Table 4.G-8, Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts-Existing Baseline Conditions. As indicated, based on traffic volumes in the TIA, the maximum increase in Project- related traffic noise levels over existing traffic noise levels is estimated be approximately 18.0 dBA CNEL along Pepper Avenue, between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue, which would exceed “clearly compatible” land use increase of 5.0 dBA CNEL. However, the existing traffic volumes from the TIA are 2014 volumes. Prior to 2014, Pepper Avenue continued north of Winchester Drive for only 5 houses, where it terminated at Shirley Bright Road (i.e., not continuing past the Project Site connecting to Highland Avenue). In 2014, Pepper Avenue was extended beyond this point, past the Project Site, to Highland Avenue, passing under SR-210 with on-ramps not yet connected in 2014. Therefore, existing (2014) volumes on this segment were substantially lower than Pepper Avenue south of Winchester Drive (i.e., 10 times lower), which is reflected in the low noise level of 42 dBA CNEL and the 18 dBA CNEL increase with the Project along the Pepper Avenue segment between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue. In 2017 (Opening Year scenario below), traffic volumes reflect connection and operation of the Pepper Avenue on-ramps to SR-210. While traffic and associated mobile-source noise along Pepper Avenue between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue since the opening of the Pepper Avenue extension would be greater than that cited in the TIA, and less than that during the Opening Year conditions below (when the SR-210 ramps are open); the resulting traffic noise level would be less than 63.3 dBA CNEL, shown in Table 4.G-9 below. Such a noise level is within the “normally compatible” noise level for residential uses. Furthermore, because the Existing Plus Project scenario is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent a scenario
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
that would occur with the Project, impacts under this scenario are not identified as significant with no mitigation measures required
TABLE 4.G-8
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing a
(A)
Existing with
Project b (B)
Project
Increment
(B - A)
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue 67.8 67.9 0.1 No Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 66.3 66.6 0.3 No Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road 66.3 66.6 0.3 No Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive 61.5 62.7 1.2 No Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive 60.2 61.9 1.7 No Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue 42.6 60.6 18.0 Yes Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue 64.3 64.9 0.6 No Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street 64.3 65.1 0.8 No
Between Macy Street and State Street 66.0 66.1 0.1 No
Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street 64.1 64.4 0.3 No State Street
North of Highland Avenue 65.4 65.6 0.2 No
South of SR-210 EB Ramps 64.9 65.0 0.1 No
Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive 60.4 61.3 0.9 No Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road 63.1 63.1 0.0 No Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 59.2 59.8 0.6 No Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 68.2 68.3 0.1 No Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue 67.5 67.7 0.2 No Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps 69.5 69.6 0.1 No
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street 72.1 72.1 0.0 No Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue 64.9 65.0 0.1 No West of Riverside Avenue 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing a
(A)
Existing with
Project b (B)
Project
Increment
(B - A)
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue 55.3 55.3 0.0 No
East of Pepper Avenue 53.6 53.6 0.0 No
Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 60.5 60.6 0.1 No
East of Pepper Avenue 60.7 60.9 0.2 No
Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
East of Pepper Avenue 67.0 67.0 0.1 No
a Existing data is take n from Table 4.G‐4.
Source: ESA PCR, 2016.
(ii) Impacts Under Opening Year 2017 Traffic Baseline Conditions Future (2017) roadway noise levels were also calculated along various arterial segments adjacent to the Project as compared to 2017 baseline traffic noise levels that would occur with implementation of the Project. Project impacts are shown in Table 4.G-9, Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Future 2017 Baseline Conditions. As indicated, the maximum increase in Project- related traffic noise levels over the future 2017 traffic noise levels would be 6.3 dBA CNEL, which would occur along Pepper Avenue, between Main Driveway and SR-210 EB Ramps.
However, because no sensitive uses (i.e., residential uses) are currently located near this roadway segment, no impacts would occur there due to the increase in traffic noise levels. Further, the Project’s proposed residential uses, if implemented, would be approximately 500 feet from the Main Driveway at Pepper Avenue. As shown in Table 4.G-9, predicted traffic noise levels along Pepper Avenue between Main Driveway and SR-210 EB Ramps would be 67.7 dBA CNEL at 25 feet from the roadway, which would attenuate as a noise line source at a rate of -3 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, the 2017 traffic noise level with the Project at the proposed residential uses 500 feet away would be approximately 57.7 dBA CNEL. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-9
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – FUTURE 2017 BASELINE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels
at 25 feet from Roadway, CNEL
(dBA)
Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Future No
Project
(2017) (A)
Future with
Project
(Opening Year
2017)a (B)
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue 68.2 68.2 0.0 No Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 66.8 67.0 0.2 No Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road 66.9 67.2 0.3 No Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive 63.6 64.4 0.8 No Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive 63.1 64.2 1.1 No Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue 60.4 63.3 2.9 No Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue 66.0 66.3 0.3 No Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street 66.3 66.8 0.5 No
Between Macy Street and State Street 67.1 67.4 0.3 No
Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street 64.7 65.0 0.3 No State Street
North of Highland Avenue 66.2 66.4 0.2 No
South of SR-210 EB Ramps 66.2 66.2 0.0 No
Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive 60.8 61.6 0.8 No Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road 63.4 63.4 0.0 No Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 59.7 60.2 0.5 No Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 68.6 68.7 0.1 No Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue 67.9 68.2 0.3 No Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps 70.0 70.1 0.1 No
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street 72.4 72.5 0.1 No Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue 65.2 65.3 0.1 No West of Riverside Avenue 65.0 65.0 0.0 No
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels
at 25 feet from Roadway, CNEL
(dBA)
Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Future No
Project
(2017) (A)
Future with
Project
(Opening Year
2017)a (B)
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue 55.9 55.9 0.0 No
East of Pepper Avenue 54.7 54.7 0.0 No
Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 60.8 60.9 0.1 No
East of Pepper Avenue 61.0 61.2 0.2 No
Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 66.2 66.2 0.0 No
East of Pepper Avenue 67.3 67.4 0.1 No
Future Roadway Segment
Pepper Avenue (Future Roadway)
Between Main Driveway and SR-210 EB Ramps 61.4 67.7 6.3 Yes North of SR-210 WB Ramps 59.4 61.7 2.3 No
a Include future growth plus cumul ative projects and Project traffic.
Source: ESA PCR 2016.
(iii) Impacts Under Future 2035 Traffic Baseline Conditions Future (2035) roadway noise levels were also calculated along various arterial segments adjacent to the Project as compared to 2035 baseline traffic noise levels that would occur with implementation of the Project. Project impacts are shown in Table 4.G-10, Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Future 2035 Baseline Conditions. As indicated, the maximum increase in Project- related traffic noise levels over the future traffic noise levels would be 2.4 dBA, CNEL, which would occur along Pepper Avenue, between Main Driveway and SR-210 EB Ramps. This increase in sound level would be below 3.0 dBA, CNEL in an area characterized by normally incompatible noise levels (see Table 4.G-5), and the increase in sound level would be substantially lower at the remaining roadway segments analyzed. The Project-related noise increases would be less than the threshold, and therefore, less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-10
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – FUTURE 2035 BASELINE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels
at 25 feet from Roadway, CNEL
(dBA)
Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Future No
Project
(2017) (A)
Future with
Project
(Opening Year
2035)a (B)
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue 70.0 70.0 0.0 No Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 69.4 69.7 0.3 No Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road 69.2 69.6 0.4 No Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive 67.9 68.7 0.8 No Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive 68.0 68.8 0.8 No Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue 67.9 68.6 0.7 No Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue 69.2 69.4 0.2 No Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street 70.2 70.4 0.2 No
Between Macy Street and State Street 70.4 70.5 0.1 No
Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street 67.7 67.8 0.1 No State Street
North of Highland Avenue 68.9 68.9 0.0 No
South of SR-210 EB Ramps 68.2 68.3 0.1 No
Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive 62.6 63.2 0.6 No Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road 64.5 64.5 0.0 No Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 62.6 62.9 0.3 No Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 70.8 70.9 0.1 No Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue 70.5 70.6 0.1 No Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps 72.4 72.4 0.0 No
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street 73.3 73.3 0.0 No Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue 66.5 66.6 0.9 No West of Riverside Avenue 67.4 67.4 0.0 No
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels
at 25 feet from Roadway, CNEL
(dBA)
Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Future No
Project
(2017) (A)
Future with
Project
(Opening Year
2035)a (B)
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue 58.2 58.2 0.0 No
East of Pepper Avenue 58.1 58.1 0.0 No
Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 61.2 61.4 0.2 No
East of Pepper Avenue 61.3 61.4 0.1 No
Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 68.2 68.3 0.1 No
East of Pepper Avenue 68.6 68.7 0.1 No
Future Roadway Segment
Pepper Avenue (Future Roadway)
Between Main Driveway and SR-210 EB Ramps 68.1 70.5 2.4 No North of SR-210 WB Ramps 67.6 68.1 0.5 No
a Include future growth plus cumul ative projects and Project traffic.
Source: ESA PCR 2016.
(b) Impacts from On-site Stationary Noise Sources
On-site noise sources from commercial uses would normally include mechanical HVAC equipment, loading dock, and trash collection. The on-site noise sources would be designed with noise control features, including screens and barriers, which would shield the noise sources to the sensitive receptors to meet the City’s exterior noise standards. As such, less than significant noise impacts would occur due to on-site stationary noise sources.
Potential future residents of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would generate and would be exposed to on-site noise sources typical of urban neighborhood related activities including; doors slamming, air conditioning units, lawn care equipment, radio/ stereos systems, domestic animals, etc. These noise sources contribute to the ambient noise levels experienced in similarly-developed areas and typically do not exceed the noise standards for the types of land uses proposed on the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. In addition, these noise sources are consistent with adjacent uses in the Project vicinity. Therefore, residential-related point-source noise impacts would be less than significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(c) Site Compatibility (Proposed On-site Noise Sensitive Uses) The Project could locate new noise-sensitive uses on the Project Site near Pepper Avenue and SR-210. The Project would have a significant impact if potential future residential uses are exposed to an exterior noise level of greater than 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas or an interior noise level of greater than 45 dBA CNEL. This would be primarily due to traffic noise.
To ensure potentially significant are reduced to a less than significant level in this regard, Mitigation Measure Noise-1 is prescribed.
(3) Vibration Impacts
(a) Structural Impacts
Threshold Noise 3: The Project would have a significant impact if Project constr uction activities would cause a PPV ground-borne vibration level to exceed 0.5 in ches per second at the nearest off-site residential use.
Impact Statement Noise-3: Construction activities would result in sporadic, temporary vibration effects adjacent to the Project Site, which would not exceed established thresholds. Thus, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Construction machinery and operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment used. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receptor buildings. The results from vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that damage structures. FTA has published standard vibration velocities, in terms of PPV, for construction equipment operations. The typical vibration PPV levels for construction equipment pieces anticipated to be used during Project construction are listed in Table 4.G-11, Typical Vibration Velocities for Potential Project Construction Equipment.
With regard to the Project, high levels of ground-borne vibration would be generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities and by off-site haul-truck traveling on surface streets.
As such, ground-borne vibration impacts are therefore usually confined to short distances (i.e., 50 feet or less) from the source. As indicated in 4.G-10, vibration velocities from the operation of construction equipment would range from approximately 0.003 to 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from the equipment. Usually, ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance.
As indicated in Table 4.G-11, the vibration velocity of 0.089 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet from construction equipment would be reduced to 0.031 inches per second PPV at 50 feet distance. At a distance of 200 feet from the source of activity, vibration velocities from the construction equipment would further reduce to 0.004 inch/second PPV.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-11
TYPICAL VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR POTENTIAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment
Reference Vibration Source Levels, PPV (inch/second)
25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004 0.002
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0004 0.0001
Source: USDOT Federal Transit Administration, 2006.
The nearest vibration sensitive receptors to the Project Site are:
Semi-rural residence, 200 feet east of the Project boundary, and Single family residences, 200 feet southwest of the Project boundary; however, Project construction activity would be 800 feet from these residences.
The vibration level of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.004 inches per second PPV at 200 feet distance. The estimated vibration level of
0.004 inches per second PPV at the nearest sensitive receptors is below the Project’s significance threshold of 0.5 inches per second for residential structures. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. (b) Human Annoyance
Threshold Noise 4 : The Project would have a significant impact on human annoyanc e if Project construction or operation activities would cause ground-borne v ibration levels to exceed 0.035 inch per second PPV at the nearest off-site sensitive uses.
Impact Statement Noise-4: Project operation would not generate excessive vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Thus, long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant.
(i) Construction
As discussed above, the nearest off-site residential structures are the residential buildings located approximately 200 feet from the construction site, which would be exposed to vibration velocities ranging approximately from 0.0001 to 0.004 inches per second PPV. These values are below the
0.035 inches per second PPV perception threshold and would not be perceptible. Therefore, vibration impacts during construction would be less than significant. (ii) Operation
The Project’s operations would include typical commercial-grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment, such as air handling units, condenser units, and exhaust fans, which would
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
produce vibration. In addition, the primary sources of transient vibration would include passenger vehicle circulation within the proposed parking area. Ground-borne vibration generated by each of the above-mentioned activities would generate approximately up to 0.005 inches per second PPV adjacent to the Project Site. The potential vibration levels from all Project operational sources at the closest existing and future sensitive receptor locations would be less than the significance threshold of 0.035 inches per second PPV for perceptibility. As such, vibration impacts associated with operation of the Project would be below the significance threshold and impacts would be less than significant.
e. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, there is one related project (#9) located in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site, which is located south of the Project Site along Pepper Avenue. The other related projects are located over one mile from the Project Site.
Proposed Project development and other planned developments (related projects) would likely contribute to cumulative noise impacts. The potential for cumulative noise impacts to occur are specific to the location of each related project and their stationary noise sources from the Project Site, as well as the cumulative traffic that these projects would add to on the surrounding roadway network.
(1) Construction Noise
Noise from on-site construction activities would only affect the areas immediately adjacent to the Project Site, less than 500 feet from the construction site, due to sound attenuation provided by the distance and the intervening buildings between the construction sites and the noise sensitive receptors. Since the timing of the construction activities for these related projects cannot be defined, any quantitative analysis that assumes multiple, concurrent construction projects would be entirely speculative. Construction activities from the cumulative projects would generate noise at each project site and cumulative construction noise could exceed ambient noise levels at the nearest residences. However, those noise levels would be intermittent, temporary and would cease at the end of the construction phase, and would comply with time restrictions and other relevant provisions in the City’s Municipal Code. Noise associated with cumulative construction activities would be reduced to the degree reasonably and technically feasible through proposed mitigation measures for each individual project and compliance with locally adopted and enforced noise ordinances. As construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s allowable hours as described above and would be temporary, construction-related noise would result in a less than significant noise impact.
(2) Operation
The Project Site and surrounding area would be developed and would generate noise that would contribute to cumulative noise from a number of community noise sources including vehicle travel, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC systems), and lawn maintenance activities. Due to City’s provisions that limit on-site stationary-source noise such as outdoor air-conditioning equipment, noise levels would be less than significant at the property line for each related project.
As the Project’s stationary-source impacts would be less than significant, stationary-source noise impacts attributable to cumulative development would also be less than significant. However, the
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project and other developments in the Project vicinity would produce traffic volumes that are capable of generating a roadway noise impacts.
Cumulative noise impacts due to roadway traffic have been assessed based on the difference between noise generated by existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes projected at the Project opening year (2017) and are presented in Table 4.G-12, Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Opening Year 2017 Cumulative Increment. As indicated in Table 4.G-12, the maximum cumulative noise increase from the Project plus cumulative Project traffic would be 20.7 dBA, CNEL, which would occur along Pepper Avenue, between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue. This increase in sound level would exceed “clearly noticeable” increase of 5.0 dBA, CNEL in an area characterized by normally compatible noise levels (see Table 4.G-5). The cumulative noise increases, when measured against the 2017 Opening Year conditions, would be potentially significant. However, even with the increase of 20.7 dBA CNEL along Pepper Avenue, between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue, the noise level of 63.3 dBA, CNEL would be still within normally compatible noise level. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.
TABLE 4.G-12
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – OPENING YEAR 2017 CUMULATIVE INCREMENT Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA) Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing (A)
Future with Project
(Opening Year 2017)a (B)
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue 67.8 68.2 0.4 No Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 66.3 67.0 0.7 No Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road 66.3 67.2 0.9 No Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive 61.5 64.4 2.9 No Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive 60.2 64.2 4.0 No Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue 42.6 63.3 20.7 Yes Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue 64.3 66.3 2.0 No Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street 64.3 66.8 2.5 No
Between Macy Street and State Street 66.0 67.4 1.4 No
Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street 64.1 65.0 0.9 No State Street
North of Highland Avenue 65.4 66.4 1.0 No
South of SR-210 EB Ramps 64.9 66.2 1.3 No
Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive 60.4 61.6 1.2 No Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road 63.1 63.4 0.3 No
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA) Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing (A)
Future with Project
(Opening Year 2017)a (B)
Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 59.2 60.2 1.0 No Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 68.2 68.7 0.5 No Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue 67.5 68.2 0.7 No Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps 69.5 70.1 0.6 No
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street 72.1 72.5 0.4 No Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue 64.9 65.3 0.4 No West of Riverside Avenue 64.5 65.0 0.5 No
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue 55.3 55.9 0.6 No
East of Pepper Avenue 53.6 54.7 1.1 No
Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 60.5 60.9 0.4 No
East of Pepper Avenue 60.7 61.2 0.5 No
Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 65.9 66.2 0.3 No
East of Pepper Avenue 67.0 67.4 0.4 No
a Include future growth plus cumul ative projects and Project traffic.
Source: ESA PCR 2016.
Cumulative noise impacts due to roadway traffic have been assessed based on the difference between noise generated by existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes projected at the Long Range year (2035) and are presented in Table 4.G-13 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Long Range Year 2035 Cumulative Increment.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.G-13
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – LONG RANGE YEAR 2035 CUMULATIVE INCREASE Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA) Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing (A)
Future with Project
(Opening Year 2035)a (B)
Pepper Avenue
Between Rialto Avenue and Foothill Avenue 67.8 70.0 2.2 No Between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue 66.3 69.7 3.4 Yes Between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road 66.3 69.6 3.3 Yes Between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive 61.5 68.7 7.2 Yes Between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive 60.2 68.8 8.6 Yes Between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue 42.6 68.6 26.0 Yes Highland Avenue
Between Commercial Driveway and Pepper Avenue 64.3 69.4 5.1 Yes Between Pepper Avenue and Macy Street 64.3 70.4 6.1 Yes Between Macy Street and State Street 66.0 70.5 4.5 Yes
Between Commercial Driveway and Easton Street 64.1 67.8 3.7 Yes State Street
North of Highland Avenue 65.4 68.9 3.5 Yes
South of SR-210 EB Ramps 64.9 68.3 3.4 Yes
Eucalyptus Avenue
Between Walnut Avenue and Winchester Drive 60.4 63.2 2.8 No Between Winchester Drive and Baseline Road 63.1 64.5 1.4 No Winchester Drive
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 59.2 62.9 3.7 No Baseline Road
Between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pepper Avenue 68.2 70.9 2.7 No Between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue 67.5 70.6 3.1 Yes Riverside Avenue
North of SR-210 WB Ramps 69.5 72.4 2.9 No
Between SR-210 EB Ramps and Easton Street 72.1 73.3 1.2 No Easton Street
Between Riverside Avenue and Highland Avenue 64.9 66.6 1.7 No West of Riverside Avenue 64.5 67.8 2.9 No
Mariposa Drive
West of Pepper Avenue 55.3 58.2 2.9 No
East of Pepper Avenue 53.6 58.1 4.5 No
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-31 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Roadway Segment
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at 25
feet from Roadway, CNEL (dBA) Future
Project
Increment
(B-A)
Exceed
Threshold?
Existing (A)
Future with Project
(Opening Year 2035)a (B)
Etiwanda Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 60.5 61.4 0.9 No
East of Pepper Avenue 60.7 61.4 0.7 No
Rialto Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue 65.9 68.3 2.4 No
East of Pepper Avenue 67.0 68.7 1.7 No
a Include future growth plus cumul ative projects and Project traffic.
Source: ESA PCR 2016.
As indicated in Table 4.G-13, the following eight roadway segments would have a cumulative noise increase ranging from 3.1 to 26.0 dBA CNEL, which would exceed the Project’s significance threshold increase of 5 dBA, CNEL or more, and the resulting noise falls on a noise- sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “clearly compatible” or “normally compatible” (see Table 4.G-5 for description of these categories); or 3 dBA, CNEL or more, and the resulting noise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “normally incompatible” or “clearly incompatible.” Therefore, impacts would be significant. Pepper Avenue – between Foothill Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue (residential) Pepper Avenue – between Etiwanda Avenue and Baseline Road (residential) Pepper Avenue – between Baseline Road and Mariposa Drive (residential) Pepper Avenue – between Mariposa Drive and Winchester Drive (residential) Pepper Avenue – between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue (residential) State Street - North of Highland Avenue (commercial/residential) State Street - South of SR-210 EB Ramps (residential) Baseline Road – between Pepper Avenue and Meridian Avenue (residential) As shown in Table 4.G-13, there are threshold exceedances of the Project segments of Highland Avenue, however, there are no existing noise sensitive uses along these roadway segments. (3) Ground-Borne Vibration
Due to the rapid attenuation characteristics of ground-borne vibration and distance of the cumulative projects to the Project Site, there is no potential for cumulative construction- or operational-period impacts with respect to ground-borne vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-32 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
4. Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, to reduce and/or ensure exterior noise levels are at or below 65 CNEL at potential outdoor sensitive uses (i.e., residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas) proposed by the Specific Plan, a combination of sound barrier walls, earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by a qualified acoustical consultant, as necessary. Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind buildings (not facing traffic corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses from roadway noise and reduces the exterior noise level to 65 CNEL or below. Also, an acoustical engineer shall submit evidence, along with the application for a building permit, any design plans or features of sound insulation sufficient to mitigate interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room.
5. Level of Significance After Mitigation
Construction-related noise and vibration impacts to existing off-site and future on-site sensitive uses would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. The Project’s stationary source noise impacts to on- and off-site sensitive uses during Project operation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts associated with consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would also be less than significant.
However, cumulative off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the existing residential uses in the surrounding area since no additional mitigation measures would be feasible (i.e., sound walls) along the existing roadways. As such, if the City of Rialto approves the Project, the City shall be required to cite their findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
G. Noise
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.G-33 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
6. References
Bies & Hansen, Engineering Noise Control, 1988.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), 2013. ______, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, page 4, February 2002.
Caltrans, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, 2004.
City of Rialto Noise Ordinance (Rialto Municipal Code, Section 9.50.030) Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, page 7-3, May 2006.
Laymond N. Miller, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., 1981.
Marlie Whiteman, P.E, June 2015, January 2016 (Revised). Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis.
Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Rialto, November 1, 1991.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
H. Transportation
1. Introduction
This section analyzes potential impacts with construction traffic; and operational impacts on the following facilities: intersection capacities, roadway segment capacities, traffic signal warrants, freeway mainline segments, the regional transportation system, public transit, access and circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle safety, and parking. This section is based on the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (herein referred to as the “Traffic Impact Analysis”), prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016. The Traffic Impact Analysis, which provides more detailed information, data, and analyses, is included as Appendix G of this Draft EIR. The Traffic Impact Analysis has been developed through consultation with the City of Rialto and follows the City of Rialto’s and the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) traffic study requirements. To ensure that the Traffic Impact Analysis satisfied the City of Rialto’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc., prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by the City of Rialto staff prior to the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City of Rialto is included as an appendix to the Traffic Impact Analysis.
2. Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Regional and Local Access
Regionally, the City of Rialto is located within the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County in the largely developed San Bernardino Valley Region. The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would encompass approximately 101.7 acres within the eastern portion of the City or Rialto.
Regional access to the Project Site would be provided by the Pepper Avenue interchange with the State Route 210 (SR-210) Freeway. The Project Site would be locally accessed via Pepper Avenue from the north and south.
Per Exhibit 3‐2 of the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element, Pepper Avenue is planned as a Major Arterial, which the City of Rialto General Plan indicates has “at least two lanes of travel in each direction, left turn lanes at intersections, and parking lanes.” The long range analysis included in the Traffic Impact Analysis represents 2035 conditions, and includes 2 lanes each direction (4 lanes total) on Pepper Avenue. This assumption of 4 lanes is consistent with other recent studies, including the State Route 210 / Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project Initial Study [with proposed Negative Declaration] / Environmental Assessment (Caltrans, May 2014).
The City of Rialto General Plan Roadway Cross‐Section for a Major Arterial (Exhibit 3‐3 illustrates the City of Rialto General Plan Roadway Cross‐Sections) typically shows a 16-foot median with three lanes in each direction. However, a wider median (at least 24 feet) and two lanes in each direction have been found to be an appropriate design in the Project vicinity.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) Study Area Intersections
The study area includes a total of 24 existing and future intersections as illustrated in Figure 4.H-1¸ Study Intersections Location Map, and listed in Table 4.H-1, Intersection Analysis Locations.
TABLE 4.H-1
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Location
1 Riverside Avenue/SR-210 WB Ramps Caltrans
2 Riverside Avenue/SR-210 EB Ramps Caltrans
3 Riverside Avenue/Easton Street City of Rialto
4 Highland Avenue/Commercial Driveway City of Rialto
5 Highland Avenue/Easton Street City of Rialto
6 Eucalyptus Avenue/Walnut Avenue City of Rialto
7 Eucalyptus Avenue/Winchester Drive City of Rialto
8 Eucalyptus Avenue/Baseline Drive City of Rialto
9 Pepper Avenue/Highland Avenue City of Rialto
10 Pepper Avenue/SR-210 WB Ramps – Future Caltrans
11 Pepper Avenue/SR-210 EB Ramps – Future Caltrans
12 Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive City of Rialto
13 Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive City of Rialto
14 Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road City of Rialto
15 Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue City of Rialto/City of San Bernardino 16 Pepper Avenue/Foothill Boulevard City of Rialto/City of San Bernardino 17 Meridian Avenue/Baseline Road City of Rialto/City of San Bernardino 18 Macy Street/Highland Avenue City of San Bernardino
19 State Street/Highland Avenue City of San Bernardino
20 State Street/SR-210 WB Ramps Caltrans
21 State Street/SR-210 EB Ramps – 20 th Street Caltrans 22 Pepper Avenue/Rialto Avenue City of San Bernardino
23 Pepper Avenue/Main Driveway – Future City of Rialto
24 Pepper Avenue/South Driveway – Future City of Rialto
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
Of the 24 study intersections, the existing study area circulation network includes 20 intersections.1 A future interchange is planned for the SR-210 westbound and eastbound ramps at Pepper Avenue (ID#s 10 and 11). The Project driveways (ID#s 23 and 24) are also planned future intersections which do not currently exist.
1 Exhibit 3-1, Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersectio n Controls, of the Traffic Impact Analysis, illustrates the study area intersections located near the Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 4.H-1
Study Intersections Location Map
SOURCE: Urban Crossroads, 2016
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(3) Study Area Roadway Segments
The roadway segment analysis locations are listed in Table 4-H-2, Roadway Segment Analysis Locations. The study area identifies a total of 10 existing/future roadway segments.
TABLE 4.H-2
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Location
1 Highland Avenue, west of Pepper Avenue City of Rialto 2 Highland Avenue, east of Pepper Avenue City of Rialto 3 Pepper Avenue, south of Highland Avenue City of Rialto 4 Pepper Avenue, south of I-210 EB Ramps – Future City of Rialto 5 Pepper Avenue, north of Baseline Road City of Rialto
6 Pepper Avenue, south of Baseline Road City of Rialto
7 Pepper Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard City of Rialto/City of San Bernardino 8 Winchester Drive, west of Pepper Avenue City of Rialto 9 Baseline Road, west of Pepper Avenue City of Rialto
10 Baseline Road, east of Pepper Avenue City of Rialto
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
(4) Study Area Freeway Mainline Segments
The study area freeway mainline analysis locations include four freeway mainline segments for SR-210 westbound and eastbound directions of flow as listed in Table 4.H-3, Freeway Mainline Segment Analysis Locations.
TABLE 4.H-3
FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Freeway Mainline Segments
1 SR-210 Westbound, east of Pepper Avenue
2 SR-210 Westbound, west of Pepper Avenue
3 SR-210 Eastbound, west of Pepper Avenue
4 SR-210 Eastbound, east of Pepper Avenue
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(5) Existing Traffic Counts
Manual weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in September 2014. In addition, the turning movement count collection for the intersection of Pepper Avenue/Rialto Avenue was conducted on February 10, 2015. The Existing passenger car equivalents (PCEs) AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-4, Existing (2014) PCE AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Exhibit 3-5, Existing (2014) PCE PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, of the Traffic Impact Analysis, respectively. Existing (2014) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-6, Existing (2014) PCE Average Daily Traffic (ADT), of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The ADT volumes are either based on traffic counts or have been estimated by factoring up peak hour counts. The following formula was used to estimate the daily volume for each intersection leg if daily traffic counts were not available:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) X 12 = Leg Volume (6) Existing Traffic Conditions
(a) Methodologies
Below are the methodologies used to perform the existing traffic analyses within the Traffic Impact Analysis. The methodologies described are generally consistent with City of Rialto and Caltrans traffic study guidelines.
Level of Service
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described as levels of services (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS “A”, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS “F”, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop- and-go conditions. LOS “E” represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow. Descriptions of LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided below.
Level of Service Criteria (Intersections)
The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from each of the applicable jurisdictions.
The City of Rialto and the City of San Bernardino have established specific performance criteria for intersection operations in their respective General Plan Circulation Elements. These performance criteria include standards related to determining the significance of project impacts on the roadway system. The City of Rialto and the City of San Bernardino have established LOS “D” as the minimum LOS for its intersections. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS “E” or worse would be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Regarding Caltrans’ ramp to arterial intersections and other Caltrans maintained facilities, the published Caltrans traffic study guidelines (December 2002) states the following: “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” As such, LOS “D” is also considered to be the limit of acceptable traffic operations during the peak hour intersections maintained by Caltrans.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.
The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology expressed the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data. The peak hours selected for analysis include weekday AM peak hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and weekday PM peak hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM).
Signalized Intersections
The City of Rialto requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in Chapter 18 and Chapter 31 of the HCM 2010. Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 4.H-4, Signalized Intersection Description of LOS.
Unsignalized Intersections
The City of Rialto requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in Chapter 19, Chapter 20, and Chapter 32 of the HCM 2010. The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle as described in Table 4.H-5, Unsignalized Intersection Description of LOS.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-4
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C < 1.0
Level of
Service,
V/C < 1.0
Level of
Service,
V/C > 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.
10.01 to 20.00 B F
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 D F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
80.01 and up F F
Note: V/C = volume-to-capacity-ratio.
SOURCE: HCM 2010, Chapter 18; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
TABLE 4.H-5
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of Service,
V/C < 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Little or no delays 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity
exceeded > 50.00 F F
Note: V/C = volume-to-capacity-ratio.
SOURCE: HCM 2010, Chapter 19 and Chapter 20; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. The Traffic Impact Analysis used the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement, for all study area intersections.
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas.
Both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement indicate that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met.
Specifically, the Traffic Impact Analysis utilized the peak hour volume‐based warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions. Warrant 3 criteria are basically identical for both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for the Traffic Impact Analysis as it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of the Traffic Impact Analysis, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether urban or rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal may be warranted. Meeting this threshold conditions does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
(b) Existing Conditions Intersection Operations
Existing (2014) peak hour traffic operations analysis results are summarized in Table 4.H-6, Intersection Analysis for Existing (2014) Conditions. One study area intersection (Eucalyptus Avenue at Baseline Road) operates outside of acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. All other study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS for Existing conditions.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-6
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 24.1 18.5 C B 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 11.2 10.3 B B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St. TS 1 3 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 51.4 34.0 D C 4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 10.6 10.9 B B 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 18.6 12.7 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.4 7.9 A A 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 10.9 10.3 B B 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 0 1 2 0 >80 26.8 F C 9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av. CSS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 10.8 0.0 B A 10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 14.3 9.4 B A 13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 13.7 9.4 B A 14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15.2 10.8 B B 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av. AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 23.6 13.5 C B 16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 d 18.7 15.7 B B 17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 9.5 9.4 A A 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 49.6 16.4 D B 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 30.1 40.2 C D 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 10.4 10.6 B B 21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 29.4 27.4 C C 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 24.0 23.2 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
a When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Delay and level of service calculated using Synchro 8.0 analysis software. c TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop.
SOURCE: HCM 2010, Chapter 11; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
(c) Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized study area intersections listed in Table 4.H-7, Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-7
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Location
4 Highland Avenue/Commercial Driveway City of Rialto
6 Eucalyptus Avenue/Walnut Avenue City of Rialto
7 Eucalyptus Avenue/Winchester Drive City of Rialto
9 Pepper Avenue/Highland Avenue City of Rialto
12 Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive City of Rialto
13 Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive City of Rialto
15 Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue City of Rialto/City of San Bernardino
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
For Existing (2014) conditions, the unsignalized study area intersections do not warrant traffic signals. Refer to Appendix 3.3 in the Traffic Impact Assessment for further details on the traffic signal warrant analysis.
(7) Alternative Transportation
The City of Rialto is served by OmniTrans, the transit service for San Bernardino County. The Project Site is not currently served by OmniTrans. Transit service is reviewed and updated by OmniTrans periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhances or reduced service where appropriate.
Currently, no on-street bicycle lanes are provided in the Project area along Pepper Avenue.
However, sidewalks have been constructed along Pepper Avenue within the Project Site. b. Regulatory Framework Summary
(1) Federal
There are no federal transportation regulations pertinent to the Project. (2) State
(a) Congestion Management Program
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a state-mandated program enacted by the State legislature to address the increasing concern that urban congestion is affecting the economic vitality of the state and diminishing the quality of life in some communities. The hallmark of the CMP program is that it is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Statutory requirements of the CMP include monitoring LOS on the CMP Highway and Roadway network, measuring frequency and routing of public transit, implementing the Transportation Demand Management and Land Use Analysis Program and helping local jurisdictions meet their responsibilities under the CMP.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The CMP requires that, when an environmental impact report is prepared for a project, traffic and public transit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project traffic expected to use those facilities. The CMP guidelines state that areas selected for analysis should be those that include the following locations:
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic; and
Mainline freeway morning locations where the project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.
The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the local CMP agency, recently completed the updated 2016 San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. This document identifies goals of the program, defines legal requirements, provides other background information and describes each individual element, component, and requirement of the program.
It also reflects all legislative changes to the program since its inception in 1992. (3) Regional
(a) Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a federal- and state-mandated transportation plan that envisions the future multi-modal transportation system for the region and provides the basic framework for coordinated, long-term investment in the regional transportation system over the RTP planning horizon of 2035. In compliance with state and federal requirements, SCAG prepares the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP. Updated every other year, the RTP contains a listing of all transportation projects proposed for the region over a six-year period. Transportation projects proposed in the region are required to be consistent with the RTP and included within the RTIP to be eligible for State or federal funding.
The 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2012. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS identifies mobility as an important component of a much larger picture with added emphasis on sustainability and integrated planning. In addition, the RTP/SCS includes goals and policies that pertain to mobility, accessibility, safety, productivity of the transportation system, protection of the environment and energy efficiency, and land use and growth patterns that complement the State and region's transportation investments. An integral component of the RTP/SCS is a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources, in order to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the Clean Air Act. For further discussion of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, see Section 4.B, Air Quality, and Section 4.E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively, of this Draft EIR.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(4) Local
(a) City of Rialto General Plan (2010)
The City of Rialto General Plan (2010), Chapter 4, Making the Connections: the Circulation Chapter, provides policy direction to create a system of Complete Streets. Complete Streets refers to a multi-modal transportation network designed and operated to meet the needs of all users.
Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, persons with disabilities, movers of commercial goods, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely access and use streets and transportation modes to reach their destinations. Implementing a Complete Street program involves identifying the hierarchy of travel corridors in the City; defining a citywide transit plan; identifying a citywide bicycle network; including provisions for bike lanes on many roadway types in the roadway design standards; and includes policies and implementation actions to encourage the use of transit, bicycling, and walking. The Circulation Chapter implements Complete Streets concept by identifying a hierarchy of travel corridors that accommodates car trips, bike trips, pedestrian movement, trucks, and transit. Through the goals and policies of the Circulation Chapter, the City of Rialto strives to meet diverse mobility needs and reduce vehicle miles traveled, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, address climate change, and mitigate roadway congestion.
3. Environmental Impacts
a. Methodologies
(1) Construction Traffic
The analysis of construction traffic includes a qualitative discussion of construction-related trips (i.e., construction worker trips and construction truck trips) that would occur as a result of the Project, the contributions of those trips to the local traffic system, and an analysis of the potential conflicts between construction activity and on-going activity in the Project vicinity. The potential impact of construction traffic, including haul trucks, would be a lessening of the capacities of access streets and haul routes due to slower movements and larger turning radii of trucks.
Potential conflicts, including vehicular, pedestrian, and bicyclists are evaluated. More specifically, potential impacts to school routes were evaluated in light of the proximity of nearby schools.
(2) Analysis Scenarios
Potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
Existing Plus Project conditions;
Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions;
Opening Year (2017) With Project conditions;
Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions; and
Long Range (2035) With Project conditions.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As discussed under Impact Statement TRAF-1 below, despite the small increase in trips during the AM peak under the With Residential Overlay scenario, the Without Residential Overlay scenario with greater PM peak hour and daily trips represents the more conservative or worse- case traffic scenario. Accordingly, the Without Residential Overlay scenario is evaluated throughout this traffic analysis.
(a) Existing (2014) Conditions (Baseline)
Information for Existing (2014) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared. (b) Existing Plus Project Conditions
The Existing Plus Project conditions analysis determines significant traffic impacts that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic. Pursuant to the approved scoping agreement with the City of Rialto, the Existing Plus Project conditions analysis is intended to identify the Project-specific impacts associated solely with the development of the Project based on a comparison of the Existing Plus Project conditions to Existing conditions. The Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Freeway interchange ramps are projected to be constructed before or in conjunction with the Project.
(c) Opening Year (2017) Project Conditions
The Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic volumes have been estimated based on an interpolation between Existing (2014) traffic and Long Range (2035) traffic, and then superimposing the traffic volumes associated with other known cumulative development projects in the study area. In addition, Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic volumes along the future extension of Pepper Avenue, between Winchester Drive and Highland Avenue, also take into account the published Opening Year (2016) volumes from the State Route/210 Pepper Avenue Interchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group, dated March 2012.
The Opening Year (2017) conditions analysis determines near-term cumulative traffic impacts based on a comparison of the Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic scenario to the Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic scenario. The Opening Year (2017) analysis is utilized to determine if Project mitigation measures and improvements funded through transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the City of Rialto Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near-term cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of Rialto General Plan. If the “funded” improvements can provide the target LOS, then the Project’s payment into these fee programs could be considered as cumulative mitigation through the conditions of approval.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(d) Long Range (2035) Conditions
The Long Range (2035) conditions presented in this analysis were developed using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM). The future weekday peak hour forecasts used in the traffic analysis were refined using the Horizon Year traffic forecasts along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at intersection analysis locations. The traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed.
In addition, initial SBTAM turning volume estimates has also been adjusted accordingly based on the published 2035 volumes from the Renaissance Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, dated July 2010, and 2036 volumes from the State Route/210 Pepper Avenue Interchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group, dated March 2012. The initial SBTAM estimates of the future peak hour turning movements have, therefore, been reviewed for reasonableness.
The reasonableness checks performed include a review of traffic flow conservation in addition to a comparison with the existing actual counted volume. Where necessary, the initial raw model estimates have been adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel routes.
(3) Methodologies to Perform Project Traffic Analyses
(a) Intersections Levels of Service
The analyses of impacts to intersections LOS is prepared for each of the Existing, Opening Year (2017) and Long-Range (2035) scenarios. The definitions and methodology to determine LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections are based on the HCM methodologies described above under Existing Conditions. The same HCM definitions and methodologies are applied to address impacts under the Project.
(b) Traffic Signal Warrants
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future ADT volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT‐based signal warrant analysis worksheets. For the purpose of this analysis, the planned traffic signals for Pepper Avenue/SR‐210 WB Ramps (intersection #10) and Pepper Avenue/SR‐210 EB Ramps (intersection #11) are assumed in place for future conditions (Existing Plus Project, Opening Year [2017] Without and With Project, and Long Range [2035] Without and With Project). (c) Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
Roadway segment operations are evaluated using the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity provided in Exhibit D of the City’s TIA Guidelines. The roadway segment analysis focuses on Long Range (2035) With Project conditions. The daily roadway segment capacities for each type of roadway are summarized in Table 4.H-8, City of Rialto Roadway Capacity.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-8
CITY OF RIALTO ROADWAY CAPACITYa
Roadway
Classification
Number
of Lanes
Two-Way Traffic Volume (ADT)b
Service Level C Service Level D Service Level E
Local 2 2,500 – 2,799 2,800 – 3,099 3,100+
Collector (60’ or 64’) 2 9,900 – 11,199 11,200 – 12,499 12,500+ Industrial (45’) 2 9,900 – 11,199 11,200 – 12,499 12,500+ Arterial c 2 14,400 – 16,199 16,200 – 17,1999 18,000+
Secondary Highway 4 16,900 – 19,399 19,400 – 21,199 22,000+ Modified Arterial (100’) 4 26,200 – 29,599 29,600 – 32,999 33,000+ Arterial (120’) 6 38,700 – 44,099 44,100 – 49,499 49,500+
a All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. b Maximum two-way average daily traffic (ADT) values are based on the 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables.
c Two-lane roadways designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design standards for vertical and horizontal alignment.
SOURCE: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, Exhibit D; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
It should be noted that these roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, and vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic). Where the ADT- based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency, a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is also undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway performance. Roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through travel lanes.
(d) Freeway Mainline Segment Analysis
The freeway system in the study area has been subdivided into segments defined by the freeway‐ to‐arterial interchange locations. The freeway segments have been evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis based upon peak hour directional volumes. The freeway segment analysis is based on the methodology described in Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 and performed using HCS 2010 software. The performance measure preferred by Caltrans to calculate LOS is density. Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. Table 4.H-9, Freeway Mainline LOS Thresholds, illustrates the freeway segment LOS thresholds for each density range utilized for this analysis.
The SR‐210 Freeway mainline volume data was obtained by SBTAM for the segments of the SR‐ 210 Freeway located east and west of the future Pepper Avenue interchange. Truck data has been obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Data Branch website. The Caltrans 2013 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System is utilized which presents a 6.9% truck percentage along the SR‐210 freeway within the study area. For the purpose of this analysis,
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
actual vehicles (as opposed to passenger‐car‐equivalent volumes) and a parameter of 7% (rounded value) truck percentage have been utilized for the calculation of the basic freeway segment.
The freeway mainline analysis has been performed for Long Range (2035) Without and With Project conditions for freeway segment locations on both sides of the SR-210 Freeway and Pepper Avenue interchange.
TABLE 4.H-9
FREEWAY MAINLINE LOS THRESHOLDS
LOS Description
Density
Range
(pc/mi/Ln)
A Free-flow operations in which vehicles are relatively unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Effects of incidents are easily absorbed.
0.0 – 11.0
B Relative free-flow operations i n which vehicle maneuvers within the traffic stream are slightly restricted. Effects of minor incidents are easily absorbed.
11.1 – 18.0
C Travel is still at relativ e free-flow speeds, but freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted. Minor incidents may be absorbed, but local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues begin to form behind significant blockages.
18.1 – 26.0
D Speeds begin to decline slight ly and flows and densities begin to increase more quickly.
Freedom to maneuver is noticeably limited. Minor incidents can be expected to create queuing as the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions.
26.1 – 35.0
E Operation at capacity. Vehicl es are closely spaced with little room to maneuver. Any disruption in the traffic stream can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic flow. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious disruption in traffic flow and extensive queuing.
35.1 – 45.0
F Breakdown in vehicle flow. D emand exceeds capacity. > 45.0
Note: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane.
SOURCE: HCM 2010, Chapter 11; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
(e) Regional Transportation System
The analysis of Project traffic in relation to the regional transportation system is conducted according to the CMP. The regional transportation system analysis determines if Project- generated trips would exceed the CMP thresholds requiring additional analysis of CMP freeway or intersection locations. This Project does not meet the CMP analysis threshold so a CMP analysis is not required.
(f) Site Access and Circulation
A traffic signal progression analysis has been conducted for Pepper Avenue, between Highland Avenue and South Project Driveway under Long Range (2035) With Project conditions, with the identified intersection improvements, to evaluate vehicular queuing by considering the signal timing and physical spacing of intersections.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(g) Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology
In cases where the Traffic Impact Analysis identifies that the Project would have a significant cumulative impact to a roadway facility, and the recommended mitigation measure is a fair share monetary contribution, the following methodology was applied to determine the fair share contribution. A project’s fair share contribution at an off‐site study area intersection is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total future traffic subtracts existing baseline traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (Long Range (2035) With Project Total Traffic – Existing 2014 Traffic)
The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 9.7 Fair Share Contribution of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
b. Thresholds of Significance
For purpose of this Draft EIR, the Project has utilized the checklist questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance to determine whether the Project would have a significant environmental impact regarding transportation and parking. The Project would result in a significant impact to transportation and parking if the Project would:
Threshold 1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (refer to Impact Statement TRAF-1);
Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable cong estion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (refer to Impact Statement TRAF-2); Threshold 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement TRAF-3);
Threshold 4: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding p ublic transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (refer to Impact Statement TRAF-4);
Threshold 5: Result in a change in air traffi c patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (refer to Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the Initial Study contained in Appendix A. No impact would occur in this regard.); or
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Threshold 6: Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the Initial Study contained in Appendix A. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.);
As discussed in the Initial Study, which is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR, and in Chapter 6.0, Subsection G, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this Draft EIR, the Project would have no significant impact with respect to Threshold TRAF-5, result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Also, impacts regarding emergency access (Threshold 5) were determined to be less than significant. As such, no further analysis of these topics in this Draft EIR is necessary.
(1) Construction Traffic
Construction-related traffic generally can cause adverse but not significant impacts because, while sometimes inconvenient, construction-related traffic effects are temporary. Nevertheless, a determination of significance is made on a case by case basis, considering the temporary traffic impacts, temporary loss of access, temporary loss of bus stops or rerouting of bus lines, and temporary loss of on-street parking. Based on these considerations, Project construction would have a significant impact on traffic and circulation if construction activities were to:
(1) Cause substantial delays and disruption of existing traffi c flow; (2) Require temporary relocati on of existing bus stops to more than one-quarter mile from their existing stops;
(3) Result in impacts based on the operational thresholds at i ntersections during peak periods (refer to intersection threshold below); or
(4) Result in the substantial loss of on-street parking such that the parking needs of the project area would not be met.
(2) Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The regional transportation system analysis determines if Project-generated trips would exceed the CMP thresholds requiring additional analysis of CMP freeway or intersection locations. The CMP guidelines state that areas selected for analysis should be those that include the following locations:
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic; and
Mainline freeway morning locations where the project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.
This Project does not meet the CMP analysis threshold so a CMP analysis is not required.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(3) Intersection Service Levels
City of Rialto
To determine whether the addition of Project traffic at a study intersection results in a significant impact under Threshold 1, the following thresholds of significance have been utilized for the Existing Plus Project scenario:
A significant project-related impact occurs at a study intersection when the addition of project-related trips causes either:
– The peak hour LOS to degrade from acceptable (i.e., LOS “D” or better) to unacceptable levels (i.e., LOS “E” or LOS “F”); or
– If the addition of project-related traffic results in an increase to the “pre-project” peak hour delay by the values shown below.
CITY OF RIALTO LOS THRESHOLDS
Level of Service Density Range (pc/mi/ln)1
A By 10.0 seconds or more
B By 10.0 seconds or more
C By 8.0 seconds or more
D By 5.0 seconds or more
E By 2.0 seconds or more
F By 1.0 second or more
Note: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane.
SOURCE: City of Rialto Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (Exhibit F, LOS Standards); HCM 2010, Chapter 11; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
The Project is responsible for fully mitigating its impacts to bring an intersection back to a LOS equal or better that it was without the Project (i.e., pre-project conditions).
Cumulative traffic impacts are created as a result of a combination of the proposed Project together with other future developments contributing to the overall traffic impacts requiring additional improvements to maintain acceptable LOS operations with or without the Project. The Project’s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact can be reduced to less than significant if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate the potential cumulative impact. If full funding of future cumulative improvements is not reasonably assured, a temporary unmitigated cumulative impact may occur until the needed improvement is fully funded and constructed.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Regarding roadway segment impacts, roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. For Long Range (2035) With Project conditions, roadway segments that are estimated to exceed the daily volume threshold values are further reviewed based on the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis, which explicitly account for factors that affect roadway during peak periods. Thus, peak hour intersection impacts are indirectly utilized to determine impacts on roadway segments. (4) Freeway Mainlines
Caltrans
Caltrans does not have an established threshold of significance for the freeway mainline. The San Bernardino County CMP identifies a criteria of LOS “E” as acceptable. Therefore, a deficiency is identified if freeway LOS drops to LOS “F”.
c. Project Design Features
(1) Project Construction
DF SERVICE-1: Construction Management Plan – A construction management plan shall be developed by the applicant or contractor of each future developments proposed within the Specific Plan area and approved by the City of Rialto Public Works Department prior to construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
Identify the locations of the off-site truck staging and provide measures to ensure that trucks use the specified haul route, as applicable, and do not travel through nearby residential neighborhoods or schools;
Schedule vehicle movements to ensure that there are no vehicles waiting off-site and impeding public traffic flow on surrounding streets;
Establish requirements for loading/unloading and storage of materials on the Project Site;
Coordinate with the City and emergency service providers to ensure adequate access is maintained to and around the Project Site; and
During construction activities when construction worker parking cannot be accommodated on the Project Site, a Construction Worker Parking Plan shall be prepared which identifies alternate parking location(s) for construction workers and the method of transportation to and from the Project Site (if beyond walking distance) for approval by the City. The Construction Worker Parking Plan shall prohibit construction worker parking on residential streets and prohibit on-street parking, except as approved by the City.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(2) Project Site Access
DF TRAF-1: Pepper Avenue / Northerly Right‐In/Right‐Out (RIRO) Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right turn lane. EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.
DF TRAF-2: Pepper Avenue / Main Driveway (intersection #23) – Install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
NB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
SB Approach: Provide two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
EB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and one shared through‐right lane. WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
DF TRAF-3: Pepper Avenue / Southerly RIRO Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right turn lane. EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.
DF TRAF-4: Pepper Avenue / South Driveway (intersection #24) – At complete build-out, or as otherwise determined by traffic needs, install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
NB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right lane. SB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and two through lanes. WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, and one right turn lane.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
d. Project Impacts
Threshold TRAF-1: A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts wit h an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transp ortation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
Impact Statement TRAF-1: With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure and the Project’s applicable design features, potentially significant traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, implementation of the Project under Existing Plus Project, Opening Year (2017), and Long Range (2035) conditions would not substantially conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. (1) Construction
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project Site would be developed in one or more phases, with the earliest construction beginning in late 2016. No uses would be opened prior to 2017 (Opening Year). The build-out year would be 2035. The number of construction workers and construction equipment would vary throughout the construction process in order to maintain a reasonable schedule. A conservative assumption is made that each employee would drive to and from the Project Site alone each day. The construction workforce would likely be generated from all parts of the San Bernardino County region and is assumed to arrive and depart from all directions. Construction traffic generally occurs prior to the peak period (i.e., 7:00 AM – 9:00 PM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 pm). Consistent with the typical construction work day, most employees would arrive to the site prior to the AM peak traffic hour for daily meetings and planning purposes (noting construction activities would be limited by the Rialto Municipal Code Chapter
9.50, Noise Control, Section 9.50.070, Disturbances from construction activity, from October 1 st
through April 30th to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays with no construction to occur on Sundays; and from May 1st through September 30th to the hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays with no construction to occur on Sundays). Most workers would be expected to leave the site prior to the PM peak traffic hour, although some could leave during the PM peak traffic hour. Regardless of the time during the PM hour, the construction employee trips would be short-term and would not substantially affect the performance of the circulation system during peak traffic periods. Further, the number of employee construction trips would be far less than the Project, which is described below. Also, parking for employees and non-employee vehicles can be accommodated within the construction area of the Project Site and not on public streets.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Heavy equipment to be utilized on-site during construction include, but is not limited to: flat beds, dozers, scrapers, graders, track hoes, dump trucks, forklifts, cranes, cement trucks, pavers, rollers, water trucks, rolling container trucks and bobcats. Heavy equipment would be delivered and removed from the Project Site throughout the construction phase. As most heavy equipment is typically not an authorized vehicle to be driven on a public roadway, most of the equipment would be delivered and removed from the Site via large flatbed trucks. It is anticipated that delivery of heavy equipment would not occur on a daily basis, but rather periodically throughout the construction based on need. As such, traffic impacts related to the delivery of heavy equipment and materials would be less than significant.
Project-related construction traffic and activities including worker travel and the delivery of construction materials and vehicles could potentially affect school traffic, pedestrian routes, or transportation safety in the Project area. Most notably, Frisbie Middle School is located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project Site. However, construction vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site would typically avoid school routes and generally travel along SR- 210 to Pepper Avenue to access the Project Site. The SR-210 Freeway and Pepper Avenue interchange project is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed prior to opening of future development within the Project Site. To ensure that construction-related traffic does not adversely impact pedestrian safety, including school and non-school routes, Design Feature DF Service-1 would be implemented by the Project. Implementation of the required design feature would ensure that construction traffic-related impacts are less than significant by requiring interim construction period traffic management to allow for construction traffic to blend with existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns, including school-related traffic, with minimal disruption thereby not creating adverse traffic impacts. (2) Operation
(a) Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.
Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic are shown in Table 4.H-10, Project Trip Generation Rates and a summary of the Project’s trip generation is shown in Table 4.H-11, Project Trip Generation Summary. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for retail shopping center (ITE Land Use Code 820), business park (ITE Land Use Code 770), and multi-family residential (ITE Land Use Code 220) in the Trip Generation Manual, 9
th Edition, 2012. Two project conditions are shown: (1) Project Future Baseline Without Residential Overlay; and (2) With Residential Overlay.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-10
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATESA
Land Use
ITE
Code Quantityb
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Retail Shopping Center 820 462.00 TSF 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 42.70 Business Park 770 125.00 TSF 1.19 0.21 1.40 0.33 0.93 1.26 12.4 4 Multi-Family Residential 220 275 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0. 62 6.65
a Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition (2012). b TSF = thousand square fe et; DU = dwelling unit.
SOURCE: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, Exhibit D; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
TABLE 4.H-11
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use
ITE
Code Quantity1
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Total (Project Future Baseline without Residential Overlay) Retail Shopping Center 820 462.00 TSF 277 166 443 822 892 1,71 4 19,727 Business Park 770 125.00 TSF 149 26 175 41 116 157 1,555 Commercial Retail Pass-By/Local Interaction (10%) - - - (86) (85) (171) (1,973) TOTAL EXTERNAL TRIPS 426 192 618 777 923 1,700 19,309
Trip Generation Total with Residential Overlay
Retail Shopping Center 820 346.00 TSF 208 125 333 616 668 1,28 4 14,774 Business Park 770 125.00 TSF 149 26 175 41 116 157 1,555 Multi-Family Residential
Overlay
220 275.00 DU 28 113 141 110 61 171 1,829
Commercial Retail Pass-By/Local Interaction (10%) - - - (62) (67) (128) (1,477) TOTAL EXTERNAL TRIPS with RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
385 264 649 705 778 1,484 16,681
Changes in Trip Generation with Residential Overlay
Project Future Baseline Without Residential Overlay
Scenario
426 192 618 777 923 1,700 19,309
With Residential Overlay Scenario 385 264 649 705 778 1,484 16, 681 Delta -41 72 31 -72 -145 -216 -2,628
a TSF = thousand square fe et; DU = dwelling unit.
SOURCE: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, Exhibit D; Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As shown on Table 4.H-11, the Project without Residential Overlay is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 19,309 trip-ends per day with 618 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,700 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Also shown on Table 4.H-11, the Project with Residential Overlay is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 16,681 trip- ends per day with 649 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,484 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. While there would be 31 more trips during the AM peak hour under the Project without Residential Overlay scenario (a 5% increase), there would be 216 fewer trips during the PM peak hour (a 13% decrease) compared to the Without Residential Overlay scenario. Also, there would be 2,628 fewer daily trips under the With Residential Overlay scenario (a 13% decrease). Despite the small increase in trips during the AM peak under the With Residential Overlay scenario, the Without Residential Overlay scenario with greater PM peak hour and daily trips represents the more conservative or worse-case traffic scenario. Accordingly, the Without Residential Overlay scenario is evaluated throughout this traffic analysis. (b) Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project Site for both passenger cars and truck traffic.
The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 4-1, Project Trip Distribution, of the Traffic Impact Analysis, illustrates the Project trip distribution patterns. Project traffic is distributed northbound on Pepper Avenue towards the SR‐210 Freeway and Highland Avenue (75 percent) and southbound on Pepper Avenue towards Baseline Road and beyond (25 percent).
The traffic reducing potential of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been considered in this analysis. Essentially, the traffic projections are “conservative” in that these alternative travel modes might be able to reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4‐2, Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT), of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Project weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 4‐3, Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Exhibit 4‐4, Project Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, of the Traffic Impact Analysis, respectively.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(c) Background Traffic
Future traffic volume forecasts have been developed SBTAM, in combination with other recent studies. Opening year volumes have been interpolated from 2035 conditions, then compared with known nearby forecasts.
The adopted SCAG 2012 RTP growth forecasts for the City of Rialto identifies projected growth in population of 98,900 in 2008 to 125,200 in 2035, or a 26.7 percent increase over the 27-year period. The change in population equates to roughly a 0.88 percent growth rate compounded annually. Similarly, growth over the same 27-year period in households is projected to increase by 38.2 percent, or 1.21 annual growth rate. Finally, growth in employment over the same 27- year period is projected to increase by 43.2 percent, or a 1.01 annual growth rate. As such, the analysis in the Traffic Impact Analysis is conservative, and extremely unlikely to understate potential impacts.
(d) Cumulative Development Traffic
City of Rialto traffic impact analysis guidelines require that other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rialto. Table 3-1, List of Related Projects, and Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map, in Chapter 3 of this EIR illustrate the related projects and their proposed uses. (e) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
In general, the lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Existing Plus Project conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3-1, Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls, of the Traffic Impact Analysis. North of the Project, the SR-210 interchange ramps at Pepper Avenue are included in the Existing Plus Project analysis. This interchange project is fully funded from Measure I half-cent sales tax collected in San Bernardino County for transportation improvements and is anticipated to be completed prior to opening of the Project. The Project driveways are also assumed to be in place for Existing Plus Project conditions.
Existing Plus Project peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented above. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 4.H-12, Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions. Based on a comparison of Existing Plus Project to Existing (2014) traffic conditions, the Project is not anticipated to cause any intersection to change from acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D”) to unacceptable (i.e., LOS “E” or “F”) during the peak hours. The intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue at Baseline Road is deficient both in Existing and Existing Plus Project condition.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-12
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 24.9 18.5 C B 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 11.4 10.5 B B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St. TS 1 3 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 49.5 32.4 D C 4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11.1 11.6 B B 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton
St.
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 18.4 12.4 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.6 8.3 A A 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 11.2 11.0 B B 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
15.7 26.4
14.0 F
B
C
B
9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av.d CSS 1 1 1 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 13.0 15.0 B C 10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Rampsd TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 26.5 30.2 C C 11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Rampsd TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 11.9 6.9 B A 12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 17.4 13.0 C B 13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 16.6 13.2 C B 14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 13.9 15.6 B B 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av. AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 31.9 18.5 D C 16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 d 21.8 19.9 C B 17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 9.6 9.1 A A 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.2 23.0 D C 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 30.0 24.8 C C 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 10.5 10.8 B B 21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 29.4 29.2 C C 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 24.9 23.2 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. TS 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 19.3 21.1 B C 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. CSS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11.5 21.4 B C
a When a right turn is designat ed, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane; 1 = Planned Pepper Av./SR‐210 Interchange; 1 = Improvement b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Delay and level of service calculated using Syncrho 8.0 analysis software. c TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop. d Source: State Route 210/Pepper A venue Interchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group (March 2012)
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
For Existing Plus Project traffic conditions, the intersection of Pepper Avenue/Main Driveway (Intersection #23) is anticipated to meet traffic signal warrant. Per DF TRAF-2, a traffic signal would be installed at this intersection.
Existing Plus Project Impacts and Recommended Improvements As part of the Project, roadway improvements identified within DF TRAF-1 to DF TRAF-4 would be implemented in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.
The following off-site improvements are anticipated to reduce peak hour delay and improve the deficient LOS grade to an acceptable LOS “D” or better; refer to Exhibit 5-4, Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements, of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Eucalyptus Avenue at Baseline Road (Intersection #8):
Northbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane, in addition to the exiting through lane. Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane, in addition to the existing through lane.
(f) Opening Year (2017) Traffic Conditions
In general, the lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year (2017) conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3-1, Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls, of the Traffic Impact Analysis. North of the Project, the SR-210 interchange at Pepper Avenue is included in the 2017 analysis for Without and With Project conditions. The Project driveways are also assumed to be in place for 2017 With Project conditions.
Opening Year (2017) Without Project Traffic Conditions
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions. As shown in Table 4.H-13, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2017) Without Project Conditions, the following three study area intersections are anticipated to operate at service levels which do not meet the City level of service criteria for cumulative conditions without the Project:
Riverside Avenue/Easton Street (Intersection #3) – LOS E (AM) Eucalyptus Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #8) - LOS F (AM) Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15) - LOS E (AM)
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-13
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2017) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 24.6 18.5 C B 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 12.2 11.2 B B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 3 0
1 3 0
2 2 1
2 2 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1>
56.2 34.0
44.5 34.7
E
C
D
C
4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11.0 11.4 B B 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton
St.
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 19.6 12.8 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.6 8.1 A A 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 11.4 10.7 B B 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
15.9 49.1
9.2 F
B
D
A
9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av.
d
TS 1 1 1 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 32.2 33.0 C C 10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps
d
TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 25.1 26.0 C C 11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps
d
TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16.4 18.3 B B 12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 20.7 11.8 C B 13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 19.1 12.0 C B 14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd.
e
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 18.6 15.5 B B 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
AWS
TS
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
35.6 17.7
17.7 16.8
E
B
C
B
16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 d 31.3 25.9 C C 17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 10.2 10.4 B B 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 53.0 22.8 D C 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 30.6 28.0 C C 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 10.2 10.5 B B 21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 33.2 32.5 C C 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 28.0 26.3 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
# Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
a When a right turn is designat ed, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane; 1 = Planned Pepper Av./SR‐210 Interchange; 1 = Improvement
b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
Delay and level of service calculated using Syncrho 8.0 analysis software. c TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop. d State Route 210/Pepper Avenue In terchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group (March 2012) e Per City of Rialto, a traffic signal upgrade at Pepper Avenue/Baselines (intersection #14) include modifying the east/west phasing from permissive to protected phase and north/south phasing from permitted to protected/permissive phase.
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
Opening Year (2017) With Project Traffic Conditions
For Opening Year (2017) With Project Conditions, Table 4.H-14, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2017) With Project Conditions, indicates the same intersections are anticipated to experience deficient operations, in addition to the deficient intersections previously identified under Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions.
Addition of Project traffic to the deficient intersections identified under Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions would not result in any additional deficiencies. However, the Project’s contribution to the Without Project deficiencies is considered cumulatively considerable.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-31 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-14
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2017) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound East-bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 24.7 19.0 C B 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 12.3 16.4 B B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 3 0
1 3 0
2 2 1
2 2 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1>
56.5 34.1
45.8 35.5
E
C
D
D
4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11.5 12.3 B B 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 19.4 12.6 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.8 8.5 A A 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 11.8 11.4 B B 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
15.9 47.4
9.0 F
B
D
A
9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av.
d
TS 1 1 1 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 31.3 32.2 C C 10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps
d
TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 26.7 31.6 C C 11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps
d
TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 12.2 11.9 B B 12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 31.0 24.4 D C 13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 24.3 18.1 C C 14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd.
e
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 19.5 18.6 B B 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
AWS
TS
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
37.5 18.1
30.6 16.9
E
B
D
B
16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 d 30.5 26.8 C C 17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 10.3 10.4 B B 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 53.8 13.9 D B 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 30.5 38.2 C D 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 13.2 14.3 B B 21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 33.2 32.4 C C 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 28.1 25.4 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. TS 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 14.7 24.4 B C 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12.8 21.3 B C
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-32 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
# Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
North-
bound
South-
bound East-bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
a When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane; 1 = Planned Pepper Av./SR‐210 Interchange; 1 = Improvement
b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Delay and level of service calculated using Syncrho 8.0 analysis software. c TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop. d State Route 210/Pepper Avenue In terchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group (March 2012) e Per City of Rialto, a traffic signal upgrade at Pepper Avenue/Baselines (intersection #14) include modifying the east/west phasing from permissive to protected phase and north/south phasing from permitted to protected/permissive phase.
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
For Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions, the intersection of Pepper Avenue/Highland Avenue (Intersection #9) is anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants.
For Opening Year (2017) With Project conditions, the intersection of Pepper Avenue/South Driveway (intersection #24) is anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing Plus Project conditions and 2017 Without Project conditions.
Opening Year (2017) Impacts and Recommended Improvements As part of the Project, roadway improvements identified within DF TRAF-1 to DF TRAF-4 would be implemented in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.
Based on the City of Rialto’s significance criteria, there were no study area intersections that were found to be directly impacted by the Project for 2017 traffic conditions. However, the Project would contribute to existing deficiencies, thus resulting in a cumulative impact.
Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as cumulatively impacted in an effort to reduce each location’s peak hour delay and improve the associated LOS grade to LOS “D” or better.
Improvement strategies identified in Table 4.H-14 have been recommended at the following intersections that have been identified as cumulatively impacted to reduce each location’s peak hour delay to less than significant. It should be noted that the improvements shown in Table 4.H- 14 are consistent with those improvements for Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions (Table 4.H-13).
Riverside Avenue/Easton Street (Intersection #3):
Participate in the signal modification to provide separate right turn overlap signal phasing for the existing westbound right turn lane.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-33 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Eucalyptus Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #8):
Northbound Approach: Provides separate left turn lane, in addition to the existing through lane.
Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane, in addition to the existing through lane.
Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15):
Participate in construction of a traffic signal.
Per Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, future Project applicant(s) shall participate in the City of Rialto DIF Program by paying applicable fees, supplemented by participation in additional fair share intersection improvement costs as needed. Payment of fees to these fee programs may be considered as mitigation for the Project’s proportionate share of cumulative impacts. If the City finds that the payment of DIF fees alone do not adequately address the Project’s proportionate share, a fair share contribution may be imposed in order to mitigate the Project’s share of cumulative impacts.
(g) Long Range (2035) Traffic Conditions
In general, the lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Long Range (2035) conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3-1, Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls, of the Traffic Impact Analysis. North of the Project, the SR-210 interchange at Pepper Avenue is included in the 2035 analysis for Without and With Project conditions. The Project driveways are also assumed to be in place for 2017 With Project conditions. Pepper Avenue is planned as a Major Arterial, which the City of Rialto General Plan indicates has at least two lanes of travel in each direction, left turn lanes at intersections, and parking lanes. The Long Range analysis includes two lanes in each direction (four lanes total) and a wide median on Pepper Avenue.
Long Range (2035) Without Project Traffic Conditions (Intersections) LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions. As shown in Table 4.H-15, Intersection Analysis for Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions, the following four study area intersections are anticipated to operate at service levels which do not meet the City level of service criteria for cumulative conditions without the Project, in addition to the deficient intersections previously identified under Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions:
Pepper Avenue/Highland Avenue (Intersection #9) - LOS F (AM/PM) Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive (Intersection #12) - LOS F (AM/PM) Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive (Intersection #13) - LOS F (AM/PM) Pepper Avenue/Foothill Boulevard (Intersection #16) - LOS E (AM)/LOS F (PM)
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-34 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-15
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Serviceb
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 29.5 28.4 C C 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 27.2 18.5 C B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 3 0
1 3 0
2 2 1
2 2 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1>
77.1 54.6
58.3 53.6
E
D
E
D
4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 13.1 24.7 B C 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 17.7 12.8 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.6 10.4 A B 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 17.0 15.0 C C 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvementsd
TS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
19.8 78.8
17.0 F
B
E
B
9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av.
‐ Planned SR‐210/Pepper Interchange
e
‐ With Additional Improvements
TS
TS
1 1 1
1 0.5 1.5
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
1 2 0
1 2 1>
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
35.5 >80
38.2 F
D
F
D
10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps
5 TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 26.0 26.6 C C 11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps
e
TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 23.6 26.6 C C 12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
CSS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
14.7 >50
10.2 F
B
F
B
13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvementsg
CSS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
4.7 >50
4.6 F
A
F
A
14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd.
f
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 28.7 31.0 C C 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
AWS
TS
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
16.5 49.6
17.0 F
B
E
B
16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1>
1 2 d
1 3 0
68.4 39.1
>80
47.9 E
D
F
D
17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 9.1 11.3 A B 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 54.2 39.9 D D 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 46.1 48.4 D D 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 11.9 12.4 B B
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-35 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
# Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Serviceb
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 39.3 37.6 D D 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 30.6 32.4 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. Future Intersection ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
a When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = T hrough; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane; 1 = Planned Pepper Av./SR‐210 Interchange; 1 = Improvement b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Delay and level of service calculated using Syncrho 8.0 analysis software. c TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop. d Modified east/west phasing from permitted to protected phase. e Source: State Route 210/Pepper Avenue Interchange Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by IBI Group (March 2012) f Per City of Rialto, a traffic signal upgrade at Pepper Avenue/Baselines (intersection #14) include modifying the east/west phasing from permissive to protected phase and north/south phasing from permitted to protected/permissive phase and north/south phasing from permitted to protected/permissive phase. g Signal warranted for cumulat ive with project conditions.
SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.
In addition, the three intersections as deficient for 2017 Without Project conditions did not meet City LOS standards for the AM peak hour. Each of these three previously identified intersections do not meet City of LOS standards in the PM peak hour for 2035 Without Project conditions (i.e., the three intersections are deficient in both peak hours).
Long Range (2035) With Project Traffic Conditions (Intersections) For Long Range (2035) With Project conditions, Table 4.H-16, Intersection Analysis for Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions, indicates that the addition of Project traffic would result in the following two additional deficiencies beyond those previously identified under Long Range (2035) Without Project traffic conditions:
Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #10) LOS E (PM) Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #11) LOS F (PM) Additionally, the Project’s contribution to the Without Project deficiencies is considered cumulatively considerable.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-36 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-16
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Serviceb
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1! 1 29.6 28.5 C C 2 Riverside Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 18.6 18.7 B B 3 Riverside Av. / Easton St.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 3 0
1 3 0
2 2 1
2 2 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1>
72.0 54.9
60.2 51.6
E
D
E
D
4 Highland Av. / Commercial Dwy. CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 14.0 29.7 B D 5 Highland Av. ‐ Easton St. / Easton St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 17.6 12.7 B B 6 Eucalyptus Av. / Walnut Av. AWS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.8 11.2 A B 7 Eucalyptus Av. / Winchester Dr. CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 18.6 17.4 C C 8 Eucalyptus Av. / Baseline Rd.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
d
TS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
20.0 77.0
17.8 F
B
E
B
9 Pepper Av. / Highland Av.
‐ Planned SR‐210/Pepper Interchange
e
‐ With Additional Improvements
TS
TS
1 1 1
1.0 0.5
1.5 0 1! 0
0 1! 0
1 2 0
1 2 1>
1 2 0
1 2 0
>80
39.9 >80
50.0 F
D
F
D
10 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 WB Ramps
‐ Planned SR‐210/Pepper Interchange
e
‐ With Additional Improvements
TS
TS
1 2 0
1.5 1.5 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 1
2 0 1
32.1 33.2
70.9 50.2
C
C
E
D
11 Pepper Av. / SR‐210 EB Ramps
‐ Planned SR‐210/Pepper Interchange
e
‐ With Additional Improvements
TS
TS
0 2 0
0 2 1
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 0 1
1 0 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
25.6 15.3
>80
32.9 C
B
F
C
12 Pepper Av. / Winchester Dr.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
CSS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
14.7 >50
10.7 F
B
F
B
13 Pepper Av. / Mariposa Dr.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
CSS
TS
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0.5 0.5 d
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
4.6 >50
4.3 F
A
F
A
14 Pepper Av. / Baseline Rd.
f
TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 36.3 44.5 D D 15 Pepper Av. / Etiwanda Av.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
AWS
TS
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
0 1! 0
>50
17.3 >50
20.4 F
B
F
C
16 Pepper Av. / Foothill Bl.
‐ Without Improvements
‐ With Improvements
TS
TS
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1>
1 2 d
1 3 0
69.8 39.4
>80
49.2 E
D
F
D
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-37 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
# Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanesa
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Serviceb
North-
bound
South-
bound
East-
bound
West-
bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
17 Meridian Av. / Baseline Rd. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 10.3 18.7 B B 18 Macy St. / Highland Av. TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 53.8 39.9 D D 19 State St. / Highland Av. TS 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 d 45.3 50.4 D D 20 State St. / SR‐210 WB Ramps TS 2 2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 1! 1 12.0 12.5 B B 21 State St. / SR‐210 EB Ramps TS 2 2 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1! 1 1 1 0 39.4 37.7 D D 22 Pepper Av. / Rialto Av. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 30.7 32.6 C C 23 Pepper Av. / Main Dwy. TS 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 6.3 16.8 A B 24 Pepper Av. / South Dwy. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6.4 17.3 A B
a When a right turn is designat ed, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = T hrough; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left‐Through‐Right turn lane; 1 = Planned Pepper Av./SR‐ 210 Interchange; 1 = Improvement b Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all‐way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.