Exhibit C - 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report for Pepper Avenue SP — Rialto City Council, April 25, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

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 S top. d Modified east/west phasing fr om 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 traffi c 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

Project Impact Considerations at Non-Deficient Intersections At various intersection locations where the projected LOS is acceptable pursuant to the City of Rialto standards, the Project-related change in average intersection delay triggers the City’s sliding scale criteria for a potential project impact. Two non-deficient intersections where this condition occurs include:
 Highland Avenue/Commercial Driveway (Intersection #4)  Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #14)
As noted above, the City of Rialto requires that LOS D or better be maintained on Arterial Streets where possible. The one exception is Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s outer border, where LOS “E” is allowed during the peak hour as the acceptable standard.

In addition to the volume increases, changes in average delay at an intersection can occur with new development based upon numerous operational considerations including the following:
 The type of intersection control and lane configuration can increase or decrease intersection delay for various users.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-38 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 At an intersection with an additional leg for a new project driveway, the presence of project related traffic can cause an increase in delay. On the occasions where this occurs at an intersection controlled by a cross-street stop (CSS), the delays are focused on the cross-streets and the delay on the major street may not be impacts.
 Delay calculations can also be affected by traffic flow patterns. The LOS and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration the interrelationships of signalized intersections within a network. For example, a lane improvement at a nearby intersection can result in better grouping of vehicles, where autos arrive at an intersection in a more consolidated fashion and therefore require less green time.

Table 4.H-17, Intersection Summary for Impacts at Non-Deficient Locations for Long Range (2035) Conditions, summarizes intersection analysis with and without additional improvements needed to address changes in delay for non-deficient intersections.

TABLE 4.H-17
INTERSECTION SUMMARY FOR IMPACTS AT NON-DEFICIENT LOCATIONS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) CONDITIONS

# Intersection
Traffic
Controlc
Intersection Approach Lanes a
Without Project With Project
Delayb
(Secs)
Level of
Service b
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 AM PM AM PM 4 Highland Av. /
Commercial Dwy.
e,f

CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 13.1 24.7 B C 14.0 29.7 B D 14 Pepper Av. /
Baseline Rd.
‐ With existing lane
configuration
d

‐ With separate
SBR improvement
d,e

1 2 0

1 2 1

1 2 0

28.7 ‐

31.0 ‐

‐

36.3 31.5

44.5 35.3

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 = 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 = Cro ss Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop. d Per City of Rialto, a traffi c 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. e Per City of Rialto, improvem ents are recommended to mitigate the Project's significant impact at intersections operating at acceptable LOS (LOS A thru D) where the peak hour delay increase as follows: LOS A/B = By 10.0 seconds; LOS C = By 8.0 seconds; LOS D = By 5.0 seconds f It should be noted that the eas tbound left turn movement from the commercial driveway is the worst movement with the highest delay (29.7 seconds in the PM peak hour). Providing physical improvements (such as adding capacity for the eastbound left turn) will not solve this problem because the high northbound through traffic (556 vehicles in the PM peak hour) along Highland Avenue will impede the eastbound left turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended because traffic volumes do not warrant signal control. Therefore, a significant impact at this location is not expected and improvements are not recommended.

SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.

At Highland Avenue/Commercial Driveway (Intersection #4), the PM peak hour intersection delay increases from 24.7 seconds (LOS C) for Without Project conditions to 29.7 seconds (LOS

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-39 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
D) for With Project conditions. No feasible improvements would reduce the With Project delay to a level equivalent to or better than Without Project conditions. However, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D and the delay created would be less than 8 seconds compared to its “pre-project” LOS C condition. Thus, no significant traffic impact would occur at this intersection.

The PM peak hour intersection delay at Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #14) is increased from 31.0 seconds (LOS C) for Without Project conditions to 44.5 seconds (LOS D) for With Project conditions. The following improvement would reduce the With Project delay to a level equivalent to or better than Without Project conditions.

Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #14):
 SB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.

Please see Section 4, Mitigation Measures, for the mitigation prescribed for the Project.

Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
The Long Range (2035) With Project conditions roadway segment capacity analysis is presented in Table 4.H-18, Roadway Volume/Capacity Analysis for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions. As shown in Table 4.H-18, Pepper Avenue south of the SR‐210 Eastbound Ramps is the only study area roadway segment anticipated to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds. The Project contributes approximately 40 percent of the traffic volume at this location. The Project access driveways are served by enhanced capacity via turn lanes, and no negative effect on the through lanes is anticipated.

TABLE 4.H-18
ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment
Through Travel
Lanesa
LOS "E"
Capacityb A D T c
Volume/
Capacity Ratio
Highland Av. West of Pepper Av. 4 26,000 19,200 0.74
East of Pepper Av. 4 26,000 24,600 0.95
Pepper Av. South of Highland Av. 4 33,000 20,504 0.62
South of SR‐210 EB Ramps 4 33,000 36,100 1.09
North of Baseline Av. 4 33,000 24,500 0.74
South of Baseline Av. 4 33,000 24,800 0.75
North of Foothill Bl. 4 33,000 23,498 0.71
Winchester Dr. West of Pepper Av. 2 3,100 2,912 0.94
Baseline Rd. West of Pepper Av. 4 33,000 18,950 0.57
East of Pepper Av. 4 33,000 25,800 0.78

a Number of Through lanes: 2 = Exi sting; 2 = Planned Improvement b Source: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (December 2013), Exhibit D c Long Range (2035) With Project C onditions Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. BOLD = Estimated to exceed threshold daily LOS values and subject to further evaluation of peak hour performance at key intersections along these routes.

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-40 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As mentioned previously, 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. Review of the Synchro SimTraffic peak hour simulations indicate that the recommended intersection improvements identified under 2035 conditions provide acceptable level of service for both study area intersections and roadway segments.

Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
For Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions, the following intersections are anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants, in addition to the intersections identified as meeting traffic signal warrants under Opening Year (2017) Without Project conditions:
 Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive (Intersection #12)
 Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15)
For Long Rang (2035) With Project conditions, the intersection of Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive Intersection #13) is anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants, in addition to the intersections identified as meeting traffic signal warrants under Opening Year (2017) With Project conditions and Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions.

Basic Freeway Segment Analysis
The Long Range (2035) Without and With Project basis freeway segment analysis results are presented on Table 4.H-19, Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions and Table 4.H-20, Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions. As shown on Table 4.H-19 and 4.H-20, all freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate at LOS “E” or better during the peak hours with existing geometry.

TABLE 4.H-19
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Freeway
Direction Mainline Segment Location Lanesa
Volume Density b LOS c

AM PM AM PM AM PM
SR‐210 Freeway
WB
East of Pepper Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue
4 4
7,363
7,250
7,791
7,548

33.8 33.0

37.4 35.3
D
D
E
E
EB
West of Pepper Avenue
East of Pepper Avenue
4 4
6,990
6,812
7,602
7,423

31.1 29.9

35.8 34.3
D
D
E
D

a Number of lanes are in the s pecified direction and is based on existing conditions. b Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). c Level of service determined u sing HCS 2010: Basic Freeway Segments software, Version 6.65.

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-41 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.H-20
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Freeway
Direction Mainline Segment Location Lanes a
Volume Density b LOS c

AM PM AM PM AM PM
SR‐210 Freeway
WB
East of Pepper Avenue
West of Pepper Avenue
4 4
7,504
7,311
8,047
7,843

34.9 33.4

39.8 37.9
D
D
E
E
EB
West of Pepper Avenue
East of Pepper Avenue
4 4
7,126
6,875
7,851
7,728

32.1 30.3

37.9 36.8
D
D
E
E

a Number of lanes are in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. b Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). c Level of service determined using HCS 2010: Basic Freeway Segments software, Version 6.65.

SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.

Long Range (2035) Impacts and Recommended Improvements
Off-Site Project Improvements
Based on the City of Rialto’s significance criteria, the addition of Project traffic would result in the following 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) The following off-site improvements are recommended to mitigate the Project’s impact to operate at acceptable LOS “D” or better.

Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #10):
 Northbound Approach: Modify traffic signal to provide north/south split phase. Restripe first through lane to provide a left-through lane, in addition to the left turn lane and second through lane.
 Westbound Approach: Provide additional (second) left turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #11):
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.  Eastbound Approach: Provide additional (second) right turn lane.

Cumulative 2035 Improvements
Additionally, 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 or deficient in an effort to reduce each location’s peak hour delay and improve the associated LOS grade to LOS “D” or better.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-42 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Improvement strategies identified in Table 4.H-16 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, in addition to the improvements previously identified under Opening Year (2017) conditions.

Pepper Avenue/Highland Avenue (Intersection #9):
 Northbound Approach: Restripe through lane to shared through-right lane, in addition to the left turn lane and right turn lane.
 Eastbound Approach: Participate in the signal modification to provide separate right turn overlap signal phasing for the right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive Intersection #12):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.
 Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive (Intersection #13):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.
 Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #14):
 SB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Foothill Boulevard (Intersection #16):
 Participate in the signal modification to provide separate right turn overlap signal phasing for the existing eastbound right turn lane.
 Southbound Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.  Westbound Approach: Provide additional (third) through lane.

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. The City would ensure that the improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at the point in time necessary to avoid identified significant traffic impacts.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-43 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Please see Section 4, Mitigation Measures, below, for the mitigation prescribed for the Project. (3) Congestion Management
Threshold TRAF-2: A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts wit h an applicable congestion management program, including, but not li mited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

Impact Statement TRAF-2: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county management agency for designated roads or highways. This impact would be less than significant.

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. Therefore, impacts to CMP facilities would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Long Range (2035) Without and With Project basis freeway segment analysis results are presented on Table 4.H-19 and Table 4.H-20. As shown in the tables, all freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate at LOS “E” or better during the peak hours with existing geometry.
(4) Traffic Hazards
Threshold TRAF-3: A significant impact would occur if the Project substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerou s intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Impact Statement TRAF-3: Implementation of the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections). This impact would be less than significant.

The Pepper Avenue interchange with the SR-210 Freeway would provide regional access to the Project Site. The Project Site would be locally accessed via Pepper Avenue from the north and south. Adjacent and surrounding land uses in the Project area include Caltrans right-of-way/SR- 210 Freeway to the north; vacant land and the BNSF Railroad followed by the Lytle Creek Wash to east; single-family residential uses and Frisbee Park to the west; and an unnamed wash and vacant land followed by single-family residential uses to the south. The SR-210 Freeway and Pepper Avenue interchange project is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 2016 prior to opening of future development within the Project Site. There are no

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-44 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
existing hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on-site or in the surrounding area.

As discussed above, 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. Construction of any traffic improvements would occur in conjunction with adjacent project development activity or as needed for project access purposes. The Project’s access drives and internal driveways would be designed to meet the City of Rialto and Rialto Fire Department (RFD) standards. Sight distance at each Project access driveways would be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and City of Rialto sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

For the purpose of this analysis, a traffic signal progression analysis has also been conducted for Pepper Avenue, between Highland Avenue and South Project Driveway under Long Range (2035) with Project conditions, with the Project’s roadway improvements to evaluate vehicular queuing by considering the signal timing and physical spacing of intersections.

The progression analysis conducted along Pepper Avenue, between Highland Avenue and South Project Driveway, is utilized to evaluate the turning pocket lengths necessary to accommodate 95th percentile peak hour queues and to demonstrate acceptable peak hour operations in the study area. The progression analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro plus SimTraffic (Version 8 Build 801) has been utilized for the progression analysis. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the Chapter 18 and Chapter 31 of the HCM 2010 and the unsignalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in Chapter 19, Chapter 20, and Chapter 32 of the HCM 2010. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length in Synchro. The LOS and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

SimTraffic is a traffic simulation software application that utilizes the Synchro network.

SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input parameters from Synchro to generate random simulations. The random simulations generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed along these roadway segments. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded five times, during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and has been seeded for 5‐minute periods with 10‐minute recording intervals. The queuing length results are based on an average of these five simulations.

The recommended traffic signal timing for the intersections along Pepper Avenue, between Highland Avenue and South Project Driveway for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions with the identified intersection improvements are presented in Table 4.H-21, Pepper Avenue/SR- 210 Interchange Area Queuing Analysis Summary for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions, With Intersection Improvements. By providing storage lengths consistent with the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-45 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
recommendations in Table 4.H-21, traffic flow and associated roadway hazards would be minimized such that less than significant impacts would occur.

TABLE 4.H-21
PEPPER AVENUE/SR-210 INTERCHANGE AREA QUEUING ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS, WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTSa ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
Existing Storage
Lengthb (feet)
Recommended
Storage
Lengthb,c (feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)
AM PM
9 Pepper Avenue / Highland Avenue
EBLEBT
EBR
WBL
WBT/R
NBL
NBT
NBR

330
>500
150
280
>500
‐
‐
‐

330
>500
150
400
>500
215 d
260
260

33 135
38 309
105
130
77 59

22 127
84 361
306
229
219
140
10 Pepper Avenue / SR‐210 WB Ramps
WBL
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBT/R

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

300 (dual)
300
310
310
260

208
96 152
152
190

239
212
236
204
219
11 Pepper Avenue / SR‐210 EB Ramps
EBL
EBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

300
300 (dual)
490
300
310
310

223
163
105
62 161
120

292
265
246
122
189
208
23 Pepper Avenue / Main Driveway
EBL
EBT/R
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT/R
SBL
SBT/R

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

150
150
150
150
150 d
150
>500
200 (dual)
190

62 22
40 10
67 72
109
87 66

134
49 112
27 177
116
184
167
186

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-46 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
Existing Storage
Lengthb (feet)
Recommended
Storage
Lengthb,c (feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)
AM PM
24 Pepper Avenue / South Driveway
WBL
WBR
NBT/R
BL
SBT

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

150
150
>500
200
260

45 49
184
125
59 123
125
219
157
82 a Queue length calculated using Synchro 8 with SimTraffic. b Pocket length storage (for turning movements) or link distanc e (for through movements). c Minimum recommended storage length needed to accommodate the anticipated 95th percentile queues.

BOLD = Recommended Storage Lengt h; Blue = Storage length based on the Pepper Av./SR‐210 Interchange design features d 95th percentile queue is antic ipated to exceed available storage length. However, review of the SimTraffic simulation results indicate that the turn lane queue is anticipated to clear in a timely manner and that the provided pocket length is adequate to accommodate the future peak hour queues.

SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 13, 2016.

(5) Plan and Policy Consistency
Threshold TRAF-4: A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts wit h adopted policies, plans, or programs rega rding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Impact Statement TRAF-4: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

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.

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, of the Specific Plan requires that all major developments 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 Specific Plan would provide bus shelters and other illuminated transit facilitates, should it be determined that transit services be provided to the Site.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-47 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As discussed in in Section 4.F, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the SCAG RTP/SCS, SCAG’s Compass Blueprint, the Rialto General Plan, and other relevant plans and guidance documents. Regarding to the City’s Circulation Element, the Project’s consistency with relevant policies related to transportation is discussed below in Table 4.F.2, Comparison of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Applicable Policies of the General Plan. As discussed therein, the Project would not conflict with the implementation of relevant policies pertaining to alternative transportation.

Overall, given the provision of improvements supportive of alternative transportation, subject to review and approval by the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, OmniTrans, and/or other affected agencies, the Project would not conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and as such, impacts related to alternative transportation would be less than significant. e. Cumulative Impacts
The 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.

Impacts on traffic associated with construction (i.e., an intermittent reduction in street and intersection operating capacity) are typically considered short-term adverse impacts, but not significant. The Project would result in a less than significant impact during construction with the implementation of a construction management plan (DF SERVICE-1) that would incorporate notification and safety procedures and controls. Each cumulative project would be required to comply with City requirements regarding haul routes and would implement mitigation measures and/or include project design features, such as traffic controls and safety procedures, to reduce potential traffic impacts during construction.

The Traffic Impact Analysis was developed to address Project impacts in the context of baseline conditions, Opening Year (2017) and Long Range (2035) conditions. The Opening Year (2017) and Long Range (2035) conditions takes into account traffic caused by the near-term and long- term cumulative development, respectively. Therefore, the analysis of Opening Year (2017) and Long Range (2035) conditions provides the cumulative analysis in that is considers traffic generated by future planned land uses.

As is the case with the Project, each cumulative project would be subject to review and approval of project plans by the RFD to ensure adequate site distance for vehicles, as well as appropriate striping and signage. Therefore, it is anticipated that cumulative projects would not result in safety hazards for vehicles in the area, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Project’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulative considerable.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-48 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
As cumulative development occurs, public transit agencies are expected to respond by expanding their services and facilities to meet growing demands. It is also expected that cumulative development projects would also provide adequate public transit facilities, such as bus turnout, shelters, and signage, to the satisfaction of affected transit agencies. Assuming public transportation keeps pace with demand based on market forces, as is expected, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided concurrent with new development projects within the City, cumulative alternative transportation impacts would be less than significant, and the Project’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

As is the case with the Project, future cumulative development projects would be subject to review regarding consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. It is anticipated that such project review on a case-by-case basis would preclude the potential for adverse impacts resulting from conflicts with traffic-related regulations. The Project’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulative considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

4. Mitigation Measures
Regional and Local Traffic Impact Fee Mitigation Programs Traffic and transportation impact fee programs are designed to address and help mitigate cumulative impacts of growth within specific areas of benefit.

Measure I Funds: In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30‐year extension of Measure I, a one‐half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. The Measure I extension requires that a regional traffic impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was prepared by SANBAG and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure I requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction.

Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure I funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study.

While Measure I is a self‐executing sales tax administered by SANBAG, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure I have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County. SANBAG has successfully implemented numerous projects that have been funded by Measure I and Measure I should continue to fund additional projects in the future. It should be noted that the proposed SR‐210/Pepper Avenue interchange 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 City of Rialto Development Impact Fee Program: In 2006, the City of Rialto adopted their DIF program incorporating the regional component of Measure I. The fee schedule was recently updated in November 2009. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure I compliant regional facilities. Under the City’s DIF program, the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-49 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program.

After the City’s DIF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate interest bearing account pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The timing to use the DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by the City’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants.

The City uses this data to determine the timing of the improvements listed in its facilities list.

Fair Share Contribution
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).

When off‐site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, have been provided on Table 9‐1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment for the cumulatively impacted intersections identified previously under 2017 and 2035 conditions. The Traffic Impact Assessment provides a rough order of magnitude cost to determine an estimated contribution value based upon the Project’s fair share of traffic. However, these estimates are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation.

The following mitigation measure is prescribed for the Project to ensure future development within the Project Site funds off-site improvements, as necessary, to mitigate the Project’s contribution to project and cumulative traffic impacts, as feasible.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 - Prior to issuance of building permits, future Project applicant(s) shall participate in the City of Rialto Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program by paying applicable fees, supplemented by participation in additional fair share intersection improvement costs as needed. Such fees shall be determined by additional and/or focused traffic impact studies, as determined necessary by the City of Rialto Traffic Engineering Division, prior to future development occurring within the Specific Plan Area. 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. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion). The improvements identified below shall be funded by the Project’s proportionate payment of fees, as determined necessary by the City of Rialto Traffic

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-50 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Engineering Division. The City shall ensure that the improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at the point in time necessary to avoid identified significant traffic impacts.

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.

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/SR-210 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #10):
 Northbound Approach: Modify traffic signal to provide north/south split phase.

Restripe first through lane to provide a left-through lane, in addition to the left turn lane and second through lane.
 Westbound Approach: Provide additional (second) left turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #11):
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.  Eastbound Approach: Provide additional (second) right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Winchester Drive (Intersection #12):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.
 Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
H. Transportation
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.H-51 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 Southbound Approach: Provide separate left turn lane and second through lane, eliminating defacto right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #14):
 SB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.

5. Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of and adherence to the prescribed mitigation measure included herein, potentially significant traffic impacts at the following intersections would be reduced to a less than significant level: Intersection #3, and Intersections #8 to # 16. All other impacts would be less than significant.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 5
Alternatives

1. Summary of the Alternatives
Under CEQA, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a Project is a fundamental aspect of the environmental review process. Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an EIR by stating that in addition to determining a Project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify alternatives to the Project.

Direction regarding the definition of Project alternatives is provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) as follows:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of Project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce significant impacts relative to the proposed Project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives, or would be more costly.” The CEQA Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are analyzed.

In selecting Project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives should be feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, … and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “No Project” alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for the Project, if feasible. Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is to be designated. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No Build Alternative, then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The first alternative selected for analysis is a No Project/No Build Alternative, pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. Two additional alternatives were selected to minimize the Project’s traffic impacts, which correspond to the Project’s only significant and avoidable impacts, consisting of cumulative off-site mobile-source (traffic) noise impacts during Project operation. The two alternatives selected would both reduce operational traffic volumes (and associated traffic noise levels) by developing a Project that would be reduced and intensity.

Based on the Project’s significant environmental impacts and in consideration of the objectives established for the Project (refer to Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR), the following alternatives to the Project are evaluated in this Chapter:

1. No Project/No Build Alternative

2. Reduced Intensity Alternative

3. Existing Zoning Alternative

2. Project Objectives
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the following describes the objectives of the proposed Specific Plan, which are provided in the Specific Plan as “Specific Plan Goals,” and are intended to implement the Plan’s Community Planning Vision.

The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan is designed to implement a series of objectives to ensure that the Project results in a high-quality development that meets realistic and achievable objectives.

These goals, which are identified below, have been refined throughout the planning and design process for Pepper Avenue:

1. Provide an eastern gateway to the City of Rialto that offers new and exciting retail opportunities and promotes the identity of the North End (Pepper Avenue) neighborhood.

2. Provide freeway-oriented commercial opportunities to serve r egional needs and stimulate job and revenue growth in the City.

3. Address the City of Rialto’s c urrent and projected housing needs by allowing a portion of the Project to be developed with multi-family residences.

4. Incorporate “Green” and sustainable practices, as practicabl e, in developing buildings and infrastructure.

5. Undertake development of the Project Site in a manner that i s economically feasible and balanced to address both the property owners’ and the City’s economic concerns.

6. Revitalize the underutilized Project Site through the implementation of a predominantly retail development that will service the surrounding existing residential communities.

7. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.

8. Locate and integrate the design of native habitat open space areas into the community, such as providing a potential pedestrian bridge inclusive of interpretive signage that connects the development area with the adjacent Frisbie Park.

9. Maximize the use of native plant materials/species in the Project landscaping, especially in areas located in proximity to preserved native habitat.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

3. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
In addition, to the guidance cited above regarding purpose and contents of an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR identify alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the following factors may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration: the alternative’s failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, the alternative’s infeasibility, or the alternative’s inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Alternatives that have been considered and rejected as infeasible include the following.

A. Alternate Site Location Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) require consideration regarding development at one or more alternative location(s). An alternative site outside of the City of Rialto would require the acquisition of a comparable area of land, or approximately 102 acres, which given the amount of land necessary that is readily accessible would be prohibitive. The Project area is currently served by existing utilities, including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure, which would also serve future uses on-site. An alternative site location in Southern California with the amount of land required to allow for the proposed Specific Plan to be developed on the property, which is also served by adequate infrastructure, may not be possible in the near-term foreseeable future. Additionally, the location of the Project Site surrounded by existing development adjacent to two major freeways provides an opportunity to concentrate growth within an already urbanized area where a market for housing, goods, and services is already established. Further, this Project was initiated by the City of Rialto as a non- property-owner and the City does not have the same legal authority in other jurisdictions.

B. All Industrial Alternative
The Project Site is located adjacent to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and to the south of the 210 Freeway. This proximity to the rail line and other transportation facilities, such as the freeway suggests a potential use of the site for development as a distribution center focused on railroad access. Again, this alternative would not appropriately utilize the land to its existing designations and would not allow the City to increase its retail base or residential base as envisioned in the General Plan. As such, this alternative was considered and rejected.

C. Agricultural Alternative
Historical agricultural uses have occurred within the Project Site. This alternative would consist of intensive agricultural use over the Project Site, including potential use of the habitat area.

However, the character of the drainage through the Site could preclude the use of portions of the property for agricultural purposes. Regardless, as with other rejected alternatives, this alternative would not utilize the land to its development potential and would not allow the City to increase its retail base or residential base as envisioned in the General Plan. As such, this alternative was considered and rejected.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

4. Analysis Format
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), each alternative is evaluated in sufficient detail to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be less than, similar to, or greater than the corresponding impacts of the Project. Furthermore, each alternative is evaluated to determine whether the Project objectives, identified in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR would be substantially attained by the alternative. The evaluation of each of the alternatives follows the process described below:
a. The net environmental impacts of the alternative after implementation of reasonable mitigation measures are determined for each environmental issue area analyzed in the EIR. b. Post-mitigation significant a nd non-significant environmental impacts of the alternative and the Project are compared for each environmental issue area. Where the net impact of the alternative would be clearly less adverse than the impact of the Project, the comparative impact is said to be “less.” Where the alternative’s net impact would clearly be more adverse than the Project, the comparative impact is said to be “greater.” Where the impacts of the alternative and Project would be roughly equivalent, the comparative impact is said to be “similar.”
c. The comparative analysis of t he impacts is followed by a general discussion of whether the underlying purpose and basic Project objectives are substantially attained by the alternative.

A. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative

1. Description of the Alternative
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development Project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, “in certain instances, the No Project/No Build Alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that no new development proposed by the Specific Plan would occur within the Project Site. Thus, the future development of community commercial, business park and, potentially, residential uses would not occur. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, future improvements being contemplated by WVWD on their 13.7-acre Lord Ranch Facility located in the southeast portion of the Project Site could still occur. These include the construction and operation of a 1-million-gallon steel-welded reservoir, a 3,500 square-foot pump station in masonry building, paved driveway, and concrete block masonry retaining wall. The masonry retaining wall would extend along the western property line and a portion of the southerly property line to allow the ground surface around Well No. 36 to be raised about 8 feet.

The remainder of the Project Site would remain undeveloped and vacant. For purposes of this analysis, because the contemplated WVWD improvements are not being proposed as part of the Specific Plan and would occur with or without the Project, those contemplated improvements are not evaluated herein. Thus, environmental effects under this Alternative would be similar to existing site conditions, as described in the existing setting sections of each analysis in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR. However, impacts of this Alternative relative to each issue area are discussed below.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

2. Environmental Impacts
a. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
(1) Views/Scenic Vistas
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not block views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains or other broad views across the site. However, because of the deep setbacks of the Project’s future development from off-site public view areas, the Project Site’s lower elevation, and building height limitations, the Project would not significantly impact views of the mountains or other broad views across the site. Although the Project would result in a less than significant view impact, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not change in the existing view field across the Project Site. Because no retail, business park or potential residential development would occur under the No Project Alternative, impacts to views and scenic vistas would be less than under Project.
(2) Aesthetics/Visual Character
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, with the exception of the WVWD facility expansion, no changes in the visual character of the Project Site would occur. The Project Site improvements under the Specific Plan associated with future retail, business park and potential residential development, which include landscaping, architectural design elements, streetscapes, a potential bridge to Frisbie Park and other improvements would not be provided under this Alternative.

Although important habitat features occur within the westerly sector of the Project Site containing RAFSS habitat, this area has been disturbed by off-road vehicle activity, as viewed from off-site areas. Generally, the Project Site lacks a high level of visual quality or other valued aesthetic features such as outcroppings, historic buildings, landscaping or other visual buffers. Given the lack of notable visual resources within the Project boundaries, and associated low visual quality, this Alternative would not improve the aesthetic quality of the Project Site. With the conversion of vacant land to urban uses, development of the proposed uses in accordance with the Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines would avoid degradation of visual quality and ensure visually cohesive and attractive urban design patterns within the various Planning Areas. As such, although no physical changes would result from this Alternative, the beneficial aesthetic effects of the Specific Plan would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be greater under this Alternative than under the Project.
(3) Light and Glare
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new lighting would be added to the Project Site, in contrast to the Project which would add night-time lighting to the Project Site that is similar to lighting and glare conditions currently occurring in developed portions of the City and surrounding area. Since no new light or glare would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, this Alternative would result in less light and glare impacts than under the Project. b. Air Quality
The No Project/No Build Alternative would include no proposed development on the Project Site resulting in no new air pollutant sources. In contrast, the Project’s construction activity and long-

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
term operation would generate new sources of air quality emissions. Since this Alternative does not involve any new emissions sources (except those in association with the WVWD contemplated improvements), no impact would occur and impacts would be less than the Project. c. Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not physically alter the Project Site or affect biological resources or CDFW jurisdictional features located within the Project Site. Direct physical effects on sensitive species, habitats, riparian areas, and wetlands under the No Project/No Build Alternative would not occur. Because the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any material changes to the Project Site or the resources it contains, no impacts to plans, policies, or regulations protecting biological resources would occur. Although the Project would avoid jurisdictional features, maintain a minimum of 29.5 acres of RAFSS habitat, and reduce impacts to less than significant levels through the implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the Project’s potential impacts. Because no impacts to biological resources would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, impacts would be less than under the Project. d. Cultural Resources
No changes to the Project Site would occur under this Alternative. Several building foundations and a dry water reservoir occur in the southeastern corner of the Project Site in the vicinity of the WVWD expansion which could be historic resources. However, these resources are located within PA-4 owned by WVWD. No development associated with the Project would occur in PA- 4; therefore, the Project would not impact any historic resources. Thus, similar to the Project, this Alternative would result in no impacts to historic resources.

The Project would mitigate potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains to less than significant levels through Mitigation Measures CULT-1 to CULT-7. Because no new development would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, it would have no impact on potential unknown archaeological resources or human remains. Thus, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have less impact on archaeological resources and human remains than the Project. No paleontological resources occur on the Project Site and, as with the Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have no impact with respect to paleontological resources.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not contribute new uses to the Project Site and therefore would not result in the direct generation of GHG emissions. The Project’s construction and operational activity would result in the short-term and long-term of GHG emissions, as well as comply with the City of Rialto GHG reduction measures and the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (SBC Reduction Plan). As such, GHG emission impacts would be less under the No Project/No Build Alternative, which would have no impact with respect to GHG emissions.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
f. Land Use
Impacts related to land use would be less than significant under the Project. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, there would be no changes to the land uses on-site. However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not implement policies of SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region and it would not implement the economic development goals of the General Plan to strengthen and diversify the economic base and employment opportunities, and maintain a positive business climate. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet Community Design policies of the General Plan to create distinctive gateways at entry points; create streetscapes to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and dine; create pedestrian friendly streets; to improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto; and meet other goals of the General Plan to enhance the character and quality of the City. Because the No Project/No Build Alternative would not implement the goals of the General Plan to the same extent as the Project, it is considered to have a greater land use impact.
g. Noise
No development would occur within the Project Site under this Alternative. Consequently, it would not generate any new or increased sources of noise or vibration on the Project Site or within the surrounding vicinity due to Project construction or operations. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in an increase in traffic to the Project vicinity and would not introduce new noise sources and current noise levels on the property would remain the same as under current conditions. As such, the significant unavoidable noise impacts associated with long- term cumulative traffic noise under the Specific Plan during operations would not occur. Impacts due to Project noise of the No Project/No Build Alternative would be less than those of the Project, as no impacts would occur.
h. Traffic and Circulation
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in new development within the Project Site and therefore would not result in any impacts to the transportation system due to construction or operation activities. In contrast, the Project would add trips to regional and local roadways associated with the Site’s residential population and employment workforce. The Project would implement a construction traffic management plan to ensure that construction activities accommodate smooth and efficient transportation flow during construction, thus avoiding significant traffic hazard impacts due to construction activities. The Project’s daily trips would add trips to the local roadway network and regional transportation system, but potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the prescribed mitigation. This Alternative would avoid the less than significant traffic impacts (after mitigation) associated with implementation of the Project. The proposed Project’s access and parking facilities would be designed to meet Project needs and would have less than significant impacts. Overall, Impacts of the No Project/No Build Alternative would be less than those of the Project, as no impacts would occur under this Alternative.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

3. Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet the purpose of the Project to create a high- quality development that would serve as an eastern gateway to the City of Rialto (Objective 1). It would not offer retail opportunities or promote the identity of the neighborhood (Objective 1).

Unlike the Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not create freeway-oriented commercial opportunities or serve regional needs and stimulate job and revenue growth in the City (Objective 2). Other objectives such as meeting the City’s current and projected housing needs by allowing a portion of the Project to be developed with multi-family residences (Objective 3) and revitalizing the underutilized Project Site through a predominantly retail development (Objective 6) would not be realized. Because no retail, business park, or residential uses would be constructed, the No Project/No Building Alternative would not create “Green” and sustainable buildings (Objective 4) or allow for development that would be economically feasible and balanced to address both the property owners’ and the City’s economic concerns (Objective 5). It would not increase the use of the area through pedestrian and bicycle connectivity (Objective 7), or locate and integrate the design of native habitat open space areas into the community by providing permanent open space, or integrate native habitat into the pedestrian experience with interpretive signage (Objective 8). The No Project/No Build Alternative would not provide the opportunity to maximize the use of native plant materials/species in the Project landscaping (Objective 9). Table 5-3, Comparison of Alternatives – Ability to Meet Project Objectives, below, illustrates the comparative ability of Project Alternatives to meet the Project’s nine objectives. As shown, therein, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project’s nine objectives.

B. Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative

1. Description of the Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2) would reduce the overall intensity of the Project. If the Residential Overlay were implemented under Alternative 2, this Alternative would also reduce the residential density compared to the Project. Alternative 2 would not provide for the Project’s Commercial Overlay option, which would have been located in approximately 6.3 acres of retail uses in the habitat area (PA 7 and PA8). Alternative 2 would allow for a maximum of 316,000 square feet of retail floor area, which represents an approximately 31.6 percent reduction compared to the Project’s 462,000 square feet of retail space. Alternative 2 would also allow up to 84,000 square feet of business park floor area, which represents an approximately

32.8 percent reduction in the Project’s 125,000 square feet of business park floor area. Under Alternative 2’s Residential Overlay option, this Alternative would provide 206 multi-family dwelling units, which represents an approximately 25 percent reduction compared to the Project’s 275-unit Residential Overlay. As with the Project, implementation of the Residential Overlay would reduce retail shopping floor area approximately 25 percent (from 462,000 square feet to 346,000 square feet under the Project), for a total of approximately 237,000 square feet of retail space (25 percent of 316,000 square feet).

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

2. Environmental Impacts
a. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
(1) Views/Scenic Vistas
As with the Project, Alternative 2 would be lower in elevation than off-site public view locations, would have building height limitations, and would be significantly set back from off-site uses and view locations. However, the reduction in overall intensity would allow for more openings (view corridors) across the site. In addition, since the Commercial Overlay would not be developed to the west of Pepper Avenue, buildings within Alternative 2 would be located further from off-site view locations southwest of the Project Site and, thus, allow a broader background view field than under the Project. Although the Project would result in a less than significant view impact, Alternative 2 would cause less change in the existing view field across the site. Therefore, impacts to views and scenic vistas would be less than under Project. (2) Aesthetics/Visual Character
Under Alternative 2, the Project Site would be developed with retail, business park and potential residential development. Development would require site landscaping, architectural design elements, streetscapes, and other improvements that, as with the Project, would enhance the visual character of the site. With the reduction in development intensity, however, more open space could occur throughout the improved areas and the habitat area would remain unchanged.

Although the habitat area does not comprise a distinctive visual attribute, and although it may not be developed under the Project if the Commercial Overlay were not implemented, the non- development of the Commercial Overlay under Alternative 2 would potentially provide for more natural open space than under the Project. Depending on the landscaping or use of open space within the developed area, Alternative 2 could achieve greater aesthetic character than under the Project. However, because the Project also incorporates large areas of habitat open space and the developed area would be entirely developed or landscaped in accordance with the Specific Plan’s aesthetic requirements, it is considered to have similar visual character to Alternative 2.

Therefore, as with the Project, visual character impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant and similar to the Project.
(3) Light and Glare
As with the Project, Alternative 2 would include lighting provided at vehicle entry points and areas of circulation; points of entry into buildings; along the exterior façades of buildings; and other outdoor areas (e.g., parks, paseos, common open space areas) for both architectural highlighting and security purposes. Lighting would be designed (shielded) and strategically placed to minimize glare and light spill onto off-site residential neighborhoods. As with the Project, all lighting would comply with the Specific Plan and Rialto Municipal Code, which under Section 18.61.140, shall not exceed one-half foot-candle at any residential property line or one foot-candle at any nonresidential property line. Commercial building design regulations identified in the proposed Specific Plan would not allow large reflective building surfaces and, as such, glare impacts would be minimal. The design guidelines under the Specific Plan would prevent significant light and glare impacts under both Alternative 2 and the Project. However,

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
because Alternative 2 would comprise less overall development, light and glare effects would be incrementally less.
b. Air Quality
As with the Project, construction activities associated with Alternative 2 would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from Project Site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the Project Site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the time. Alternative 2 would involve a similar maximum daily intensity of activity during any construction phase due to the concurrent use of equipment in any single phase.

Thus, Alternative 2 would result in similar maximum daily construction-period impacts. As with the Project, construction activities under this Alternative would implement mitigation to ensure NOx and PM

2.5 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. Although maximum daily air quality impacts would be similar and less than significant (after mitigation) under both the Project and Alternative 2, the duration of construction would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 2 so that overall construction emissions would be less than under the Project.

As discussed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of this EIR, localized daily operational emissions would not be a significant impact. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 25 percent fewer daily vehicle trips than the Project (see Table 5-1, Alternative 2 Vehicle Trips Compared to Project Vehicle Trips, below) and, thus, result in fewer mobile emissions than under the Project. As with the Project, mobile emissions during operation would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable air quality plan, violate air quality standards, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in objectionable odors. As with the Project, Alternative 2 operational emissions would be less than significant. However, because mobile emissions would be less under Alternative 2, operational air quality impacts would be less than under the Project.

In addition, because the Project and Alternative 2 would not cause objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people, similar less than significant impacts regarding objectionable odors would occur.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 5-1
ALTERNATIVE 2 VEHICLE TRIPS COMPARED TO PROJECT VEHICLE TRIPS Project Alternative 2
Use Vehicle Trips Use Change Vehicle Trips
Retail: 462,000 SF 19,727 Retail:
316,000 SF
-31.6% (-146,000 SF) 13,493
Business Park: 125,000 SF 1,555 Business Park:
84,000 SF
-32.8% (-41,000 SF) 1,045
Multi-Family
Residential:
206 Units

+100% (+206 units) 1,370
Vehicle Trips: 21,282 15,908
10% Pass-by/Local
Interaction Reduction
1,973 1,409
Total: 19,309 -25% 14,559

Source: Urban Crossroads Traffic Impact Analysis, 2016.

c. Biological Resources
Both Alternative 2 and the Project would physically alter the Project Site and result in direct and indirect impacts on a special-status plant species, the federal endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and five state (and potentially other) species of special concern. The majority of these species occur within RAFSS habitat. Approximately 6.3 acres of RAFSS habitat could be removed with the potential development of PA-7 and PA-8 under the Project. However, Alternative 2 would not include development in PA-7 and PA-8. Both Alternative 2 and the Project may also result in permanent or temporary impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional features with the development of bridge pilings for the potential pedestrian crossing to Frisbie Park.

However, under both the Project and Alternative 2, approximately 29.5 acres of RAFSS habitat and riparian areas contained in PA-9 would be permanently preserved. Mitigation Measures BIO- 1 through BIO-9 would address impacts to species, wetlands, and other areas of biological concern and would reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels under both the Project and Alternative 2. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would be consistent with City policies and regulations protecting biological resources and would have less than significant impacts concerning existing plans and policies. Although both the Project and Alternative 2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels, because Alternative 2 would not include development within the Commercial Overlay, it would have potentially less impact on biological resources than under the Project. d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would not include development in PA-7 and PA-8 (the Commercial Overlay – 6.3 acres). On the other hand, the Project could potentially develop the Commercial Overlay area.

Potentially significant impacts to previously unknown archaeological and human remains would

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
be reduced to a less than significant level under both the Project and Alternative 2 with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. However, because the area of potential disturbance would be less under Alternative 2, impacts would be less than under the Project.

No paleontological or historic resources occur on the Project Site and, as with the Project, Alternative 2 would have no impact with respect to paleontological and historic resources. e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would allow for the future development of the Project Site with a mix of urban uses similar to the Project, but at a lower overall intensity. As such, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from construction and operation of future uses would be less than significant similar to the Project, but would be lower relative to the Project. Likewise, impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans would be less than significant under this Alternative, as is the case for the Project. Overall, given the reduction in development intensity and associated greenhouse gas emissions, impacts would be less than the Project.
f. Land Use
Although reduced in intensity compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the objectives of SCAG’s RTP/SCS to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region and it would implement the economic development would implement the economic development goals of the General Plan to strengthen and diversify the City’s economic base and employment opportunities, and to maintain a positive business climate. Alternative 2 would also meet Community Design policies of the General Plan to create distinctive gateways at entry points; create streetscapes to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and dine; create pedestrian friendly streets; improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto; and meet other goals of the General Plan to enhance the character and quality of the City. Although Alternative 2 would implement the goals of the General Plan, because of the reduction in overall development, it would not achieve the same level in meeting the City’s economic goals as under the Project. Nonetheless, because Alternative 2 would be generally consistent with the general objectives and policies of the General Plan, land use impacts are considered similar to the Project and less than significant. g. Noise
This Alternative would result in the future construction and operation of a mix of urban uses on the Project Site, but at a lower intensity than under the Project. Despite the proximity of existing noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences) near the Project Site, Alternative 2 would require a similar level of daily construction activity as under the Project and, as such, result in similar maximum daily construction noise levels/impacts. Thus, construction-related noise would result in less than significant impacts regarding violation of established noise standards and temporary or periodic noise increases in the Project area, similar to the Project. As is the case for the Project, groundborne noise and vibration levels would not exceed established thresholds and therefore impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Although maximum daily noise and vibration impacts would be similar and less than significant (after mitigation) under both the

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project and Alternative 2, the duration of construction would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 2 so that overall construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than under the Project.

As with the Project, noise impacts under Alternative 2 from operational on-site stationary noise sources would be less than significant and similar to the Project. With less traffic generated under this Alternative, traffic-related noise would be less under this Alternative than under the Project.

Nonetheless, given the future level of operational traffic in the area, due to both ambient growth and project-related growth under this Alternative, mobile-source noise sources would contribute to significant unavoidable impacts associated with permanent noise level increases along area streets as would the Project. Although, the cumulative mobile source noise contribution would be less under this Alternative than under the Project.
h. Traffic and Circulation
Alternative 2 would reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project. As shown in Table 5-1, Alternative 2 would generate approximately 14,559 trips per day compared to the Project’s approximately 19,309 trips per day. This represents a reduction of approximately 25 percent in total vehicle trips per day and an incremental reduction in the Project’s contribution to cumulative traffic in the area. As discussed in Section 4.H, Traffic and Transportation, however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, the Project would not exceed threshold standards regarding Project-induced or cumulative traffic relative to the operation of the study area’s roadways and intersections. Mitigation includes contribution to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program or other fair share programs, which fund off-site improvements for long-range conditions. As with the Project, Alternative 2 would be required to contribute to the DIF or other fair share programs, contribution to which is determined by the City. As with the Project, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, impacts with respect to Project- generated and cumulative trip generation would be less than significant. In addition, because Alternative 2 would incrementally reduce traffic compared to the Project’s less than significant traffic impacts related to congestion management programs, traffic hazards, emergency access, and plan and policy consistency, impacts related to these issues would be also be less than significant under Alternative 2. However, because Alternative 2 would reduce the Project’s traffic by approximately 25 percent, traffic impacts would be less overall than under the Project.

3. Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Alternative 2 would substantially meet the purpose of the Project to create a high-quality development that would serve as an eastern gateway to the City of Rialto (Objective 1). It would offer retail opportunities or promote the identity of the neighborhood (Objective 1). Alternative 2 would also create freeway-oriented commercial opportunities intended or serve regional needs and stimulate job and revenue growth in the City (Objective 2). However, because of reduced scale, it would not meet regional needs and generate revenue to the same extent of the Project and would be only partially consistent with this objective. Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Specific Plan’s objectives to meet the City’s current and projected housing needs by allowing a portion of the Project to be developed with multi-family residences (Objective 3) and to revitalize the underutilized Project Site through a strong retail component (Objective 6). Alternative 2

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
would create “Green” and sustainable buildings (Objective 4) and allow for development that would be economically feasible and balanced to address both the property owners’ and the City’s economic concerns (Objective 5). Again, because of reduced scale it would likely not generate the same revenue to the City as under the Project and, thus, would not meet the City’s economic concerns under Objective 5 to the same as the Project. It would increase the use of the area by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle connectivity (Objective 7), and locate and integrate the design of native habitat open space areas into the community by providing provide permanent open space, and integrate it into the pedestrian experience with interpretive signage (Objective 8).

Alternative 3 would also provide the opportunity to maximize the use of native plant materials/species in the Project landscaping (Objective 9). Table 5-3, Comparison of Alternatives – Ability to Meet Project Objectives, below, illustrates the comparative ability of Project Alternatives to meet the Project’s nine objectives. As shown therein, Alternative 2 would fully meet seven of the Project’s nine objectives and partially meet two of the Project’s nine objectives.

C. Alternative 3: Existing Zoning Map Alternative

1. Description of the Alternative
The Existing Zoning Map Alternative (Alternative 3) would allow for the build-out of the 101.7- acre Project Site per the City’s existing Zoning Map. Alternative 3 would allow for development of 276 single-family residences with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and the development of up to 185,000 square feet of light industrial business park uses. This represents a generally equivalent number of residential units as under the Project, which would allow 275 residential units under the Residential Overlay, except that Alternative 3 would provide single- family uses rather than multi-family uses as under the Project. The business park floor area represents an approximately 45 percent increase compared to 125,000 square feet allowed under the Project. The business park uses would be confined to the northwest quadrant of the Project Site. This area is designated “General Industrial” in the City of Rialto General Plan and is shown as “Commercial Manufacturing” (C-M) in the City’s Zoning map. However, the land use and zoning designations shown on the City’s current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Maps were not officially adopted by the City, so that the true zoning over the site is R-1A, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR. Nonetheless, for purposes of this Alternatives analysis, the zoning for the Project Site as presented on the City’s Zoning Map is analyzed herein.

No retail uses would be developed under this Alternative. Alternative 3 would include development over the entire Project Site, including the habitat area in the western portion of the Site.

2. Environmental Impacts
a. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
(1) Views/Scenic Vistas
Alternative 3 would reduce the overall intensity of development across the Project Site. The resulting development would be suburban or low-rise industrial park in character with large residential lots. Development would be allowed in all of the habitat area to the west of Pepper

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Avenue. As such, Alternative 3 would not create deep setbacks between the future development and existing residential neighborhoods to the west and south, as under the Project. As such, development would be closer to the public view locations than under the Project and could impact long range views over the Project Site to a greater degree than the Project. Views under Alternative 3 would still be available through open spaces if clustering is provided and view impacts would be less than significant. Although view impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and Alternative 3, despite the decreased intensity, view impacts would be incrementally greater under Alternative 3 due to the expanded area of potential development. (2) Aesthetics/Visual Character
Under Alternative 3, the entire Project Site, including the habitat area would be developed with light industrial business park and single-family residential uses. Development would meet the residential building design requirements under Municipal Code Section 18.61.040, which require that residential dwellings to be arranged in a manner that creates a harmonious, varied appearance of building heights and setbacks, and with Section 18.61.070, in which building design must respect the predominant characteristics of neighborhood development, such as height, massing, setbacks, materials and architectural style. Streets would be landscaped according to City standards. The visual character of development would be attractive. However, street scape amenities, the “main street” aesthetic and other aesthetic benefits under the Project’s Design Guidelines component would not be provided. Also, with development allowed in all of the habitat area, the setbacks from existing off-site public streets and residential neighborhoods achieved under the Project would not be provided. The development of the northwest quadrant with a business park in proximity to Frisbie Park, an area that would primarily be open space under the Project, would reduce the visual character of Alternative 3 compared to the Project.

Therefore, as with the Project, visual character impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant but greater than under the Project.
(3) Light and Glare
The character of Alternative 3 would be that of a suburban neighborhood and business park, in which lighting would occur from vehicles, street lights, and exterior security and landscape lighting. With development spread over the Project Site, there would be no pockets of intense lighting or glare, although security lighting would be greatest in the business park area.

Alternative 3 would include very limited illuminated signage and no signs along the freeway.

Because Alternative 3 would be primarily residential in nature (occupy a larger expanse of the Project Site), it would generate less light or night glow than the Project. Although light and glare impacts would be less than significant under the Project, impacts under Alternative 3 would be incrementally less than under the Project.
b. Air Quality
As with the Project, construction activities associated with Alternative 3 would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from Project Site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the Project Site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the time. Alternative 2 would involve a similar maximum daily intensity of activity during any construction phase due to the concurrent use of equipment in any single phase.

Thus, Alternative 3 would result in similar maximum daily construction-period impacts. As with the Project, construction activities under this Alternative would implement mitigation to ensure 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. With a lower development intensity and larger development footprint area under Alternative 3, the overall construction duration and extent of construction activities would be expected to be relatively similar to the Project. Thus, overall construction emissions would be similar to the Project.

As discussed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of this EIR, localized daily operational emissions would not result in a significant impact. Alternative 3 would result in approximately 75 percent fewer daily vehicle trips than the Project (see Table 5-2, Alternative 3 Vehicle Trips Compared to Project Vehicle Trips, below) and, thus, result in substantially fewer mobile emissions than under the Project. As with the Project, mobile emissions during operation would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable air quality plan, violate air quality standards, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in objectionable odors. As with the Project, Alternative 2 operational emissions would be less than significant. However, because mobile emissions would be substantially less under Alternative 3, operational impacts would be less.

In addition, because the Project and Alternative 3 would not cause objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people, similar less than significant impacts regarding objectionable odors would occur.
c. Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would result in development throughout the Project Site, including the development within the RASFF habitat area. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would physically alter the Project Site and result in direct and indirect impacts on a special-status plant species, the federal endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and five state species of special concern. The majority of these species occur within RAFSS habitat. However, under the Project approximately 29.5 acres of RAFSS habitat and riparian areas contained in PA-9 would be permanently preserved. In addition, approximately 6.3 acres would potentially be preserved in PA-7 and PA-7 if the Community Commercial Overlay were not developed under the Project. Under both the Project and Alternative 3, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would address impacts to species, wetlands, and other areas of biological concern. However, implementation of mitigation measures could be more difficult under Alternative 3 without the permanent protection of a large area of RAFSS habitat. Alternative 3 would also not meet policies of the General Plan (e.g., Policy 2-23-2) to pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats, to the same extent as under the Project. Although both the Project and Alternative 3 would implement mitigation measures, because of the extent of

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
development across the Project Site under Alternative 3, it would have a potentially significant and unavoidable impact on biological resources if mitigation measures were not fully implemented. As such, impacts on biological resources would be greater than under the Project. d. Cultural Resources
The development of Alternative 3 would involve the entire Project Site and would not provide for

29.5 acres of open space, as under the Project. In addition, an additional 6.3 acres would potentially be preserved in PA-7 and PA-7 if the Community Commercial Overlay were not developed under the Project. Potentially significant impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level under both the Project and Alternative 3 with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. However, because the area of potential disturbance would be greater under Alternative 3, impacts would be greater than under the Project.

No paleontological or historic resources occur on the Project Site and, as with the Project, Alternative 3 would have no impact with respect to paleontological and historic resources. e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With a lower development intensity and larger development footprint area under Alternative 3, the overall construction duration and extent of construction activities would be expected to be relatively similar to the Project. Thus, overall GHG construction emissions would be similar to or not less than under the Project. Impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans would be less than significant under this Alternative, as is the case for the Project. Because of the reduction in overall development intensity associated with a predominately residential land use and lower long-term traffic compared to the Project, associated long-term and overall greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative 3 than under the Project. f. Land Use
Under Alternative 3, the land use characteristics of the Project as a retail-centered, business park and pedestrian-friendly use available to the community and region would not be implemented.

Although the business park component would be expanded, the primary focus of Alternative 3 is that of a residential use. Although Alternative 3 would be consistent with designated uses and zoning on the property, it would not be consistent with the objectives of SCAG’s RTP/SCS to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region or implement the economic development goals of the General Plan to strengthen and diversify the City’s economic base and employment opportunities to the same extent as the Project. Alternative 3 would not meet Community Design policies of the General Plan to create distinctive gateways at entry points; create streetscapes to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and dine; or meet other goals of the General Plan to enhance the character and quality of the City. Nonetheless, because Alternative 3 would be consistent with the City’s preliminary zoning and land use maps (designations shown on the City’s Zoning and General Plan Land Use Maps, but not formally adopted), it would have a less than significant impact related to land use

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
with impacts being similar to the Project in consideration of the overall inconsistencies and consistencies with applicable land use policies and designations. g. Noise
Alternative 3 would result in the future construction and operation of a mix of urban uses on the Project Site. With a lower development intensity and larger development footprint, the overall construction duration and extent of construction activities would be expected to be relatively similar to the Project. However, in consideration of the proximity of existing noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences) near the Project Site and with construction activities occurring over the entire Site, particularly within the RAFSS habitat, Alternative 3 is anticipated to result in greater maximum daily construction noise and vibration levels/impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residential uses). Construction activities would occur within the City’s permitted hours under both the Project and Alternative 3 and thus resulting in less than significant impacts.

Nonetheless, because maximum daily noise levels could be higher under Alterative 3 than the Project, construction noise impacts are considered greater under this Alternative. As is the case for the Project, groundborne noise and vibration levels under Alternative would not exceed established thresholds and therefore impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

However, vibration impacts are considered greater because of the closer proximity of construction activities to adjacent vibration sensitive receptors.

As with the Project, noise impacts under Alternative 3 from operational on-site stationary noise sources would be less than significant and similar to the Project. With less traffic generated under this Alternative, traffic-related noise would be less under this Alternative than under the Project.

Nonetheless, given the future level of operational traffic in the area, due to both ambient growth and project-related growth under this Alternative, mobile-source noise sources would contribute to significant unavoidable impacts associated with permanent noise level increases along area streets as would the Project. Although, the cumulative mobile source noise contribution would be less under this Alternative than under the Project.
h. Traffic and Circulation
Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project. As shown in Table 5-2, Alternative 3 would generate approximately 4,929 trips per day, compared to the Project’s approximately 19,309 trips per day. This represents a reduction of approximately 75 percent in total vehicle trips per day, which would be a substantial reduction in the Project’s contribution to cumulative traffic in the area. As discussed in Section 4.H, Traffic and Transportation, however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, the Project would not exceed threshold standards regarding Project-induced or cumulative traffic relative to the operation of the study area’s roadways and intersections. Mitigation includes contribution to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program or other fair share programs, which fund off-site improvements for long-range conditions. As with the Project, Alternative 3 may be required to contribute to the DIF or other fair share programs, contribution to which is determined by the City. As with the Project, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, impacts with respect to Project-generated and cumulative trip generation would be less than significant. In addition, because Alternative 3 would substantially reduce traffic compared to the Project’s less

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
than significant traffic impacts related to congestion management programs, traffic hazards, emergency access, and plan and policy consistency, impacts related to these issues would be also be less than significant under Alternative 3. However, because Alternative 3 would reduce the Project’s traffic by approximately 75 percent, traffic impacts would be less overall than under the Project.

TABLE 5-2
ALTERNATIVE 3 VEHICLE TRIPS COMPARED TO PROJECT VEHICLE TRIPS Project Alternative 2
Use Vehicle Trips Use Change Vehicle Trips
Retail: 462,000 SF 19,727 No Retail -100% (-462,000 SF) 0 Business Park: 125,000 SF 1,555 Business Park:
185,000 SF
+48% (+60,000 SF) 2,301
Single-Family
Residential:
276 Units
(9.52xUnit)
+100%(+276 units) 2,628
Gross Total 21,282 4,929
10% Pass-by/Local
Interaction Reduction
1,973 0
a
Net Total 19,309 -75% 4,929

a Pass-by/Local Interaction Reduction would not be applicable.

Source of Project Trips: Urban Crossroads, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 4-2, January 2016.

3. Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Alternative 3 would partially meet the purpose of the Project to create a high-quality development. However, it would not meet the objective of the Project to provide an eastern gateway to the City of Rialto (Objective 1). It would not offer retail opportunities or promote the identity of the neighborhood (Objective 1). Alternative 3 would also not provide for freeway- oriented commercial opportunities or serve regional needs and stimulate job and revenue growth in the City (Objective 2). It would, however, be consistent with the Specific Plan’s objectives to meet the City’s current and projected housing needs by providing for 276 single-family residences (Objective 3). It is expected that business park and residential development under Alternative 3 would meet the City’s “Green” and sustainable buildings standards (Objective 4).

Alternative 3 would partially meet the objective to create economically feasible and balanced development to address both the property owners’ and the City’s economic concerns (Objective 5). However, Alternative 3 would not revitalize the underutilized Project Site through a strong retail component (Objective 6). With a mix of uses, including residential uses, Alternative 3 would increase the use of the area internally and externally by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle connectivity (Objective 7). Alternative 3 would not locate or integrate the design of native habitat open space areas into the community by providing permanent open space or a pedestrian bridge that would serves as a link between Frisbie Park and residential uses to the west (Objective 8). It

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
would not integrate native habitat into the pedestrian experience with interpretive signage (Objective 8). With certain development conditions, Alternative 3 could provide the opportunity to use native plant materials/species in the landscaping (Objective 9). However, because native habitat would not be preserved, and development would occur throughout the site, Alternative 3 would not maximize the use of native plant materials/species in areas located in proximity to preserved native habitat. Table 5-3, Comparison of Alternatives – Ability to Meet Project Objectives, below, illustrates the comparative ability of Project Alternatives to meet the Project’s nine objectives. As shown therein, Alternative 3 would meet three of the Project’s nine objectives, partially meet one of the nine objectives, and not meet five of the Project’s nine objectives.

D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR and that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining. With respect to identifying an Environmentally Superior Alternative among those analyzed in this Draft EIR, the range of feasible Alternatives includes the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2), and the Existing Zoning Map Alternative (Alternative 3).

A comparative summary of the environmental impacts anticipated under each Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the Project is provided in Table 5-4, Comparison of Impacts, below, based on the evaluation of the potential impacts associated with each Alternative.

Pursuant to Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis below addresses the ability of the Alternatives to “avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the Project.

As discussed above, and as shown in Table 5-4, the No Project/No Build Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior Alternative as it would not generate the Project’s light and glare, air quality, biological resources, archaeological, GHG emissions, construction noise, and traffic impacts, as well as the Project’s significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic noise impacts. Because the No Project/No Build Alternative would not implement the Specific Plan, it would not achieve the visual character benefits of the Project. In addition, it would not result in several primary beneficial aspects of the Project with respect to the objectives of the General Plan. As such, it is deemed to have greater impacts than the Project with respect to visual character and land use. In addition, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Specific Plan, as outlined in Table 5-3, above.

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 5-3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES – ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Objective
Alternative 1
No Project/No Build
Alternative 2
Reduced Intensity
Alternative 3
Existing Zoning Map
Yes Partial No Yes Partial No Yes Partial No

1. Provide an eastern gateway to the City
of Rialto that offers new and exciting
retail opportunities and promotes the
identity of the North End (Pepper
Avenue) neighborhood.

X X X

2. Provide freeway-oriented commercial
opportunities to serve regional needs
and stimulate job and revenue growth
in the City.

X X X

3. Address the City of Rialto’s current and
projected housing needs by allowing a
portion of the Project to be developed
with multi-family residences.

X X X

4. Incorporate “Green” and sustainable
practices, as practicable, in developing
buildings and infrastructure.

X X X

5. Undertake development of the Project
Site in a manner that is economically
feasible and balanced to address both
the property owners’ and the City’s
economic concerns.

X X X

6. Revitalize the underutilized Project Site
through the implementation of a
predominantly retail development that
will service the surrounding existing
residential communities.

X X X

7. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity. X X X

8. Locate and integrate the design of
native habitat open space areas into
the community, such as providing a
pedestrian bridge inclusive of
interpretive signage that connects the
development area with the adjacent
Frisbie Park.

X X X

9. Maximize the use of native plant
materials/species in the Project
landscaping, especially in areas
located in proximity to preserved native
habitat.

X X X
Objectives Score 0 0 9 7 2 0 2 2 5

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 5-4

COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
Project Impact
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Build
Alternative 2:

Reduced Intensity
Alternative 3:

Existing Zoning
A. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Views/Scenic Vistas Less Than Significant Less (Less than Significant Impact)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Aesthetics/Visual
Character
Less Than Significant Greater (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Light and Glare Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less (Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
B. Air Quality
Construction-Related Emissions
Conflict with or obstruct
an applicable air quality
plan
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Violate air quality
standards
Less Than Significant
w/mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Cause a cumulatively
considerable net increase
in criteria pollutants
Less Than Significant
w/mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations
Less Than Significant
w/mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Cause objectionable
odors affecting
substantial numbers of
people
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Operational Emissions
Conflict with or obstruct
an applicable air quality
plan
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than Significant)
Violate air quality
standards
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than Significant)
Cause a cumulatively
considerable net increase
in criteria pollutants
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than Significant)
Conflict with or obstruct
an applicable air quality
plan
Less than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than Significant)
Cause objectionable
odors affecting
substantial numbers of
people
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
C. Biological Resources
Sensitive Species Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater
(Potentially Significant
and Unavoidable)

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project Impact
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Build
Alternative 2:

Reduced Intensity
Alternative 3:

Existing Zoning
Riparian Habitat Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Wetlands Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Wildlife Movement Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater
(Potentially Significant
and Unavoidable)
Regulatory Consistency Less than Significant Less (No Impact) S imilar (Less Than Significant)
Greater
(Potentially Significant
and Unavoidable)
Habitat Conservation
Plans/ Natural
Community Conservation
Plans
No Impact (not
applicable)
Similar (No Impact) Similar
(No Impact)
Similar
(No Impact)
D. Cultural Resources
Historic Resources No Impact Similar (No Impact) Similar (No Im pact) Similar (No Impact) Archaeological
Resources
Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater (Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation)
Paleontological
Resources
No Impact Similar (No Impact) Similar (No Impact) Similar (No Impact) Human Remains Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Greater
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Consistency with GHG
Reduction Plans
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
F. Land Use
Consistency with Plans,
Policies, and Regulations
Less Than Significant Greater - No
Beneficial Impact
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
G. Noise
Construction Noise Less Than Signi ficant Less (No Impact) Less (Less Than Significant)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)

Construction Vibration Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) L ess (Less Than Significant)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Operational Stationary
Source Noise
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Operational Traffic Noise Significant &
Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact
Less (No Impact) Less
(Significant &
Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact)
Less
(Significant &
Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact)

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project Impact
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Build
Alternative 2:

Reduced Intensity
Alternative 3:

Existing Zoning
H. Transportation/Traffic
Traffic System Level of
Service
Less than Significant
w/Mitigation
Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Congestion Management
Program Facilities
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Less
(Less Than Significant
w/ Mitigation)
Site Access and Traffic
Safety
Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Emergency Access Less Than Signi ficant Less (No Impact) Less (Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)

Source: ESAPCR, 2016.

Based on Table 5-3, the Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2) would substantially meet the objectives of the Project, although, because of reduced scale it would not likely generate the same revenue to the City as under the Project and, thus, would not meet the objectives of the Specific Plan increase income and revenue. However, as shown in Table 5-4, Alternative 2 would incrementally reduce the Project’s less than significant light and glare, construction and operational air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, operational noise, and traffic impacts. It would result in similar to the Project impact levels related to aesthetics, land use, and construction activities (construction noise, air quality, and GHG emissions). As with the Project, operational noise impacts associated with cumulative traffic would be significant and unavoidable.

As also shown in Table 5-4, the Existing Zoning Map Alternative (Alternative 3) would substantially reduce daily vehicle trips and reduce the Project’s operational air quality, GHG emissions, and traffic impacts. However, because Alternative 3 would involve full coverage of the Project Site, it would result in greater impacts than the Project with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and construction noise. As with the Project, operational noise impacts associated with cumulative traffic would be significant and unavoidable, but would occur at lesser contribution under Alternative 3. As shown in Table 5-3, Alternative 3 would not

5. Alternatives

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 5-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
meet the objectives of the Project to the same extent as Alternative 2. Because Alternative 3 would not adequately meet the objectives of the Project and would generate certain impacts that would be greater than under the Project, it would not be considered environmentally superior to Alternative 2. Therefore, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2) would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. While the Reduced Intensity Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in this EIR, this does not mean it is selected as the Project by the City. The City will consider the analysis included within this EIR along with public input throughout the environmental review process in their decision- making process to approve the Project.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 6
Other CEQA Considerations
This section summarizes the findings with respect to irreversible environmental changes; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; reasons why the Project is being proposed, notwithstanding significant unavoidable impacts; potential secondary effects related to Project mitigation; growth inducing impacts; energy conservation, and effects found to be less than significant.

A. Irreversible Environmental Changes
According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur if the Project were implemented. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c):
[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The Project would consume limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This consumption would occur during the active construction of retail, business park, and potential multi-family uses, a potential pedestrian bridge, side streets and driveways, and other supporting infrastructure facilities. The use of slowly renewable or non-renewable resources would continue throughout the operational lifetime of these uses. Project development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the developed sites. Project construction would require the consumption of resources that are non-replenishable or may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: certain types of lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand, gravel and stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials such as plastics; and water. Furthermore, nonrenewable fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment, as well as the transportation of goods and people to and from the sites.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Operation of new retail and business park and potential multi-family development would create an incremental increase in demand for nonrenewable resources compared to those currently consumed within the City of Rialto. These include energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle-trips, fossil fuels, and water. Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both construction and ongoing operation of the future development, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Energy requirements associated with new development would nonetheless represent a commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

At the same time, the Specific Plan would contribute to a land use pattern and mix of uses that would reduce vehicle trips by allowing pass-by and local interaction. The Specific Plan would also encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity that would reduce reliance on the automobile. By promoting pedestrian activity and interaction, as well as closer access to services for the surrounding residential neighborhoods, the Specific Plan would contribute to a land use pattern that is considered to reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources.

Continued use of such non-renewable resources would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local growth forecasts in the area, as well as State and local goals for reductions in the consumption of such resources. The area affected by the Specific Plan contains no energy resources that would be precluded from future use through Project implementation. As such, although irreversible environmental changes would result from the Project, such changes would not be considered significant.

B. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, the Specific Plan would contribute to long-term operational traffic noise cumulative impacts. Specifically, 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.

C. Reasons Why the Project Is Being Proposed,
Notwithstanding Significant Unavoidable Impacts
In addition to identification of the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires a description of the reasons why a Project is being proposed, notwithstanding significant unavoidable impacts associated with the Project.

The Project is being proposed notwithstanding the Project’s contribution to significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic noise impacts in order to implement several vision statement principles of the General Plan, including attracting high-quality new development, improving the physical environment, and maintaining Rialto’s healthy and diverse economic environment. The

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Project would generate benefits to the City by providing an eastern gateway to the City of Rialto that offers new and exciting retail opportunities and promotes the identity of the North End (Pepper Avenue) neighborhood. The Project would provide freeway-oriented commercial opportunities to serve regional needs and stimulate job and revenue growth in the City. The Project would incorporate “Green” and sustainable practices, as practicable, in developing buildings and infrastructure. Under the Specific Plan, development would be undertaken in a manner that is economically feasible and balanced to address both the property owners’ and the City’s economic concerns. The Project would revitalize the underutilized Project Site through the implementation of a predominantly retail development that will service the surrounding existing residential communities. The proximity of the retail center to the existing residential neighborhoods would encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. In addition, if the residential option is implemented, the Project would help to address the City of Rialto’s current and projected housing needs by allowing a portion of the Project to be developed with multi- family residences.

Because high quality retail development and a healthy and diverse economic environment is encouraged as a primary vision component of the General Plan, the Specific Plan provides a means to ensure quality development consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and comprehensive planning that provided for the orderly development of the site in relation to its surroundings. The Specific Plan is intended to ensure appropriate phasing and financing for community facilities, including circulation and streetscape improvements, domestic water, urban runoff and flood control facilities, sewage disposal facilities, educational facilities, and parks. The Project would establish development regulations that permit a variety of non-residential uses, protect natural habitat, provide a potential connection to Frisbie Park, create gateway elements, and allow the flexibility for multi-family residential to be developed. The Specific Plan also represents a plan that is economically feasible and that can be implemented based on existing and anticipated future economic conditions and it is expected that the Plan would provide for the creation of an exciting, energetic, cohesive development that establishes a strong “sense of place.”
D. Potential Secondary Effects Related to Project
Mitigation
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines requires mitigation measures to be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed Project if the mitigation measure(s) would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the Project as proposed. With regard to this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project mitigation measures that could cause potential impacts were evaluated. The following provides a discussion of the potential secondary effects that could occur as a result of the implementation of the Project mitigation measures. For the reasons stated below, it is concluded that the Project’s mitigation measures would not result in significant secondary impacts.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

1. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Impacts regarding aesthetics and visual resources are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.

2. Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires that Project construction practices be carried out in a manner that reduces the level of air quality emissions. As such, these mitigation measures would directly reduce environmental impacts of the Project and would not result in secondary impacts for its implementation.

3. Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would minimize temporary direct and indirect impacts to special- status plant and animal wildlife species by controlling construction activities and use of pesticides. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-6 would minimize impacts to the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the Santa Ana River Woolystar by avoiding, maintaining or replanting suitable habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires mitigation for the protection of the Burrowing Owl through focused surveys and avoidance of occupied burrows and habitat.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would protect areas designated as jurisdictional features by requiring regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 requires the protection of nesting birds through construction scheduling to avoid disturbance of active nests during the respective nesting seasons. These mitigation measures would minimize or avoid overall losses of sensitive resources and would not result in significant secondary effects.

4. Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires Phase I archaeological resources assessment prior to excavation, clearing, trenching, grading, or boring. If resources are discovered, a Phase II report shall be prepared as described in Mitigation Measure CUL-2. If resources are determined eligible for listing in the California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources”, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires preparation of a Phase III assessment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 includes methods for construction monitoring of archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-5 requires that ground-disturbing activities be ceased and a treatment plan be implemented if archaeological resources are encountered. Mitigation Measure CUL-6 requires the preparation of an archaeological monitoring report, if needed. Mitigation Measures CUL-7 requires cessation of ground-disturbing activity and consultation with the County Coroner and Native American tribes in the event human remains are encountered during Project implementation. These measures are intended to preserve and/or treat on-site cultural resources and would not result in significant secondary adverse effects either on- or off-site.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.

7. Land Use and Planning
Impacts with respect to land use and planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.

8. Noise
Mitigation Measure Noise-1 requires the implementation of sound attenuating features such as sound barrier walls, insulation, berms, or landscaping to reduce the exterior noise level at sensitive noise receptors to 65 CNEL or lower. These features would be site-specific and given their limited scope of development would not result in significant secondary impacts on the surrounding area.

9. Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires future Project applicants to participate in the City of Rialto DIF Program by paying applicable fees, supplemented by participation in additional fair share intersection improvement costs as needed. 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. This mitigation measure applies to funding and would not have a secondary impact on the environment. Off-site impacts associated with improvements conducted under the DIF Program would be evaluated as part of a separate environmental analysis, as necessary.

E. Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could significantly affect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

The Project would allow for the future development of up to 462,000 square feet of retail shopping center uses and 125,000 SF of business park uses, or implementation of a residential overlay allowing up to 275 multi-family dwelling units, which if developed, would replace up to 116,000 square feet of retail shopping center. With residential development, a total 346,000 SF of would be available for retail shopping center use. The future development of new residential units

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
and commercial and school uses would not cause a progression of growth beyond the Project Site itself. The Project Site is located in an infill area surrounded by developed, urbanized land, including residential neighborhoods and utilized industrial sites. The Site, as well as the surrounding community is served by existing infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities), and community service facilities (e.g., police, fire, schools, and libraries). The Project’s infrastructure improvements would include tie-ins to, and extensions of, the existing utility main-lines already serving the area, as well as driveways off of the newly constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension.

This Project’s incremental growth would generate new employment opportunities and potentially new residents. Much of the development, if retail and business park only, would serve the City’s and surrounding area’s existing population. With the implementation of the residential component, the Project would address existing housing shortages and demand. Because the Project would serve existing populations and housing demand, it would not foster significant growth inducing impacts.

F. Energy Conservation
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, in order to ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the potential energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR, to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. Appendix F further states that a project’s energy consumption and proposed conservation measures may be addressed, as relevant and applicable, in the Project Description, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis portions of technical sections, as well as through mitigation measures and alternatives.

In accordance with the intent of Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, which requires an EIR to include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of a proposed project with an emphasis on avoiding of reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, this section includes relevant information and analyses that address the energy implications of the Specific Plan Project. This section represents a summary of the Project’s anticipated energy needs, impacts, and conservation measures. As is discussed further below, the Specific Plan would incorporate Project Design Features, sustainable design and site planning policies, energy efficiency policies, material efficiency policies, and water efficiency policies. Information found herein, as well as other aspects of the Project’s energy implications, are also discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, and Section 4.B, Air Quality, Section 4.E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.F, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.H, Transportation, of this EIR. Detailed energy calculations are provided in Appendix H of this EIR.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Development within the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project Site consists of the following two future development scenarios.
 Scenario 1 (S1) would consist of the development of community commercial, open space, and public facility uses on the Project Site.
 Scenario 2 (S2) 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.

For the purpose of this analysis, Project impacts are analyzed based on development scenario S2, which would result in maximum energy demand due to the development of a residential overlay, which would increase the total building square footage, generate more vehicle trips, and reduce the amount of open space.

1. Construction-Related Energy Consumption
a. Estimated Energy Consumption
Construction energy consumption would result primarily from transportation fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) used for haul trucks, heavy-duty construction equipment, and construction workers traveling to and from the site. This analysis provides the estimated maximum construction energy consumption for the purposes of evaluating the associated impacts on energy resources. Off-road equipment associated with construction would include equipment such as such as backhoes, dozers, generators, and paving equipment. The equipment would likely be diesel-fueled. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed equipment would be diesel-fueled, due to the speculative nature of specifying the amounts and types of non-diesel equipment that might be used in future years, and the difficulties in calculating the energy which could be consumed by non-diesel equipment. This also represents a worst-case scenario intended to represent the maximum potential energy use during construction. Based on the anticipated development program and engineering estimates used as the basis for the construction-related impact analyses (development scenario S2), the number and type of equipment that would be used during construction, and fuel consumption factors from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) off- road equipment emissions (OFFROAD) model, off-road equipment would be anticipated to use up to approximately 69,620 gallons of diesel fuel in a year, assuming construction of 10 percent of the proposed uses in a year.

For on-road heavy-duty trucks, based on the anticipated development program and engineering estimates that form the basis of the construction-related impact analyses (development scenario S2), it is estimated that approximately 76,200 vehicles miles traveled (VMT) would be required.

Based on the CARB on-road vehicle emissions model, EMFAC2014, heavy-duty trucks operating in the South Coast Air Basin would have an estimated fuel economy of approximately 5.57 miles per gallon (conservatively modeled in EMFAC2014 as calendar year 2017 fleet average, heavy- heavy-duty trucks [HHDT]).
1 Fuel consumption from truck idling was also included based on

1 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2014, Mobile Source Emissions Inventory, 2014, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#emfac, accessed October 2016.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
idling fuel consumption factors estimated from EMFAC2014 of approximately 2.09 gallons per hour for heavy-duty trucks. Based on the information described above, construction of the implementing projects within the Specific Plan area would use up to approximately 19,450 gallons of diesel fuel for heavy-duty trucks and associated idling in a year, assuming construction of 10 percent of the proposed uses in a year.

The number of construction workers that would be required would vary based on the phase of construction and activity taking place. The transportation fuel required by construction workers to travel to and from the implementing project sites within the Specific Plan area would depend on the total number of worker trips estimated for the duration of construction activity. Based on the on the anticipated development program and engineering estimates used as the basis for the construction-related impact analyses (development scenario S2), it is estimated that a total of up to approximately 855,500 VMT would be required. According to the EMFAC2014 model, passenger vehicles (light-duty automobiles and light-duty trucks) operating in the South Coast Air Basin would have an average fuel economy of approximately 23.48 miles per gallon (conservatively modeled in EMFAC2014 as calendar year 2017 fleet average, light-duty automobile [LDA] and light-duty trucks [LDT]). Assuming construction worker vehicles have an average fuel economy consistent with the EMFAC2014 model, workers would use up to approximately 36,440 gallons of fuel (primarily gasoline) for construction worker trips in a year, assuming construction of 10 percent of the proposed uses in a year.

Based on fuel consumption data from the United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), in 2014, California consumed a total of 343,568 thousand barrels of gasoline for transportation, which is equivalent to a total annual consumption of approximately 14.4 billion gallons by the transportation sector.
2 For diesel, California consumed a total of 79,756 thousand barrels for transportation, which is equivalent to a total annual consumption of approximately 3.3 billion gallons by the transportation sector.3
Based on the conservatively estimated fuel usage amounts presented above, construction of the Project would use up to approximately 89,070 gallons of diesel and 36,440 gallons of gasoline in a year, assuming worker automobiles are primarily gasoline fueled and heavy-duty construction equipment and trucks are primarily diesel-fueled and assuming construction of 10 percent of the proposed uses in a year. To put these numbers into perspective, the estimated annual average construction fuel usage would represent a very small fraction of the State’s annual fuel usage (about 0.003 percent of the Statewide annual diesel consumption and 0.0003 percent of the Statewide annual gasoline consumption). A comparison of the Specific Plan’s estimated fuel usage and the state’s annual fuel usage is provided in Table 6-1.

2 United States Energy Informatio n Administration, “Table F3: Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates”,
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid=CA, accessed October 2016.
3 United States Energy Informatio n Administration, “Table F7: Distillate Fuel Oil Consumption Estimates”, 2016b, http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_df.html&sid=CA, accessed October 2016.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Construction of the Project is not expected to require substantial electricity usage. Electricity use during construction would be variable depending on lighting needs and the use of electric- powered equipment and would be temporary for the duration of construction activities. If electric- powered construction equipment or vehicles are used, they would replace the diesel- and gasoline-fueled equipment assumed in this assessment. Therefore, it is expected that construction electricity use would generally be considered as temporary and negligible and generally accounted for in the energy estimates discussed above.

TABLE 6-1

ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION FUEL USAGE
Source
Gallons of Diesel Fuel
Per Year
Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Per Year
Specific Plan Construction (maximum scenario, S2) 89,070 36,440 State of California (Transportation Sector) 3,300,000,000 14,400,000,000 Percent of State (Transportation Sector) 0.0027% 0.0003% Estimated Project Energy Savings from Construction
Measures
23,290 —

SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2016

b. Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The Specific Plan implementing projects would utilize construction contractors that demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. As discussed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of this EIR, CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants. This measure prohibits diesel-fueled commercial vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds from idling for more than five minutes at any given time. CARB has also approved the Truck and Bus regulation (CARB Rules Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 2025, subsection (h)) to reduce air pollutant emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California. In addition to limiting exhaust from idling trucks, CARB recently promulgated emission standards for off-road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower.

The regulation aims to reduce emissions by requiring the installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission-controlled models.

While intended to reduce construction criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the above anti-idling and emissions regulations would also result in efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.

According to the CARB staff report that was prepared at the time the anti-idling ATCM was being proposed for adoption in late 2004/early 2005, the regulation was estimated to reduce non- essential idling and associated emissions of diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxide (NOX)

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
emissions by 64 and 78 percent respectively in analysis year 2009.4 These reductions in emissions are directly attributable to overall reduced idling times and reduced idling fuel combustion as a result of compliance with the regulation, and the Project’s compliance would result in energy savings of approximately 16,050 gallons of diesel fuel, assuming a fuel reduction equivalent to the percent reduction of particulate matter or NOX as estimated by CARB (the lesser value [i.e., 64 percent] is used as a conservative assumption).
c. Energy Conservation: Mitigation Measures
In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (see Section 4.B, Air Quality), Specific Plan implementing projects would utilize construction equipment that meet the CARB and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 standards for off-road equipment.5 In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant(s) must demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily NOx and 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. A field testing program by an engine manufacturer that included a wide range of equipment types has shown that a Tier 4 engine results in up to 10 percent lower fuel consumption than an equivalent Tier 3 engine based on the overall results of the program.6 Another manufacturer has shown an 18 percent increase in fuel efficiency with a Tier 4 lift truck (i.e., forklift) as compared to the previous generation.7 The use Tier 4 equipment for Specific Plan implementing projects would therefore be associated with savings of approximately 7,250 gallons of diesel fuel, assuming a 10 percent energy savings for the Tier 4 equipment as compared to an equivalent Tier 3 equipment. Compliance with regulatory measures and implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would result in estimated annual fuel savings of approximately 23,290 gallons of diesel fuel in a year of construction assuming construction of 10 percent of the proposed uses in a year. The Project’s construction energy savings estimates from regulatory compliance and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 6-1.
d. Conclusion
Construction would utilize energy for necessary on-site activities and to transport materials, soil, and debris to and from each site within the Specific Plan area. The amount of energy used would not represent a substantial fraction of the available energy supply in terms of equipment and

4 California Air Resources Board , Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, Appendix F, July 2004, https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling.htm, accessed October 2016. 5 Mitigation Measure AQ-1 also a llows alternative methods to achieve similar emissions reductions. For the purposes of this assessment, given that the generation of emissions and energy demand from construction equipment has a generally proportional relationship, it is assumed alternative methods would also achieve similar energy savings as utilizing Tier 4 equipment.
6 Cummins, Cummins Tier-4-Final Field Test Showed 10% Lower Fuel Consumption, March 5, 2014, http://www.cumminspacific.com/about/news/!content/2014/03/05/cummins-tier-4-final-field-test-program- exceeds-140-000-hours-gaining-valuable-experience-with-operators-on-site, accessed October 2016. 7 Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. (MCF), Cat® Lift Trucks Introduces New Tier 4 Final Diesel Pneumatic Tire Lift Truck, November 19, 2015.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
transportation fuels. Furthermore, based on the available data, it is reasonable to conclude that compliance with the previously discussed regulations and mitigation measures (i.e., idling restrictions and the use of low-pollutant engines and equipment) would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption, a more efficient use of energy, and the minimization or elimination of wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

2. Operation and Maintenance Energy Consumption
a. Estimated Building Energy Consumption
Operational energy consumption would occur from building energy needs and from transportation fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) used for vehicles traveling to and from the site.

This analysis provides the estimated maximum operational energy consumption for the purposes of evaluating the associated impacts on energy resources.

The operation of the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, and water supply, as well as generating wastewater requiring conveyance, treatment, and disposal off-site, and solid waste requiring disposal off-site. Based on the anticipated development program and engineering estimates that form the basis of the operational-related impact analyses (development scenario S2), the operation of the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would conservatively have an electricity demand of approximately 16.1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), which assumes compliance with existing Title 24 standards and is inclusive of electricity for water supply and wastewater treatment. To put this number into perspective, the value is compared to the Southern California Edison (SCE) network demand, which is the utility provider for the Specific Plan region. In the 2015 year, SCE had annual electric deliveries to customers of approximately 87,544 gigawatt-hours (equivalent to 87,544 million kWh).
8 The land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would represent approximately 0.018 percent of the SCE network sales for the 2015 year, which is a relatively very small fraction.

Based on the anticipated development program and engineering estimates that form the basis of the operational-related impact analyses (development scenario S2), the operation of the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would conservatively have a natural gas demand of approximately 21.23 million kilo British thermal units (kBtu) per year. To put this number into perspective, the value is compared to the Southern California Gas Company network demand, which is the regional utility provider. In 2015, the Southern California Gas Company had natural gas sales of approximately 291 billion cubic feet, equivalent to approximately 306 billion kBtu (also equivalent to 306,000 million kBtu).9 The land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would represent approximately 0.007 percent of the Southern California Gas Company network demand

8 Southern California Edison (SCE ), Edison International and Southern California Edison 2015 Annual Report, February 25, 2016, http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2015-eix- sce-final-annual-report.pdf, accessed October 2016.
9 Sempra Energy, 2015 Annual Repor t, http://www.sempra.com/pdf/financial-reports/2015_annualreport.pdf, accessed November 2016.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
for the 2015 year, which is a very small fraction. A summary of the Specific Plan’s operational estimated energy usage and the state’s annual energy usage is provided in Table 6-2. b. Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The California Energy Commission (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. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the CALGreen Code. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality.” As of January 1, 2011, the CALGreen Code is mandatory for all new buildings constructed in the State.

The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for new residential and non-residential buildings, which includes requirements for energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. The CALGreen Code was most recently updated in 2016 to include new mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential uses. The new measures take effect on January 1, 2017. The Project would comply with or exceed the applicable provisions of Title 24 and the CALGreen Code in effect at the time of building permit issuance. According to the CEC, the Title 24 (2016) standards use 28 percent less energy for residential and 5 percent less energy for nonresidential lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating compared to the previous Title 24 (2013) standards. It is expected that future updates to the Title 24 standards would result in increased energy efficiency. The next iteration of the Title 24 standards are anticipated in 2019; however, estimated buildings energy reductions from these future standards are not yet known or available. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has also designed the Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Action Plan to make new residential and commercial construction in California zero net energy by 2030 in order to meet the state’s greenhouse gas goals. The ZNE Action Plan’s key milestones are achieved by improving and expanding Title 24 standards, providing incentives, mandating carbon benchmarking and labeling, and developing performance data. However, it is not possible to accurately predict the increased level of energy efficiency associated with future updates to the Title 24 standards. Furthermore, Title 24 only regulates a portion of a buildings energy usage primarily related to lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating; therefore, is it not possible to speculate how future Title 24 standards would affect the overall energy profile of a building. As discussed in Section 4.E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, applicable General Plan goals call for the optimization of energy efficiency and the increase in renewable energy resources and energy conservation. Additionally, continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve to reduce the anticipated energy consumption for land uses proposed under the Specific Plan, particularly for those land uses built after 2020, the anticipated year when the future Title 24 (2019) standards take effect and 2030, the anticipated year when the future ZNE standards are fully implemented. As a result, the energy estimates provided above are

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
considered conservative estimates, as they do not take into account anticipated energy reductions from future standards, which are not yet known or available.

With respect to solid waste, the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable regulations, including those pertaining to waste reduction and recycling.

Waste haulers serving the Specific Plan Area would divert generated municipal waste in accordance with applicable ordinances, as well as future updates to the ordinances in effect at the time of construction and operation.
c. Operational Transportation Energy Consumption
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in transportation energy use. Transportation fuels, primarily gasoline and diesel, would be provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. As discussed previously, in 2014, California consumed a total of 14.4 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.3 billion gallons of diesel in the transportation sector. Vehicles would require a fraction of a percent of the total state’s transportation fuel consumption. According to the EMFAC2014 model, the vehicle fleet average fuel economy for all vehicle types in the South Coast Air Basin region in 2035 is predicted to be approximately 34.05 miles per gallon for gasoline and 13.92 miles per gallon for diesel with gasoline vehicles accounting for 84.03 percent of the total VMT and diesel vehicles accounting for 8.14 percent of the total VMT. Electric vehicles are predicted to account for 7.83 percent of the total VMT. The Specific Plan would improve pedestrian connectivity in the Town’s commercial districts, increase bicycle lanes, provided for public transit, which would reduce wasteful or inefficient transportation energy consumption with respect to vehicles.

Based on the maximum estimated VMT of approximately 46.4 million miles per year (development scenario S2), vehicles would use approximately 1,145,180 gallons of gasoline and 271,420 gallons of diesel fuel in a year. This would represent about 0.008 percent of the Statewide gasoline consumption and about 0.008 percent of the Statewide diesel consumption, which represents a very small fraction of the state’s annual fuel usage. The CALGreen Code requires the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for the residential and nonresidential uses, which would eliminate infrastructure roadblocks for future users of the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan that purchase electric or electric-hybrid vehicles. As a result, the development under the Specific Plan would support Statewide efforts to improve transportation energy efficiency and reduce wasteful or inefficient transportation energy consumption with respect to private automobiles. Alternative-fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles, to the extent these types of vehicles would be utilized by passengers, would reduce the consumption of transportation fuels for the land uses proposed under the Specific Plan. According to the EMFAC2014 model, electric vehicles are predicted to account for approximately 7.83 percent of the vehicle fleet total VMT in 2035 in the region. Based on the estimate above, this would translate to a fuel savings of up to about 106,670 gallons of fuel (primarily gasoline, assuming electric vehicles replace gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles) per year. Plug-in electric vehicles would generally obtain battery power from utilities, which as discussed in Section 4.E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, are required to provide an increasing share of electricity from renewable sources (i.e., 33 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030) under the State’s

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Renewables Portfolio Standard. Therefore, while plug-in electric vehicles would replace traditional transportation fuels (i.e., gasoline) with utility provided electricity, the electricity would be provided by an increasing share of renewable sources resulting in an overall reduction in energy resource consumption. A summary of the Specific Plan’s operational estimated energy usage and the state’s annual energy usage is provided in Table 6-2.

TABLE 6-2

ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USAGE
Source
Natural Gas Per
Year
(million kBtu)
Electricity Per
Year
(million kWh)
Gallons of Diesel
Fuel Per Year
Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel Per Year
Specific Plan Operation
(maximum scenario, S2)

21.23 a 16.16 a 271,420 1,145,180
Southern California Edison (SCE) — 87,544 — —
Percent of SCE — 0.018% — —
Southern California Gas
Company
306,000 — — —
Percent of Southern California
Gas Company

0.007% — — —
State of California (Transportation
Sector)
— — 3,300,000,000 14,400,000,000
Percent of State (Transportation
Sector)
— — 0.008% 0.008%
Estimated Project Energy
Savings from Operational
Measures (Annual)
— — — 106,670 (electric vehicle
supply equipment)

a The energy usage is estimated assuming compliance with existi ng Title 24 standards. The next iteration of the Title 24 standards are anticipated in 2019; however, estimated buildings energy reductions from these future standards are not yet known or available. Furthermore, estimated buildings energy reductions from the future ZNE standards are not yet known or available. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate the reduced energy from these future anticipated standards. As a result, the estimated operational energy usage at 2035 buildout would likely be lower than show herein, but it is not possible to predict the level of reduction given the lack of available data.

SOURCE: ESA, 2016

d. Energy Conservation: Land Use Characteristics and Project Design Features
Future development under the Specific Plan would comply with energy reduction standards set forth in Title 24, Building Standards and CalGreen Code. In addition, projects would comply with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas (SBC) Reduction Plan establishes policies to reduce GHG emissions through energy conservation. City of Rialto GHG reduction measures also require the utility and energy service providers procure 33 percent of retail sales from renewable sources by 2020; Title 24 energy efficiency standards; lighting efficacy to achieve reduction in indoor lighting; incentive programs for solar water heating; transportation reduction strategies; and 10 percent reduction in transportation fuels by 2020. Other policies include solar installations for new commercial uses; and installation of co-generation facilities. The Specific Plan includes a number of sustainable design strategies to be implemented by future projects within the Specific Plan area that would reduce operational energy demand. As discussed in Section 4.E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, these include the following:

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 For buildings that rely on water heating, install solar water heating systems that use rooftop solar technologies to offset natural gas use, and thus reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions. (State-4)
 Encourage new commercial businesses to install rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. (Energy-5)
 Encourage new commercial and industrial facilities greater than 100,000 SF to install co- generation facilities that combine heat and power systems for energy output. (Energy-9)  Incorporate GHG performance standards that would require the Project to quantify Project- generated GHG emissions and adopt feasible reduction measures, such as energy efficiency and alternative energy strategies, to reduce Project emissions. Measurable reductions of GHG emissions would be achieved through discretionary approval of residential, commercial, and industrial development projects. (PS-1)
The implementation sustainable design strategies applicable to energy reduction, in addition to the City of Rialto’s reduction measures, would contribute to energy efficiency and reduce demand.
e. Conclusion
Operation of the Project would utilize energy for necessary building usage and transportation associated with vehicles traveling within the Specific Plan area. The amount of energy used would represent an insubstantial fraction of the region’s available energy supply. The Project would also incorporate green building measures consistent with energy efficiency standards in CALGreen, the SBC Reduction Plan, and City of Rialto GHG reduction measures. Because the Specific Plan would implement energy efficient building standards and encourage use of non- motorized transportation (walking and cycling), it would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, future growth that could occur under the Project could provide opportunities for improving overall fuel efficiency and future energy conservation.

G. Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall contain a brief statement indicating reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The Initial Study provides a detailed discussion of the potential environmental impact areas and the reasons that each topical area is or is not analyzed further in the Draft EIR. The City of Rialto determined that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to the items summarized below. Please refer to the Initial Study for further discussions of these issues.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

1. Aesthetics
Scenic Resources - As indicated in the City of Rialto General Plan (2010) (General Plan) and the City of Rialto General Plan Update Draft EIR (2010) (General Plan Update DEIR), there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City. Also, the City of San Bernardino does not have any designated scenic highways within the Project vicinity.10 Further, the Project is not located along a state scenic highway and there are no state scenic highways located within the Project vicinity. As such, none of the roadways adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project Site are designated as a scenic highway. In addition, no valued scenic resources or other notable aesthetic features within the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Farmland - The Project Site is not located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As such, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No impact on farmlands would occur.

Agricultural Zoning - The Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for an agricultural use, as the site is currently zoned for residential uses. Additionally, no portion of the project site is enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, no impact would occur.

Forest Lands - Project implementation would not result in changes to or cause rezoning of forest land, timber land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. In addition, the Project Site does not include forest lands or areas zoned or utilized for timberland production. Thus, no impact to forest lands would occur.

3. Geology and Soils
Fault Rupture – The entire Project Site is located within the State of California designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the San Jacinto fault. Design feature (DF) GEO-1 provides for detailed, site-specific geotechnical investigation(s) that would be prepared in accordance with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulatory requirements. The investigation(s) would be required prior to approval of a grading permit within the Project Site of buildings involving human occupancy or other projects defined by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. The required subsurface fault investigation (i.e., trenching) would determine the existence of any fault traces and if any exist, delineate the exact location of any fault traces. The investigation would be able to make the determination that no fault trace is located within a minimum 50 feet of any habitable structure of the future, individual development. If evidence of active faulting is encountered as part of the investigation, proposed habitable structures would not

10 City of San Bernardino Genera l Plan, Figure C-1, Scenic Highways/Routes. November 1, 2005.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
be permitted in a zone surrounding the fault(s). The width of the structural setback zone shall be determined as part of the investigation, but shall have a minimum setback of 50 feet.

In addition, DF GEO-2 reflects the requirements of the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, under Sec. 1103 of the California Civil Code, which states that real estate seller and brokers are legally required to disclose if the property being sold lies within one or more state or locally mapped hazard areas. The law specifies that hazards, including earthquake fault zones, be disclosed on a statutory form called the Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement (NHDS).

With the habitable structure setbacks implemented per applicable laws and regulatory requirements, which are reflected in DF GEO-1, and proper hazard disclosure as cited in DF GEO-2, impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.

Design Features
DF GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation – Prior to the approval of a precise grading permit for any building within the Project Site, a subsequent site- and design-specific geotechnical and geologic report prepared by a licensed geologist shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The report shall document the feasibility of each proposed use and the appropriate geotechnical, geologic, and seismic conditions associated with that use. The geologic investigation shall demonstrate that buildings for human occupancy will not be constructed across active faults and must be setback in accordance with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requirements. For residential uses, setback distances may vary, but a minimum 50-foot setback is required.

To demonstrate compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requirements, the analysis shall include the results of a subsurface investigation, including on-site trenching activities as necessary, to delineate the precise location(s) of any fault traces that could impact buildings on the future development. Unless otherwise modified, any conditions, recommendations, or construction measures contained therein, including the imposition of specified setback requirements for proposed development activities within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, shall become conditions of approval for the requested use. The report shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements, including the current building code in effect at the time of precise grading permit issuance.

DF GEO-2: Geotechnical Disclosures – Pursuant to the requirements of the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, under Sec. 1103 of the California Civil Code, real estate sellers and brokers shall disclose to future buyers that if the project lies within one or more state or locally mapped hazard areas, including an earthquake fault zone. This hazard shall also be disclosed on a statutory form called the Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement (NHDS) to all prospective buyers within the Project Site.

Seismic Related Ground Shaking, Ground Failure, and Landslides - The probability that the site will be subject to strong seismic shaking from a moderate to large earthquake on a major active fault in the region is high. Numerous faults have been mapped within this area of Southern California. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the most significant and major active and potentially active fault systems that could produce significant ground shaking at the site include the San Jacinto, San Andreas and Cucamonga faults.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
There is no realistic way in which the hazard of seismic shaking can be totally avoided. However, exposure to future ground shaking is no greater than at many other sites in southern California.

Furthermore, it should be recognized that while it is not considered feasible to make structures totally resistant to seismic shaking, they would be designed not to collapse. The effects of seismic shaking on structures can be reduced through conformance with the structural and seismic requirements recommendations of future site-specific and design-specific geotechnical and geologic reports (see DF GEO-1), the California Building Code, and/or other local governing agencies' codes or requirements (i.e., County of San Bernardino and City of Rialto code requirements). Conformance with these requirements would promote safety in the event of a large earthquake and minimize damage thereby reducing the impacts of ground shaking to a less than significant level.

In addition, the geotechnical investigation(s) for the site, based on the actual design plans (see DF GEO-1), would provide site-specific design measures to be implemented during construction that would address any potential liquefaction and landslide hazards in accordance with applicable City and State building code requirements (i.e., California Building Code, City of Rialto Municipal Code, etc.).

Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil - Future construction within the Project Site would result in some ground surface disruption during excavation, grading, and trenching that would create the potential for erosion to occur. Due to the grade of the Project Site, the Project will not have any cut or fill slopes in excess of 10 feet in height. Additionally, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control would be prepared prior to the start of grading activities for each future development in accordance with governing agencies, including the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (see DF HYDRO-1). With the implementation of BMPs incorporated in the SWPPP during future construction activities, water- and wind-related soil erosion will be limited and managed within construction site boundaries.

During long-term operation of future developments in the Project Site, soil erosion would be mitigated through site drainage design and maintenance practices, as required by the RWQCB as part of a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for each future development (see DF HYDRO-2). Design procedures can be incorporated to reduce soil erosion such as appropriate surface drainage design of roadways and facilities to provide for positive surface runoff (see DF HYDRO-3). Such design features would serve to reduce concentrated run-off conditions that could cause erosion and affect the stability of project improvements.

Given adherence to erosion control requirements of the RWQCB and implementation of construction-related BMPs and project-specific WQMPs for future developments within the Project Site, impacts associated with soil instability from wind- and water-borne erosion would be less than significant.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Design Features
DF HYDRO-1 SWPPP - A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed by the applicant of each future development proposed within the Specific Plan that disturbs 1 or more acre. The SWPPP shall comply current Construction General Permit (CGP) and associated local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations at the time of development to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and short-term water quality impacts is minimized on a project-by-project basis.

DF HYDRO-2 WQMP - A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be developed by the applicant of each future development proposed within the Specific Plan.

The WQMP shall comply with all applicable provisions of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plan (TGD-WQMP), WQMP Template (Template), and Transportation Project BMP Guidance, as required under Section XI.D.2 of Order No. R8-2010-0036. The WQMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Incorporation of site design/Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and source control measures in a systematic manner that maximize the use of LID features to provide treatment of stormwater and reduce runoff. For those areas of the site where LID features are not feasible or do not meet the feasibility criteria, treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) with biotreatment enhancement design features shall be utilized to provide treatment. LID features shall be sized to infiltrate the required design capture volume (DCV) to reduce impacts of pollutants and runoff volumes to downstream receiving waters.
 Assuming complete build-out of the project, the entire Project Site shall require approximately 5.4 acre-feet of runoff to be infiltrated to retain the runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event. Individual developments shall be responsible for their proportionate share. Infiltration BMPs would be sized in accordance with Form

4.3-3 of the TGD for WQMPs.
 Should infiltration prove infeasible based on future geotechnical studies associated with the site-specific plans, harvest and reuse BMPs shall be evaluated as part of the future site-specific plans and WQMPs.

DF HYDRO-3 Storm Drain Infrastructure - Should the “West and East Systems Drainage Scenario,” as depicted in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Attachment B of the Initial Study be implemented by the Project, then DF HYDRO-3 shall be required. If an alternative drainage system is implemented, DF HYDRO-3 would not be required. As stated above, the final storm water design may differ from this design, as the Project’s Specific Plan does not mandate specific building locations. Additionally, the final design could include green roofs, bioswales, etc. that would alter the minimum required size of the underground basin, or even eliminate the need for an underground basin. Other designs such as at-grade basins, or storm water designs that only treat individual developments could also be implemented.
 Regardless, the precise drainage conveyance system design would be analyzed as part of the Water Quality Management Plan for each future, precise development consistent with State and City requirements for storm water conveyance.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 If the Project Site west or east of Pepper Avenue is developed concurrently, the respective West or East drainage and water quality system would be constructed in its entirety consistent with DF HYDRO-2. In this scenario, the developers within either system would enter into a development agreement to delineate their fair share cost of design and construction of the facilities, as applicable. If the northerly portion within either system is developed prior to the southerly portion, the owner would be responsible to do one of the following;

1. Install the proposed retention/detention system within the s outherly portion of the Project Site (within their respective system) as well as any drainage conveyances to and from the basin system, sized to accommodate the south site as well. This could require a development agreement for reimbursement of the fair share of costs and shared land use between both owners; or

2. Install drainage and water quality facilities to accommodate only the north portion of their respective system. This would most likely require the design and implementation of an interim Grading and Drainage Plan to mitigate any impacts to the southerly owner.

In this scenario, if the southerly portion of either system is developed prior to the northerly portion, the southern property owner would be responsible to install a drainage and water quality system within the southerly portion of the Project Site to include the anticipated demand and capacity contributed from the northerly site (within their respective system). Specifically, the proposed stormwater conveyances and retention/detention basin within each system would be sized per stormwater and water quality demand for the either the entire West system (Planning Areas 5, 6, 7 and 8) or entire East system (Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3). As such, a development agreement between owners within each system would be implemented for the reimbursement of the fair share of costs.

Soil Stability Hazards - The Project Site’s soil and geologic conditions indicate there is the potential for site/soil stability hazards to occur on the Site. The geotechnical investigation(s) for the Site, based on the actual design plans (see DF GEO-1), would provide site-specific design measures to be implemented during construction that would address any potential stability hazards in accordance with applicable City and State building code requirements (i.e., California Building Code, City of Rialto Municipal Code, etc.). Typical construction measures include overexcavation of potentially compressible soils, placement of compacted fill materials, and foundation designs to limit distress of structures. Implementation of the DF GEO-1 would ensure that the design recommendations in future site-specific geotechnical investigations identify the necessary extent of overexcavation and fill materials, as well as foundation design recommendations, to minimize the potential for damage resulting from site/soil stability hazards.

Thus, with compliance to applicable regulations and conformance with DF GEO-1, impacts regarding stability hazards would be less than significant.

Expansive Soils - Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. Based on the soil types encountered during the Geotechnical Investigation (sand and gravel to silty sand), the soils exposed at pad grade are expected to exhibit a very low expansion potential. Although not anticipated, expansive soils, if encountered within the Project Site, would be removed and/or

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
replaced as part of standard construction practices pursuant to the City of Rialto and/or CBC building requirements. Therefore, Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts associated with expansive soils and substantial risks to life or property would not occur.

Septic Tanks - The Project Site is located in an urbanized area capable of being served by existing and new wastewater infrastructure, and therefore no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required. As such, the Project would not result in impacts related to the ability of soils to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials – Hazardous materials may be used during the construction phase of the Project’s development components. Hazardous materials that may be used include, but are not limited to, fuels (gasoline and diesel), paints and paint thinners and possibly herbicides and pesticides. Generally, these materials would be used in concentrations that would not pose significant threats during the transport, use and storage of such materials. Furthermore, it is assumed that potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, including California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and Title 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations. Accordingly, risks associated with hazards to the public or environment posed by the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction are considered less than significant due to compliance with applicable standards and regulations.

Over the long-term, the Project would not involve facilities that include substantial storage, use, disposal, or generation of hazardous materials or wastes. However, ongoing landscape and building maintenance activities may involve the occasional use of hazardous materials.

Potentially toxic or hazardous compounds associated with maintenance activities typically consist of readily available solvents, cleaning compounds, paint, herbicides, and pesticides. These hazardous materials are regulated by stringent federal and state laws mandating the proper transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials in accordance with product labeling. The use and storage of these substances is not considered to present a health risk when used in accordance with manufacturer specifications and with compliance to applicable regulations.

Overall, based on the above, construction and operation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials relative to the safety of the public or the environment.

Upset or Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials - Records searches of hazardous materials databases revealed that the Project Site is not known to include any recognized or potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs). However, historic uses of the site for agricultural or farmland may have involved the use of pesticides, which could present a potential environmental concern for future individual developments on the Project Site. Due to the potential that concentrations of commercial pesticides which could have been applied on portions of the Project Site may still be present in on site soils, soil samples shall be collected and

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
analyzed for the presence of organochlorine pesticides and Title 22 Metals (see DF HAZ-1).

Sampling and analysis would be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2008, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties). Soils with elevated organochlorine pesticides or metals compared with these guidelines shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Implementation of DF HAZ-1 would ensure that impacts from past on-site agricultural uses are less than significant.

In addition, the Project would not involve facilities that include substantial storage, use, disposal, or generation of hazardous materials or wastes. While it is possible that vehicles carrying hazardous materials could occasionally utilize Pepper Avenue for transporting those goods, the risks associated with that activity would be no more or less than what could be expected on any other roadway within the region. In addition, trains on the BNSF Railway spur located to the east of the Project Site could potentially create hazardous conditions if an accident were to occur on the railway. However, this railway is a local-serving spur and is not highly traveled. Additionally, the nearest area of the Project Site that would support new development would be within PA 2.

Future development within PA 2 would be over 150 feet from the nearest point on the railway and would comply with applicable setback requirements from the railway, minimizing the risk of accident hazards to adjacent uses from the railway. In addition, per existing laws and regulations, vehicles and trains carrying hazardous materials are required to abide well-established regulatory requirements relating to those activities.

Overall, with compliance to applicable regulations and conformance with DF HAZ-1, impacts related to significant hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

Design Features
DF HAZ-1: Soil Investigation –Soil samples shall be collected for new development within the Project Site prior to issuance of grading permits and analyzed for the presence of organochlorine pesticides and Title 22 Metals. Sampling and analysis shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2008, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties).

Soils with elevated organochlorine pesticides or metals compared with these guidelines shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Hazardous Emissions Near Schools - Frisbie Middle School is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the Project Site. However, the limited quantities and regulated handling procedures of hazardous materials would not pose a risk to Frisbie Middle School or any other schools in the Project vicinity. The hazardous materials to be used as part of the proposed mix of uses would not be considered acutely hazardous in the small quantities in which they would be handled and used.

Also, occupancy of the proposed commercial and potential residential uses would not cause hazardous substance emissions or generate hazardous waste. Furthermore, during construction activities, any soils that have been contaminated from pesticides due to former agricultural uses

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local regulations (see DF HAZ-1). Implementation of DF HAZ-1 would ensure that impacts from past onsite agricultural uses are less than significant. Therefore, it is concluded that the Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding hazardous materials at any existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site.

Hazardous Materials Site – The results of the records searches conducted for the Project indicate that the Project Site is not on any hazardous materials lists or databases. Further, no off-site facilities were listed on the databases reviewed that would appear to present an environmental concern for the Project Site. While the site may have impacted soils from pesticides utilized during previous onsite agricultural purposes, implementation of DF HAZ-1 would ensure that impacts from past onsite agricultural uses are less than significant. Therefore, less than significant impacts with regard to hazardous materials site would occur with Project implementation.

Airport Land Use Plan - The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, Rialto Municipal Airport, which closed in 2014, is located approximately 2.25 miles to the west. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a safety hazard for people using the Project Site. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Private Airstrips - There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not result in airport-related safety hazards for the people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur in this regard.

Emergency Response Plans - The Project Site and surrounding area, with the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, are located in an area where adequate circulation and access is provided to facilitate emergency response. Future driveway and building configurations would comply with applicable fire access and code requirements for emergency evacuation, including proper emergency exits for patrons and potential residents. As part of the building permit plan check review for future developments within the Project Site, final site plans would be reviewed by the Fire Department for approval of access, circulation and emergency access. Construction activities are expected to be generally confined to the Project Site and would be subjected to emergency access standards and requirements of the City of Rialto Fire Department to ensure traffic safety. During construction, partial road closures may be necessary on Pepper Avenue for right-of-way frontage improvements and utility connections, but through access for drivers, including emergency personnel, along Pepper Avenue would still be provided. As such, implementation of the Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality - With each future development in the Project Site (disturbing 1 or more acre) being required to prepare a SWPPP that meets applicable local and County requirements (see DF HYDRO-1), the water quality of receiving waters during construction activities would not be adversely affected. Thus, with compliance to applicable regulatory requirements and

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
implementation of DF-HYDRO-1, short-term water quality impacts would be less than significant.

All future development in the Project Site would be assessed as part of a WQMP that meets applicable local and County requirements (see DF HYDRO-2). The WQMP(s) would ensure that the water quality of receiving waters during long-term operations is not adversely affected. Thus, with compliance to applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of DF-HYDRO-2, long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Groundwater Supplies - The Project is not by nature a groundwater extracting project; therefore, it would not deplete groundwater supplies. Individual future developments of the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the SARWQB’s MS4 Permit and incorporate site-specific LID BMPs (DF HYDRO-2). As such, construction and operation of the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or result in a substantial net deficit in the aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. Thus, groundwater impacts would be a less than significant.

Hydrology and Drainage - Future development(s) within the Project Site would require on-site storm drain facilities for the purpose of conveying storm flows, detaining/retaining peak storm events, and for water quality mitigation. Generally, site-generated surface water runoff would continue to flow into the Pepper Avenue Watercourse, similar to existing conditions. Thus, existing drainage patterns would be maintained. The Project would not result in substantial increases in surface water runoff quantities.

Additionally, Project construction would comply with the applicable NPDES and City requirements including those regarding the preparation of WQMPs for future development associated with the Specific Plan (DF HYDRO-2). Finally, storm drain connections would be provided by the Project in consultation with the City of Rialto, with the applicant of each future development proposed within the Project Site responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.270 – Storm Drain Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code (see DF HYDRO-4). The fees would be utilized to fund storm drain infrastructure associated with the Specific plan. If determined necessary, fees would also be paid to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.

Overall, a less than significant impact associated with alterations to existing drainage patterns would occur with Project implementation. Further, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, less than significant impact would occur.

Design Features
Refer to DF HYDRO-1 to DF HYDRO-3, above. The following DF is also applicable.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
DF HYDRO-4: Storm Drain Fees - The applicant of each future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.270 – Storm Drain Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

Flood Plain Hazards - The Project Site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Project would not place structures within a 100-year floodplain, which would impede or redirect flood flows. Thus, no impact would occur regarding floodplain flows.

Flooding - The Project Site would not be located within a mapped 100-year floodplain.

According to the General Plan Update DEIR, no dams are located in the vicinity of the City. The northeast portion of the City is protected by a system of levees along Lytle Creek, generally paralleling Riverside Avenue in a northwest-southeast direction. The northern portion of the City, generally north of Riverside Avenue and where Lytle Creek is most expansive, is considered to be subject to flooding hazards in the event of failure of part or all of the Lytle Creek – Island Levee System. Given the Project Site is located south of Riverside Avenue and the 210 Freeway and the unlikely failure of the levee, impacts regarding exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding would be less than significant.

Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow - A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.

The Project Site is not subject to tsunami hazards given the distance from the Pacific Ocean and elevation of the site relative to sea level. No open reservoirs or other large water bodies are located within or upstream of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not be subject to flooding hazards associated with seiches or tsunamis. The potential for mudflows to affect the proposed uses would be negligible given the distance of the nearest mountains from the Project Site and amount of intervening development. Furthermore, the gently sloping topography of the Project Site is not conducive to sustaining mudflows.

6. Land Use and Planning
Physically Divide an Established Community – While there are several developed residential, commercial, and public facility uses within the Project vicinity, no established communities are located within the Project Site that could be physically divided by Project implementation.

Therefore, no impacts related to the physical division of an established community would result from the Project.

7. Mineral Resources
Loss of Availability of Mineral Resources - Although the Project Site is likely to contain aggregate materials, it is zoned for and surrounded by residential development on the western and

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
southern sides. The adjacent residential land uses are incompatible with mineral extraction activities, which entails heavy industrial activity and earth moving operations that create significant amounts of noise, dust, and heavy-truck traffic. Considering the existing development in the neighboring areas, it is unlikely that new mining operations on the site would ever be proposed or considered practical. Further, as discussed in Section 3.10 (Mineral Resources) of the General Plan DEIR, the City’s General Plan does not support further or future development of aggregate or other mining facilities within the City. The City determined that expansion of surface mining activities in MRZ-2 areas would not be compatible with land use policies for these areas and thus preservation of these lands for mineral resource extraction was not proposed. This does not represent a conflict with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), which requires a lead agency to consider, but not necessarily to preserve, potential mineral deposits. Based on these considerations, despite the site’s potential for sand and gravel construction aggregate, impacts regarding mineral resources are concluded to be less than significant.

8. Noise
Airport Land Use Plans/Private Airstrips – The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, public use airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport, Rialto Municipal Airport, which closed in 2014, is located approximately 2.25 miles to the west. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from such uses. No impact would occur in this regard.

9. Population and Housing
Population Growth – The Project’s potential new residents would not result in a substantial increase in the local population as the increase in population would be within the SCAG and City of Rialto General Plan population estimates for the City.

Displacement of People or Housing - Project implementation would not displace existing housing or people. Therefore, no impact would occur to existing housing or local populations such that construction of replacement housing would be necessary.

10. Public Services
Fire Services – Fire protection, prevention, and emergency medicals services within the City of Rialto are provided by the Rialto Fire Department (RFD). The construction phases of the future developments would be short-term and would not permanently increase fire services demand or require construction of new facilities. A construction management plan for each future developments would be prepared in order to minimize disruptions to through traffic flow, maintain emergency vehicle access to the Project Site and neighboring land uses, and schedule worker and construction equipment delivery to avoid peak traffic hours (DF SERVICE-1).

Future development proposed within the Project Site would be subject to compliance with fire protection design standards, as necessary, per the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFD), the Municipal Code, and the RFD, to ensure adequate fire protection.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Nonetheless, to offset any incremental need for funding of capital improvements to maintain adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel, the applicant of each future developments proposed within the Specific Plan would be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.220 – Fire Protection Facilities Development Fee of the Municipal Code (DF SERVICE-2). Based on the considerations above and inclusion of DF SERVICE-2, the increase in both direct and indirect population from the Project would not be substantial enough to significantly impact fire and emergency services on a daily or annual basis. No new fire protection facilities would be necessary as a result of Project implementation.

Design Features
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 andprovide 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.

DF SERVICE-2: Fire Fees – The applicant of each appliacble future developments proposed within the Specific Plan shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.220 – Fire Protection Facilities Development Fee of the Municipal Code.

Police Services - Police protection within the City of Rialto is provided by the Rialto Police Department (RPD). The construction phases of the future developments would be short-term and would not permanently increase police services demand or require construction of new facilities.

Given the visibility of the Project Site from the 210 Freeway, adjacent roadways, and surrounding properties, existing police presence in the City, maintained emergency access, and construction fencing, individual future developments associated with the Project are not expected to increase demand on existing police services to a meaningful extent.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
With development on the site, patrol routes in the area would be slightly modified to include the site; however, the RPD’s current adequate response times would not be substantially changed such that response time objectives are compromised in any manner. No new police protection facilities would be necessary as a result of Project implementation. Further, to ensure that police protection considerations are incorporated in site-level plans, prior to the issuance of building permits for future development proposed as part of the Project, the RPD would be provided the opportunity to review and comment upon building plans in order to facilitate opportunities for improved emergency access and response, as necessary; ensure the consideration of design strategies that facilitate public safety and police surveillance; and other specific design recommendations to enhance public safety and reduce potential demands upon police protection services. Thus, impacts regarding police services would less than significant. Nonetheless, to offset any incremental need for funding of capital improvements to maintain adequate police protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel, the applicant of each applicable future development within the Project Site would be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.210 – Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code (DF SERVICE-3).

Design Features
DF SERVICE-3: Police Fees – The applicant of each appliacble future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section

3.33.210 – Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

Schools- The Project would be served by the Rialto Unified School District (RUSD). Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 50 (Section 65995 of the Government Code) and Title 17 – Subdivisions, Chapter 17.22 – School Facilities Fee, Section 17.22.120 – Facilities Fee and Section 17.22.140 – Dedication or Provision of Facilities in Lieu of Fees, of the Municipal Code, payment of fees to the RUSD is considered full mitigation for Project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (DF SERVICE-4). The current mitigation impact fees for the RUSD are $3.77 per square-foot for new residential assessable space and $0.54 per square-foot for commercial/industrial space. 11 With payment of fees at the current rate at the time of future development, the Project’s impacts on schools would be less than significant.

Parks - The Project does not include public park facilities and would not result in the expansion of existing facilities. To offset the Project’s demand for funding of capital improvements to maintain adequate park facilities and equipment, the applicant of each future residential development proposed within the Project Site would be responsible for meeting the parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fee requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act and Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.150 – Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees and Title 17 – Subdivisions, Chapter 17.23 – Park and Recreational

11 Iris Chu, Facilities Planning D irector, Rialto Unified School District, Letter Correspondence, January 23, 2015.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Facilities Dedication of the Municipal Code (DF SERVICE-5). With implementation of DF SERVICE-5, impacts regarding parks would be less than significant.

Design Features
DF SERVICE-5: Parks – The applicant of each future residential development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for meeting the parkland dedication or fee requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act and Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter

3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.150 – Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees and Title 17 – Subdivisions, Chapter 17.23 – Park and Recreational Facilities Dedication of the Municipal Code.

Libraries – The San Bernardino County Library (SBCL), which includes a network of 32 branch libraries, provides library services to the City, including the Project Site. To offset the Project’s incremental need for funding of capital improvements to maintain adequate library facilities and equipment, and/or personnel, the applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site would be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.200 – Library Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code (DF SERVICE-6). With implementation of DF SERVICE-6, impacts regarding libraries would be less than significant.

Design Features
DF SERVICE-6: Library Fees – The applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project site shall be responsible for paying applicable development impacts fees Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.200 – Library Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

11. Recreation
Recreation and Park Facilities – The Project does not include recreational facilities. Operational activities associated with the future development proposed within the Project Site would increase demand for parks services. The nearest park, Frisbie Park, is located approximately 75 feet to the west of the Project Site. The Project includes a potential pedestrian connection to Frisbie Park, which would enhance access to the park. Another fourteen parks and recreational facilities are located within approximately four miles of the Project Site. Due to the proximity of the Project Site to numerous parks and recreational facilities, the effect of any one park would be nominal and distributed over the local vicinity, resulting in no substantial increase in demand to any one recreational facility. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially deteriorate, or accelerate the deterioration of recreational facilities or resources. Nevertheless, to offset the Project’s demand on park facilities and services, the applicant of each residential future development proposed within the Project Site would be responsible for meeting the parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fee requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act and Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.150 – Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees and Title 17 – Subdivisions, Chapter 17.23 – Park and Recreational Facilities Dedication of the Municipal Code (DF SERVICE-5). With implementation of DF SERVICE-5, impacts regarding parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

12. Transportation/Traffic
Air Traffic Patterns – The Project does not propose any structures that would interfere with air traffic patterns; nor would the Project increase use of any airport. Thus, no impact regarding air traffic patterns would occur with Project implementation.

Emergency Access - Immediate access to the Project vicinity is provided by the newly constructed Pepper Avenue extension. Emergency evacuation plans and procedures would be incorporated into the Specific Plan, and building design plans and emergency access and circulation would be subject to review and approval by the RFD.

While it is expected that the majority of construction activities for the Project would be confined on-site, short-term construction activities may temporarily affect access on portions of the adjacent street rights-of-way during periods of the day. A construction management plan for each future development would be prepared in order to minimize disruptions to through traffic flow, maintain emergency vehicle access to the Project Site and neighboring land uses, and schedule worker and construction equipment delivery to avoid peak traffic hours (DF SERVICE-1). The construction management plans would be prepared for review and approval by Public Works on a project-by-project basis prior to commencement of any construction activity. These practices, as well as techniques typically employed by emergency vehicles to clear or circumvent traffic, are expected to limit the potential for significant delays in emergency response times during construction of the future developments. Therefore, impacts regarding emergency response times and emergency access during construction would be less than significant with the incorporation of site-specific construction management plans.

13. Utilities and Service Systems
Wastewater Treatment Requirements –Under the SARWQCB NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City are subject to applicable local, State and/or federal regulations. Future developments proposed within the Project Site must comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and other applicable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), as enforced by the SARWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements.

Build-out of the Project would not result in the discharge of wastewater to any surface waters.

Instead, operational discharges would be sent to the sewer system, which would ultimately be treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Rialto WWTP is required to comply with associated WDRs and any updates or new permits issued. WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. Compliance with applicable WDRs would ensure that implementation of the future development proposed within the Project Site would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Wastewater and Water Facilities - On-site sewer improvements and connections would be provided in consultation with the Rialto Water Services Department, with the applicant of each

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-31 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
applicable future development proposed within the Project Site responsible for payment of all sewer facility improvements and connection fees as set forth in Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.240 – Sewage Collection Facilities Development Impact Fee and Section 3.33.250 – Sewage Treatment Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code (DF SEWER-2). The fees are utilized to fund wastewater treatment and regional wastewater infrastructure improvements associated with the Project. The necessary improvements would be verified through the permit approval process of obtaining a sewer capacity and connection permit from the City. Final engineering and design specifications for the lift station will need to consider the on-site constraints in order to adequately service the Project. Accordingly, DF SEWER-1 identifies the necessary sewer system upgrades with requirements that address the on-site constraints. With implementation of the applicable Specific Plan design features (DF SEWER-1 & -2), given existing and anticipated future capacity at the wastewater treatment facilities and wastewater generation expected from the Project, impacts regarding wastewater facilities would be less than significant.

On-site water system improvements and connections would be provided by the Project in consultation with the West Valley Water District (WVWD), with the applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site responsible for payment of all water facility improvements and connection fees as set forth in Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.260 – Domestic and Recycled Water Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code (DF WATER-2). The fees are utilized to fund water infrastructure improvements associated with the Specific Plan. DF WATER-1 identifies the necessary water system upgrades with requirements that address on-site constraints. With implementation of the applicable Specific Plan design features (DF WATER-1 & -2), impacts regarding water infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant.

Design Features
DF SEWER-1: Sewer Infrastructure – The sewer system for the Project shall consist of two systems, the East and West systems. The East system shall gravity flow southerly within the future commercial development area (east of pepper Avenue) and then westerly to a proposed lift station on the east side of Pepper Avenue. The East system shall consist of 8-inch and 6-inch laterals. The West system (west of Pepper Avenue) shall gravity flow easterly towards Pepper Avenue and join an existing 12-inch VCP sewer line in Pepper Avenue.

An on-site sewer lift station on the east side of Pepper Avenue shall be required to pump sewage flows southerly via a force main into the gravity sewer system in Winchester Drive. The future lift station shall be sized to accommodate the peak sewer flows from the Project as well as any potential off-site future developments that may be tributary to the lift station, including the Caltrans-maintained area north of the 210 Freeway and south of Highland Area (which consists of 7.4 acres). Future development of this 7.4 acre area would likely add additional sewer flows of approximately 9 percent of the above peak flow to the lift station. Therefore, the proposed lift station shall be designed to accommodate the calculated peak flow plus 9 percent.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-32 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The on-site sewer system for the Specific Plan area may reach depths of 20-25 feet, therefore the future lift station shall be designed to have sufficient power to siphon sewer flows from these depths. Furthermore, there would be approximately 35-40 feet of vertical change and approximately 1,100 feet of horizontal length between the lift station and the point of connection into the existing sewer system in Winchester Drive. The final engineering and design specifications shall ensure the lift station can accommodate these constraints.

DF SEWER-2:Sewer Fees - The applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section

3.33.240 – Sewage Collection Facilities Development Impact Fee and Section 3.33.250 – Sewage Treatment Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

DF WATER-1: Water Infrastructure – Future development within the Project Site shall provide connections to the water servicing line from both sides of Pepper Avenue.

These future connections shall lie north of the WVWD Lord Ranch Facility and require either a direct connection to the existing 30-inch transmission line in Pepper Avenue or extending the 12-inch line to the connection points. The water system shall be designed to deliver the peak hour domestic demand to each service point with a residual pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and to deliver specified fire flow plus the peak day domestic demand with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. The fire flow requirement for the Project Site is 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for three hours (for commercial/office/high density residential areas). The maximum operating pressure in mains shall not exceed 130 psi with pressure reducers required on service connections having pressure greater than 80 psi. All water lines shall be looped where possible. All dead end lines shall not exceed 660 feet in length or the current design requirements at the time of design.

DF WATER-2: Water Fees - The applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees per Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section

3.33.260 – Domestic and Recycled Water Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

Stormwater Facilities - The Project would include new stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The Project’s new stormwater drainage facilities would not result in substantial adverse impacts related to the ability of any public utilities or infrastructure to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Water Supply - The Project would fall within the 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urna Water Management Plan (UWMP) available and projected water supplies. According to the UWMP, the water supplies available to the WVWD in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, would be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements within the WVWD’s service area for at least the next 20 years, including the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. Thus, Project impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 6-33 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Solid Waste – The Project’s solid waste generation would be accommodated at regional landfills that serve the City. Solid waste generation would comply with applicable regulatory requirements to ensure impacts would be less than significant.

15. References
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2004. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, Appendix F, July 2004, https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling.htm, accessed November 2016. __________, 2014. EMFAC2014, Mobile Source Emissions Inventory, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#emfac, accessed November 2016.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010.

Cummins, 2014. Cummins Tier-4-Final Field Test Showed 10% Lower Fuel Consumption, March 5, 2014, http://www.cumminspacific.com/about/news/!content/2014/03/05/cummins-tier-4- final-field-test-program-exceeds-140-000-hours-gaining-valuable-experience-with- operators-on-site, accessed October 2016.

Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. (MCF), 2015. Cat® Lift Trucks Introduces New Tier 4 Final Diesel Pneumatic Tire Lift Truck, November 19, 2015. http://www.mcfa.com/mcfa/news/articles/cat/2015/Cat%20Lift%20Trucks%20Introduces% 20New%20Tier%204%20Final%20Diesel%20Pneumatic%20Tire%20Lift%20Truck, accessed October 2016.

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016a. “Table F3: Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates,”
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid =CA, accessed October 2016.
__________, 2016b. “Table F7: Distillate Fuel Oil Consumption Estimates,” http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_df.html &sid=CA, accessed October 2016.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 7-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 7
List of Preparers
Lead Agency
City of Rialto
Planning Division
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
 Gina Gibson, Planning Manager
Specific Plan Consultant
KTGY
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
 John Moreland, Senior Project Manager (Project Manager) EIR Consultant

ESA PCR
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
 Mike Harden, Principal Planner (Project Manager)
 Jay Ziff, Director of Environmental Planning and Documentation  Lorena Christman, Principal Planner
 Brian Allee, Senior Planner
 Heidi Rous, CPP, Director of Air Quality, Climate and Acoustics Services  Kyle Kim, Ph.D., Senior Acoustics Engineer
 Kyle Garcia, Senior Archaeologist
 Maile Tanaka, Senior Biologist
 Denise Kaneshiro, Senior Graphics Designer
 Ian Hillway, Publications Services Manager

7. List of Preparers

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 7-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Civil Engineer, Hydrology, Water Quality
Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606

 Puneet Comar, PE, Project Manager
Transportation Consultant
Urban Crossroads
41 Corporate Park, Suite #300
Irvine, CA 92606

 John Kain, AICP, Principal
 Marlie Whiteman, P.E., Senior Associate
 Janette Cachola, Analyst

Rialto City CouncilApril 25, 2023

Rialto City Council
April 25, 2023