Exhibit C - 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report for Pepper Avenue SP — Rialto City Council, April 25, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2016021047
Prepared for October 2017
City of Rialto

2121 Alton Parkway
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
949.753.7001
www.pcrnet.com

Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan i ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR
Page

1.0 Intr oduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 A Purpose of the Final EIR .................................................................................... 1-1 B. Project Summary ............................................................................................... 1-2 C. Overview of the Environmental REview Process for the EIR ............................. 1-5 D. Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts in the Draft EIR ............................................................................................................ 1-7 E. Contents of the Final EIR/EIR Organization ...................................................... 1-8

2.0 Comments and Responses ...................................................................................... 2-1 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 B. List of Commenters ............................................................................................ 2-1 C. Responses to Comments .................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR ............................................................ 3-1 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-1 B. Corrections and Additions .................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitori ng and Reporting Program ...................................................... 4-1 A. CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................... 4-1

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-1 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A. Purpose of the Final EIR
The City of Rialto (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan project (the Project). This document, in conjunction with the Draft EIR, collectively comprise the Final EIR.

As described in Sections 15089, 15090 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency must prepare and consider the information contained in a Final EIR before approving a project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a Final EIR consists of: a) the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft; b) comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; c) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; d) the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e) any other information added by the Lead Agency. In addition, this Final EIR includes: a summary of the Project being proposed; a description of the CEQA EIR process conducted for the Project; and a description of the contents and organization of the Draft EIR and Final EIR.

Accordingly, this Final EIR is comprised of two components as follows:

Component 1: Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (March 2017)  Draft EIR (Chapters 1 to 7 and Technical Appendices A-H) Component 2: Final EIR
As permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR referenced technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the referenced documents has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) of the Draft EIR. All documents referenced in the Draft EIR are hereby incorporated by reference and are available for public inspection and review upon request to the City. A summary list of the contents of the Draft EIR is provided at the end of this chapter.

This Final EIR comprises the final component of the CEQA environmental review process for the proposed Project. The Final EIR, together with the Draft EIR published in March 2017, address the potential environmental impacts of the Project pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-2 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the Code of California Regulation (CCR), Section 15000 et seq.

The Project is subject to a program EIR because the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan constitutes a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project that is related: “…a) geographically; b) as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; and c) in connection with the issuance of…plans…to govern the conduct of a continuing program…” (CEQA Guidelines 15168[a]). A program EIR generally establishes a foundation for “tiered” or project-level environmental documents that may be subsequently prepared in accordance with the overall program.

The purpose of the EIR is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. The City has the principal responsibility for approving the Project and, as the Lead Agency, is responsible for the preparation and distribution of this Final EIR pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21067. The EIR will be used in connection with all other permits and all other approvals necessary for the implementation of the Project.

The EIR will be used by the City and other responsible public agencies that must approve activities undertaken with respect to the Project.

B. Project Summary
Project Location
The approximate 101.7-acre Project site is located within the eastern portion of the City of Rialto.

Regionally, the City of Rialto is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County in the largely developed San Bernardino Valley Region. Rialto is primarily surrounded by the developed cities of Fontana, Colton, and San Bernardino. Unincorporated portions of the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside also abut the City. The City of San Bernardino is immediately east of the Project site.

In the local Project vicinity, the irregular-shaped Project Site is generally located east of Eucalyptus Avenue, south of the 210 Freeway, west of the theoretical extension Meridian Avenue and north of Walnut Avenue. Pepper Avenue bisects the east and west halves of the Project site.

Pepper Avenue was recently extended from Winchester Drive on the south, through the Project site, connecting to Highland Avenue through an underpass just north of the 210 Freeway.

Adjacent and surrounding land uses in the Project area are summarized as follows:

NORTH: CalTrans right-of-way/210 Freeway followed by vacant land and aggregate mining operations north of Highland Avenue. The 210 Freeway and Pepper Avenue Interchange Project is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 2018 prior to opening of future development within the Project Site.

EAST: Vacant land and the BNSF Railroad followed by the Lytle Creek Wash which trends in a southeast to southwest direction. The Lytle Creek – Island Levee System protects the Project site and surrounding development from potential flooding associated with Lytle Creek. In addition, there is a semi-rural residence to the east of the Project Site just beyond the railroad line to the east of the on-site West Valley Water District (WVWD) facility.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-3 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
WEST: Single-family residential uses and Frisbie Park. The Park, in addition to children’s play areas, includes six lighted baseball/softball fields.

SOUTH: An unnamed wash and vacant land followed by single-family residential uses.

Existing Conditions
The Project site is mostly vacant, with the exception of the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, which bisects the Project site in a north-south direction, and a WVWD facility which includes three production wells, a pump station, and a reservoir (all to remain as part of the Project). Vacant portions of the Project site are highly disturbed due to off-road vehicle (ORV) use, with some areas subject to unauthorized trash dumping.

Pepper Avenue, which the northerly portion is not constructed to its ultimate curb width, is designated as a Major Arterial, which the City General Plan indicates has “at least two lanes of travel in each direction, left turn lanes at intersections, and parking lanes.” The northerly portion of Pepper Avenue will be completed in conjunction with the 210 Freeway/Pepper Avenue interchange construction. Landscaped sidewalks and streetlights are planned to be provided on both sides of Pepper Avenue.

A portion of the Pepper Avenue roadway extension was constructed atop an earthen embankment with four, 10-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete block culverts constructed beneath the roadway to convey drainage across the Project Site in a northwest to southeast direction. These culverts were designed to provide adequate width and height for migration of wildlife through the Pepper Avenue watershed and for maintenance by the City, in addition to accommodating seasonal stream flows within the tributary and maintaining existing hydrological conditions. Beyond Pepper Avenue, flows trend in an easterly direction within an unnamed wash and feed Lytle Creek.

Nonnative grasslands, which in some areas support a sparse population of elderberry shrubs, cover the central portion of the Project Site; relatively undisturbed mature and intermediate Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat dominates the western portion of the Project Site and a small area of southern willow scrub (SWS) habitat is located near the WVWD pumping facility in the southern portion of the Project Site. The Project Site supports at least two jurisdictional drainage features which are subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as “waters of the U.S.,” and by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as jurisdictional streambed.

Project Summary
Development as part of the Project would be guided by the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan is comprised of six chapters including Chapter 1, Introduction; Chapter 2, Planning Context; Chapter 3, Plan Elements; Chapter 4, Design Guidelines; Chapter 5, Development Standards, and Chapter 6, Implementation.

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-4 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
A detailed description on the Project is provided in the Draft EIR, Chapter 2, Project Description.

Proposed land uses include community commercial uses with up to approximately 462,000 square feet (SF) of retail shopping center and 125,000 SF of business park uses. In addition, a residential overlay would allow up to 275 multi-family dwelling units, which if developed, would replace 116,000 SF of retail shopping center, leaving a total of 346,000 SF of retail shopping center use.

There are no parks are proposed within the Specific Plan area. However, the Specific Plan is proposing that at a minimum 29.5 acres of the Project site remain as open space. The open space would largely consist of RAFSS habitat and jurisdictional drainage features located on/near the site’s eastern boundary. If 6.3 acres of area contemplated for community commercial uses do not get improved with community commercial uses, it would also remain as open space. Thus, the total open space could increase to 35.8 acres under this scenario.

The Project is contemplating to provide a grade-separated pedestrian bridge connection between its developed areas and Frisbee Park to the west. The bridge would span over the RAFSS habitat and would range from 300 to 700 feet long depending on the development that would occur within the Project Site. Under any scenario, the bridge would be 10-feet wide and for pedestrian use only. The bridge would also be designed to allow for the movement of wildlife through the RAFSS habitat. It should be noted that there are a number of variables that need to be determined for the pedestrian bridge, including but not limited to, obtaining permitting agency approvals (i.e.

Army Corps of Engineers). Although it is anticipated that the pedestrian bridge would not disrupt a significant portion of the RAFSS, timing and securing funding for the bridge may be difficult to coordinate. Nonetheless, the pedestrian bridge is an encouraged element of the Project.

Approximately 13.7 acres of the Project Site is developed with the WVWD Facility. The facility currently consists of a combination of pump stations, water supply wells, and an aeration reservoir that serves WVWD’s Zone 4. No future development is proposed on this portion of the Project site as part of the Project.

The Project site would be locally accessed via Pepper Avenue from the north and south. The future Pepper Avenue interchange with the 210 Freeway would provide regional access to the Project site. Pepper Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Rialto General Plan.

The Project includes improvements to Pepper Avenue by including four lanes of travel and a Class II bike lane in both directions. Pepper Avenue also includes a raised median at some locations, inclusive of turn pockets. On-street parking would be prohibited along Pepper Avenue within the Project site. Also, the Project would accommodate the construction of four new signalized and non-signalized intersections along Pepper Avenue that would provide access to the developable parcels within the Project site. Two driveways would be signalized and two others will only allow for right-in, right-out traffic to ensure safe, orderly and predictable vehicular travel.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-5 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
C. Overview of the Environmental Review Process
for the EIR
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, an effort was made to contact various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed Project. This included the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the holding of a public scoping meeting.

Initial Study
In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that of the following environmental issue areas may be significantly impacted by the Project and should be further evaluated in the Draft EIR:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Transportation/Traffic
Based on the Initial Study, issues for which no or less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur are identified in Chapter 6, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR.

Notice of Preparation
Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public for a 30-day period commencing January 25, 2016 and ending February 19, 2016. The purpose of the NOP was to formally convey that the City is preparing a Draft EIR for the Project, and to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The Initial Study was circulated with the NOP. The NOP, Initial Study, and responses to the NOP are provided in Appendix A, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters, of the Draft EIR.

Public Scoping Meeting
The City advertised a notice of public scoping meeting for the Project, which was held on Thursday, February 4, 2016 at Frisbie Middle School located at 1442 N. Eucalyptus Avenue in the City of Rialto. The meeting was held with the specific intent of affording interested individuals/groups and public agencies to assist the lead agency in determining the scope and focus of the EIR as described in the NOP and Initial Study.

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-6 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
NOP Comments Received
The NOP/Initial Study was distributed to various public agencies, other entities, and members of the public in order to receive input on the scope and content of environmental information to be provided in the Draft EIR. Comments on the scope and content of the EIR were received from various public agencies and individuals from the public. The NOP comments are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

Notice of Availability of Draft EIR
In accordance with the provision of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, serving as the Lead Agency in early March 2017 circulated a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR to: property owners within 300 feet of the project site; occupants of properties contiguous to the project site; and public agencies, organizations and individuals that commented on the NOP or requested such notice in writing. In addition, a notice was placed within the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper on March 7, 2017. The NOA indicated the Draft EIR would be available for review at the following locations:
 Rialto City Hall, Planning Division located at 150 S. Palm Avenue, Rialto, CA 92376;  San Bernardino County Rialto Branch Public Library located at 251 West First Street Rialto, CA 92376; and
 Online at the Department of City Planning’s website at www.yourrialto.com/current- projects/.

The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, and circulated for the public review period beginning March 7, 2017, and ending on April 24, 2017.

This public review period, which lasted 45-days, was consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 requirements for public review of a Draft EIR. All comments on the Draft EIR were submitted to Gina Gibson in the Development Services Department at City Hall, 150 South Palm Avenue, Rialto, CA 9237.

During the 45-day public review period, a public meeting was held at Frisbie Middle School in the City of Rialto on April 3, 2017, in order to take comments on the Draft EIR and provide an overview of the Project and CEQA process. All comments provided in writing to the City during the public review period are presented and responded to in Chapter 2.0, Comments and Responses, of this Final EIR.

Final EIR
The contents of this Final EIR are summarized in sub-section A, Purpose of the Final EIR, above, and described in more detail in sub-section E, Contents of the Final EIR/EIR Organization, below.

After this Final EIR is completed, and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments on the Draft EIR will be provided or made available to all commenting parties.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-7 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
According to PRC Section 21081, the Lead Agency must make specific Findings of Fact (Findings) before approving the Final EIR, when the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the Final EIR and the action of the Lead Agency with regard to approval or rejection of the Project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made, as follows:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a less than significant level. When this occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Since the City has concluded that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable effects, which are identified in the Draft EIR, and re-stated below, the City must adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” prior to approval of the Project in compliance with PRC Section 21081. Such statements are intended under CEQA to provide a written means by which the City balances the benefits of the Project and the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Where the City concludes that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, the City may find such impacts “acceptable” and approve the Project. The Facts and Findings document, including the “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” will be prepared under separate cover from this Final EIR.

D. Summary of Significant and Unavoidable
Environmental Impacts in the Draft EIR
Tables ES-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Design Features, in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of impacts, mitigation measures, design features and impacts after implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures for the Project.

Section 15126.2(b) of the 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 shown in Table ES-1 and as analyzed in Chapter

4.G, Noise, of the Draft EIR, 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.

Please refer to Chapter 4.G, Noise, of the Draft EIR for further discussion of this topic.

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-8 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
E. Contents of the Final EIR/EIR Organization
Final EIR
The Final EIR consists of the following four chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes the purpose of the Final EIR, provides a summary of the Project, describes the EIR public review process, and outlines the content of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2, Comments and Responses. This chapter presents comments received by the City during the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR (March 7, 2017 through April 24, 2017), in addition to a comment letter from Riverside Highland Water Company (dated August 2015, 2017). Responses to these comments by the City are also provided within this chapter. The individual letters (or correspondence) with comments requiring responses are included within this chapter.

Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR. This chapter includes revisions to the Draft EIR that represent minor changes or additions in response to some of the comments received on the Draft EIR and additional edits to provide clarification. Changes to the Draft EIR are shown with strikethrough text for deletions and double underline text for additions. These changes are minor and do not add significant new information that would affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is the document that will be used by the enforcement and monitoring agencies responsible for the implementation of the Project’s mitigation measures and project design features (PDFs). Mitigation measures and PDFs are listed by environmental topic.

Draft EIR
This Draft EIR includes eight chapters as well as appendices, which are organized as follows:

Executive Summary. This section presents a summary of the Project and alternatives, potential impacts and mitigation measures, and impact conclusions regarding significant unavoidable adverse impacts and effects not found to be significant.

1. Introduction . This chapter provides: background information on the Project; describes the purpose of the EIR; approach of the EIR; provides CEQA compliance information relative to the Project and the EIR; provides a brief overview of the environmental review process; identifies areas of controversy and issues to be resolved in the EIR; and outlines the organization of the EIR.

2. Project Description . This chapter describes the Project location, Project details and the City’s overall objectives for the Project.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-9 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis . This chapter provides a list and map of related projects anticipated to be built within the Project vicinity. The related projects serve as the basis for the cumulative analysis.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis . This chapter contains an analysis of the following environmental issues based on the findings in the Initial Study and Scoping process: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Global Climate Change; (F) Land Use/Planning; (G) Noise; and (H) Transportation/Traffic. Each section describes the regulatory and physical settings and evaluates the environmental impacts and cumulative impacts of each environmental issue area. If necessary, mitigation measures are provided and each section provides a summation of the level of significance after mitigation for each of the environmental issues.

5. Alternatives. This chapter evaluates the environmental effects of the Project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the Existing Zoning Alternative. It also identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

6. Other CEQA Considerations . This chapter includes a discussion of issues required by CEQA that are not covered in other chapters. These include unavoidable adverse impacts, impacts found not to be significant, irreversible environmental changes, potential secondary effects caused by the implementation of the mitigation measures for the Project, and growth inducing impacts.

7. List of Preparers. This chapter lists all of the persons, public agencies, and organizations that were consulted or contributed to the preparation of this EIR.

The Draft EIR includes the environmental analysis prepared for the project and appendices as follows:

Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters Appendix B: Air Quality Technical Appendix
Appendix C: Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E: GHG Technical Appendix
Appendix F: Noise Technical Appendix
Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix H: Energy Calculations

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-1 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
CHAPTER 2
Comments and Responses
A. Introduction
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments that were received during the noticed comment period and any extensions.” In accordance with these requirements, this Chapter of the Final EIR provides responses to written comments received during the public comment period regarding the Draft EIR.

B. List of Commenters
A list of public agencies and private individuals who provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below.

Letter A Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (April 20, 2017) Wanda M. Cross, Chief, Regional Planning Programs Section Letter B South Coast Air Qualit y Management District (April 21, 2017) Lijin Sun, J.D., Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Letter C John Peukert (April 3, 2017)
Rialto Resident
Letter D Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy: General Counsel to Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC) (August 25, 2017)
Steven M. Kennedy
C. Responses to Comments
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Rialto, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received in the above listed letters pertaining to the content within the Draft EIR for the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project and has prepared the below responses to the comments received.

The individual letters with comments requiring responses are included within this section. Each letter in this section is assigned a letter (A, B, C, and D). Each comment within a letter that requires a response is bracketed and assigned a number, which is shown in the side margin. For example, the first letter from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board is Letter A.

The comments in that letter are labeled A-1 to A-16. Following each bracketed and numbered

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-2 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
letter, correspondingly numbered responses from the City are provided that address each of the comments. For Letter A, the responses include Response A-1 to A-16. Where responses result in a change to the Draft EIR, it is noted, and the resulting change is identified in Section 3.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.

Water Boards
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
April 20, 2017
Gina Gibson, Planning Division
City of Rialto Development Services Department
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Email [email protected]
' EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

GOVERNOR
~ MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ
l .............._~ SE:CR£TARY fOR
~ ENVIAQNMf_NTAl PROlECTION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, PEPPER AVENUE AT SR-210, CITY OF RIALTO - SCH NO. 2016021047 Dear Ms. Gibson:

Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (Project) in the City of Rialto. The Project site is located east of Eucalyptus Avenue and Frisbie Park, and it is bisected by Pepper Avenue. The proposed Project would be located on 101. 7 acres of vacant floodplain west of Lytle Creek Wash and immediately south of State Route 210 (SR-210). An unnamed wash (referred to throughout this letter as "the wash") that is tributary to Lytle Creek surrounds the western and southern sides of the proposed Project site. Pepper Avenue was extended over the wash in 2013, with four culverts beneath the roadway allowing flows to continue toward Lytle Creek1.

Most of the Project's nine Planning Areas (PAs) would entail business park and retail construction ("community commercial" uses) (DEIR Figure 2-4, Land Use Plan). East of Pepper Avenue, 116,000 square feet of retail space conceptualized within PA 1 and 2 (DEIR p.2-1, 2-11) could potentially be replaced by a residential development option (PA 3). The existing West Valley Water District's Lord Ranch reservoir, pump station, and production wells would remain on 13.7 acres in the southeastern corner (PA 4) of the Project site, south of PA 3. Other Planning Areas and their land uses are discussed below.

We recommend that the DEIR incorporate the following comments in order for the Project to best protect water quality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial uses), as defined in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). Each numbered section of discussion constitutes one continuous comment:

The Pepper Avenue extension across the wash was permitted, in part, by a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification, File No.362008-15, issued by the Regional Board on 11/30/2011. The extension's projected ramp connections with SR-210, the "SR-210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project" was certified by the Regional Board (File No. 362015-28) on December 22, 2015.

WILLIAM RUH, CHAIR I KURT V. BERCHTOLD, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3737 Main St, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana Ms. Gina Gibson - 2 - April 20, 2017

1. The Wash - Waters of the State and Beneficial Uses
The Final EIR should reflect that the entire above-referenced wash constitutes waters of the state, if not waters of the U.S. The width of the wash is limited by distinct western and eastern boundaries, as defined by low banks and by the extent of intermediate-to-mature Riversidean Alluvial Sage Scrub (RAFSS). RAFSS is dependent on sheetflow for seed distribution across a wash or alluvial fan. Although historical flow from upstream of this wash is now largely cut off by the SR-210 and only enters from a culvert at the northwestern end of the wash, Board staff believes that direct heavy rainfall to the wash, along with runoff from the surrounding area, will provide substantial sheetflow and replenishment to this ecosystem.

The eastern boundary of the wash is followed by the western limits of PA 5 and PA 6 and it exhibits an abrupt change in vegetation from disturbed grassland (PA 5/6) outside of the wash to RAFSS within the wash, in PA 7 (5.4 acres), PA 8 (0.9 acre), and PA 9 (29.5 acres) (Figures 2-4, 4.C-2, and throughout the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA)).

The beneficial uses (BUs) readily identifiable for this wash are Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2), and Groundwater Recharge (GWR). These are a subset of the beneficial uses adopted by the Regional Board for Lytle Creek and are applicable to its tributaries according to the Basin Plan.

In particular, the RARE BU is established for the wash through its demonstration as habitat for listed state and federal species. A May 2006 plant survey (DEIR p.4.C-11; BRA p.10) found that the Project site's RAFSS has included numerous individuals of a federally endangered plant species, the Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum). Further, the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) (Dipodomys merriami parvus) has been trapped during separate 2006 surveys in the wash (DEIR p. 4.C-12; BRA p.39). BRA p.53 states that this wash is within critical habitat for SBKR, as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Four other animals listed as Species of Special Concern (SSC) were observed within the Project site during related surveys (BRA p.36, 39; DEIR p.4.C-11): the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillit), the loggerhead shrike (Lanius /udovicianus), the Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennetti1).

Two other SSC, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the orange-throated whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), have a low-to-moderate potential for occurrence onsite although neither have been directly observed onsite (p.4.C-12; BRA p.40-42). The whiptail lizard, which frequents washes and RAFSS habitat, was observed in 2014 immediately north of the Project site in RAFSS, during a survey for the SR-210/ Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project. A statement on DEIR p.4C-24 that the 28 special status species known to be in the Project vicinity (BRA Appendix D) are not considered to have a potential to occur onsite appears to contradict the above observations of wildlife, and therefore this statement should be modified or removed.

In summary, a federally endangered plant and animal species and four other special status animal species have been observed onsite, with two more special status species possibly extant onsite. In Board staff experience, such support of the RARE BU by ephemeral waters, throughout a small habitat block such as this peninsular corridor from Lytle Creek, is unusual. The Regional Board may assert jurisdiction for the entire width of washes, Ms. Gina Gibson - 3 - April 20, 2017
undefined channels, and other waters of the state where such width is associated with ephemeral flows and a healthy RAFSS community supporting BUs. In any such case, wider Regional Board jurisdictional area may exceed the channel widths of more linear water bodies delineated for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). For this Project, Board staff consider the extent of RARE to match the width of the wash, as indicated by defined banks and vegetation; we consider that the onsite acreage of the wash (35.8 acres, BRA p.6) completely encompasses and exceeds the dimensions of the water bodies delineated in the DEIR (p.

4. C-15-19; Figure 4. C-3)2.

2. Project Scenarios and Impacts
The DEIR objectively offers two Project alternatives ("Scenarios 1 and 2") focused on either no construction, or construction, within the wash (BRA p.5).

Scenario 1 would limit development to the eastern boundary of the wash (western limits of PA 5 and 6 as noted above). Planning Area 9, which occupies 29.5 acres of the wash within the Project site west of Pepper Avenue, and includes the above-referenced jurisdictional areas, would be dedicated by the Project as open space (BRA p. 6). Under Scenario 1, Planning Areas 7 and 8 also within the wash (a combined 6.3 acres west of PA 5/6) would not be developed as a proposed "community commercial overlay." PA 7 and PA 8 would be combined with PA 9 to allow all 35.8 acres of the onsite wash area to "be preserved as open space" and "set aside in perpetuity for avoidance and long-term preservation of habitat and species" (DEIR p.4C-22).

Scenario 2 would construct the additional buildings of the community commercial overlay, within the 6.3 acres of PA 7 and PA 8 that would be added to the construction footprint. The footprint would cross the wash as far as the eastern side of Drainage A but not fill these waters of the U.S. We note that the DEIR proposes detailed mitigation to accompany this construction, including the regeneration of known woollystar that would be lost to the Project. This 6.3 acres of RAFSS in the wash represents potentially occupied habitat for listed sensitive species that would be graded and built upon. Board staff believes that future construction, runoff, and edge effects from Scenario 2 are very likely to have adverse impacts to Drainage A.

We note that under either Scenario 1 or 2, the waters of the U.S. and state delineated by the DEIR (Footnote 2) would not be filled (DEIR p.6). No impacts to acreages or LF of these waters are projected by the DEIR. Again, Board staff recognizes 6.3 acres of waters of the state to be removed by Scenario 2.

Under either Scenario, a pedestrian bridge elevated over the wash would connect the Project to Eucalyptus Avenue and contain educational signage about RAFSS. Under Scenario 2, the bridge would meet the western edge of developed PA 7 (300 feet long) on the eastern side of Drainage A. Under Scenario 1, the bridge would span the entire wash and meet the western edge of developed PA 5 (700 feet long). Several footings and pilings within waters of the state/U.S. appear likely throughout either lengths of the bridge, and 2 Drainage A, the intermittent stream extending from the headwall to Pepper Avenue (0.668 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S.; 2,639 linear feet, or LF); Drainage A1 flowing to the headwall (0.005 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S.; 111 linear feet), and a resultant marsh (0.023 acre of state wetland).

Ms. Gina Gibson - 4 - April 20, 2017
therefore the DEIR does anticipate the need for permitting and mitigating for this loss of small acreage, through either Waste Discharge Requirements or a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification issued by the Regional Board.

3. Regional Board Regulation of the Project
The Final EIR should reflect that Board staff strongly believes that the Project may go forward only if Scenario 1 is implemented. Scenario 1, which would build outside of the wash except for the pedestrian bridge supports, should be adopted in the Final EIR as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The specific basis for these statements is the Regional Board's mandate under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code) to regulate adverse impacts to the RARE beneficial use (among other beneficial uses) posed by the Project's proposed construction within a water body (the onsite portion of the wash) that has been known to provide habitat for several state and federally listed sensitive species. We understand from the BRA (p.53) that the wash may contain critical habitat established pursuant to the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. From the Regional Board's standpoint, the additional 6.3 acres in the wash (PA 7 and PA 8) considered for construction under Scenario 2 should be avoided in order to avoid significant adverse impacts to the habitat and the RARE beneficial use.

Article 3 of the CEQA Regulatory Guidelines (Sections 15040-15042) provides authority to a public agency (Responsible Agency such as the Regional Board) to urge changes to a project under its purview. A Responsible Agency may disapprove a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project which the Responsible Agency would be called on to carry out or approve (Guidelines Section 15042).

Therefore, as a permitting agency for this Project (at minimum, for impacts to state waters from the pedestrian bridge), Regional Board staff disapprove of the construction activity in the wash posed by Scenario 2 and we urge deployment of Scenario 1 as an alternative measure.

Further, Scenario 1 would observe the requests of the Regional Board for all projects, concurrent with CEQA, that impacts to the water quality standards of water bodies should first and foremost be avoided by development wherever possible. Where avoidance is not practicable, impacts to these waters should be minimized. If the Project does not encroach into the wash through the construction of Planning Areas 7 and 8, then permitting through the Regional Board for impacts to waters to the state is likely to pertain only to the footings and pilings of the pedestrian bridge.

Even if open-space dedication of all the onsite wash segment is a condition of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, the offsite wash segment south of the Project site would remain vulnerable to a future project. Board staff note that avoidance of this portion of the wash should also be arranged by any future project that would otherwise segment the wash and wildlife connectivity through the Pepper Avenue culverts. We recommend that an opportunity be taken, at this juncture of planning, to consult the owner of the remaining wash about preservation as well, so that the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan may include a goal of preserving the entire wash.

According to the OF HYDR0-2 and -3 mitigation measures (DEIR p.2-16, 2-21-22), surface runoff detention or retention basins are proposed for construction in the southernmost portions of the Project, on each side of Pepper Avenue (drainage systems in the northern Ms. Gina Gibson - 5 - April 20, 2017
Project area may relieve much of the flow conveyed to each of these two basins). Each basin will discharge into the wash in compliance with the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project, in combination with maximized Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as onsite infiltration (DEIR p.2-21). Board staff requests that both basins be sufficiently sized so that even during large rainfall events, flows may be released at a slow rate so as not to scour or otherwise hydromodify the wash.

Board staff recognize that PA2 and PA3, in the central portion of the site outside of the wash, contain 9.13 acres of blue elderberry stands (Sambucus nigra ssp. caeru/ea) (DEIR Table 4.C-1; Figure 4.C-1). These stands will be lost to the development. Blue elderberry is defined by the CDFW as a "special-status vegetation community" (DEIR p. 4.C-6).

Because this species is not generally associated with water bodies, Board staff defer decisions on its loss and mitigation to the CDFW and USFWS.

In order to satisfy Project construction goals, Board staff have no objection to the Project exploring the acquisition of the wedge-shaped floodplain parcel located east of the Project's eastern boundary and west of Lytle Creek.

If you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (951) 782-3259 and [email protected], or me at (951) 782-4468 and Wanda. [email protected]
Sincerely,
Wanda M. Cross, Chief
Regional Planning Programs Section
cc: State Clearinghouse
Jeff Brandt, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ontario office - [email protected] Joanna Gibson, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ontario office - [email protected] Stephanie J. Hall, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles - [email protected] Karin Cleary-Rose, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Palm Springs office - Karin [email protected] Bill Orme, State Water Resources Control Board, [email protected] Drive H: Grobertson/Data/CEQA/CEQA Responses/San Bernardino County/Rialto Area/DEIR-City of Rialto-Pepper Avenue.docx

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-8 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Letter A
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Response to Comment A-1. The initial comment is introductory to the remaining comments submitted in the April 20, 2017 letter, in which the comment describes the Project as presented in the Draft EIR and recommends that the comments be incorporated into the Final EIR for protection of water quality within the Santa Anan River watershed. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-2. This comment requests that the Final EIR state that the onsite wash constitutes both waters of the State and waters of the U.S. The comment continues that the extent of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) within low drainage banks of the wash defines the extent of the waters of the State and U.S. although historic flows have been largely cut off by the SR-210 and only enters from a culvert at the northwestern end of the wash.

The Clean Water Act within which waters of the U.S. are defined is discussed in Section

4.C.2.a.(1) of the Biological Resources chapter of the Draft EIR. Although waters of the state are not defined in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR acknowledges that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State are under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the former and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the latter.

Jurisdictional features including waters of the state, which is referenced as CDFW jurisdictional streambed in the Draft EIR, are discussed in Chapter 4.C, Biological Resources, and are depicted in Figure 4.C-3, Jurisdictional Features. While the extent of the RAFSS onsite may represent the historical flows of the onsite drainages, SR-210 has modified those historic flows and no longer correspond to extent of the CDFW jurisdictional streambed.

Response to Comment A-3. This comment references the beneficial uses identified in the Lytle Creek component of the Santa Ana River Basin Plan adopted by the RWQCB, with which the City of Rialto concurs. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-4. This comment discusses the special-status species occurring within the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan area, as documented in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR acknowledges the presence of special-status biological resources for which mitigation measures are provided in Section 4.C.4 to reduce impacts to these resources. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-5. This comment references two species of special concern, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the orange-throated whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis hyperythra). The comment states that the orange-throated whiptail lizard was observed in 2014 immediately north of the Project site and based on that observation, the Draft EIR statement that 28 special-status species recorded in the vicinity of the Project site do not have potential for occurrence on the Project site is contradicted.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-9 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
The Draft EIR statement regarding 28 of 51 special-status wildlife species reported from vicinity of the Project site having no potential to occur on the Project site is accurate as the two species of special concern, burrowing owl and orange-throated whiptail lizard are not included in the 28 species with no potential. The reason why the 28 special-status species are considered to have no potential to occur on the Project site is because either habitat suitable to the species is absent from the Project site – for example, the arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) has no potential to occur because there is no slow flowing stream – or the Project site is located outside of the known distribution of the species – as an example, the southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica) has no potential to occur because the species is found in mountain habitats of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, which are located northeast and southeast of the Project site. Therefore, no change to the statement in the Draft EIR is necessary.

Response to Comment A-6. This comment concludes that the presence of six special-status species with the potential for two additional such species makes the Project site unusual and as a consequence the RWQCB may assert jurisdiction over the entire wash area of the Project site.

The comment states that because of the presence of the number of special-status species, RWQCB staff consider the 35.8 acres of wash to be jurisdictional and exceeds the delineation presented in the Draft EIR.

The comment is noted. The Draft EIR states that the Project site contains a total of approximately 2,750 linear feet of streambed associated with 0.673 acre of USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.”, 0.023 acre of USACE/RWQCB “wetlands”, and 4.822 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (“waters of the state”). These jurisdictional areas have been determined in the standard methodology required by these regulatory agencies and a more current delineation may be required at the time any regulatory permits are processed. The Biological Resources Assessment, Appendix C of the Draft EIR, described the methodology used for the jurisdictional determination. “All areas were delineated using the protocol stipulated by the CDFW under Section 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code and by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Any wetlands were delineated using the procedures stipulated in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Arid West Supplement (USACE, 2008a and USACE, 2008b).”
Response to Comment A-7. This comment discusses the Project alternatives (Scenarios) present in the Draft EIR and Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. Scenario 1 would preserve the 35.8 acres of the wash as open space in perpetuity. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-8. This comment describes Scenario 2, as present in the Draft EIR, within which Planning Areas 7 and 8 would allow development for commercial uses. The construction footprint would extend to the eastern side of Drainage A but avoid filling of waters of the U.S. The comment indicates that the construction, urban runoff and edge effects from the future development would cause adverse impacts to Drainage A. The comment concludes that Scenario 2 would impact 6.3 acres of waters of the state.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-10 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
In Section 3 of Chapter 4.C, Biological Resources, the Draft EIR acknowledges that development of the Project would result in adverse impacts to special-status species, especially under Scenario 2 with development in Planning Areas 7 and 8. As a consequence of these potentially significant impacts, the Draft EIR proposes a number of mitigation measures in Section 4 of Chapter 4.C Biological Resources to reduce impacts to less than significant. These mitigation measures address impacts to sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional drainages, and special-status species including Santa Ana River woollystar, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and burrowing owl.

The jurisdictional determination in the Draft EIR recognizes 4.822 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (“waters of the state”). Impacts to jurisdictional features will be mitigated in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8 and the approval conditions associated with any regulatory permits in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Response to Comment A-9. This comment discusses the proposed pedestrian bridge over the wash and the impacts associated with construction of the bridge, including the need for regulatory permitting by USACE, RWQCB and CDFW. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-10. The comment addresses the opinion of the RWQCB staff that only Scenario 1 may be implemented because this Project design avoids construction within the wash.

The comment continues that implementation of Scenario 2 would cause significant adverse impacts to special-status biological resources, which inconsistent with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR describes the potential significant impacts associated with commercial development within Planning Areas 7 and 8, for which mitigation will be required in addition to compliance with the regulatory permitting procedures. In addition, storm water drainage facilities and flows within the Project site would require that each private development be consistent with State and City requirements for storm water conveyance to convey storm flows, detain/retain peak storm events, and maintain water quality.

Response to Comment A-11. This comment describes the authority of responsible agencies to disapprove a project to avoid environmental effects over the portion of the project over which the responsible agency has jurisdiction. The comment continues in providing the opinion that RWQCB staff disapprove of Scenario 2 because of the proposed development within the wash of Planning Areas 7 and 8.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR has analyzed the environmental effects of the proposed Project, including both Scenarios 1 and 2.

This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-11 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Comment A-12. This comment indicates the Scenario 1 design is consistent with the RWQCB standard that water quality impacts to water bodies should be avoided. Because Scenario 1 does not propose development in Planning Areas 7 and 8, avoiding impacts to the wash with the exception of the footings and pilings of the pedestrian bridge.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-13. This comment discusses the area south of the Project site, which is not part of the proposed Project or within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. The comment recommends that the wash south of the Project site be preserved in addition to the wash within the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan area.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-14. This comment refers to the Project design features DF HYDRO-2 and DF HYDRO-3, including the proposed retention/detention basins on either side of the southernmost portion of Pepper Avenue. The comment recommends that the basins be sized to accommodate large rainfall events and flows to be released at a slow rate.

This comment is acknowledged. As part of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for this Project, Fuscoe Engineering prepared a Drainage and Water Quality Assessment Study. On pages 16 through 21, this Study indicates a Low Impact Development (LID) approach for hydromodification, performance criteria, and other standards related to capturing runoff from large rainfall events. As the Project progresses, each applicable future development involving new construction will be required to develop a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as indicated in DF HYDRO 2. The WQMP will need to demonstrate a future development’s compliance with applicable hydromodification storage and discharge requirements.

Response to Comment A-15. This comment references the presence of blue elderberry stands within the central Planning Areas 2 and 3. The comment acknowledges this habitat as a sensitive plant community but defers comment to trustee agencies such as CDFW.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. Impacts to blue elderberry stands is addressed in Section 3 of Chapter 4.C, Biological Resources, and were found to be less than significant. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment A-16. This comment states that RWQCB staff have no objection to exploring the potential acquisition of the wedge-shaped floodplain parcel located east of the Project's eastern boundary and west of Lytle Creek.

This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

SENT VIA FAX, E-MAIL, AND USPS: April 21, 2017 Fax: (909) 873-4814
E-mail: [email protected]
Ms. Gina Gibson
City of Rialto – Development Services, Planning Division 150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376

Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No.: 2016021047)

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).

Project Description
The proposed project consists of a 101.7-acre specific plan which allows for up to 275 multi-family dwelling units, 462,000 square feet of retail shopping center, 125,000 square feet of business park uses,

29.5 acres of natural open space, and 13.7 acres of water facilities, including water wells, a pump station, and a reservoir. The proposed project site is mostly vacant and undeveloped, and it is located south of the 210 Freeway and west of BNSF railroad. Construction is expected to begin in 2017, and the build-out year would be 2035.

Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analyses
Based on the air quality analysis, the Lead Agency found that regional construction emissions would be less than significant after incorporating Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Additionally, the Lead Agency performed an HRA for “informational purposes [to] provide information to the City and applicant regarding health impacts and allow the applicant to make an informed decision about site planning and design” (see page 4.8-39 of the DEIR). The Lead Agency found that the potential Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI) is 217 Carcinogenic Risk in one million which is significantly greater than the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million (see Table 4.B-16 on page 4.B-38 of the DEIR). The SCAQMD staff has concerns about the proposed project’s potential health impacts to on-site sensitive receptors.

Additional details are included in the attachment. The attachment also includes a discussion of recommended changes to the existing Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and proposes new mitigation measures which the Lead Agency should implement to further reduce NOx and PM2.5 emissions from construction and health impacts during operation.

I
ncomplete Air Quality and HRA Documentation for Review
The DEIR for the proposed project was released for public review and comments beginning on March 7 through April 24, 2017. However, the electronic versions of air quality modeling and HRA files, including original emission calculation spreadsheets and air dispersion modeling files (not PDF files) were not provided to SCAQMD staff for review. On January 29, 20161, the SCAQMD staff provided comments on t
he Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project, where the SCAQMD staff requested the Lead Agency send with the DEIR all of the air quality modeling, health risk assessment files, and original

1 SCAQMD NOP Comment Letter, dated January 29, 2016. Available at: h ttp://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment- letters/2016/january/noppepperave.pdf
Ms. Gina Gibson 2 April 21, 2017 emission calculation spreadsheets in electronic versions to the SCAQMD for review. Further, in the same comment letter on the NOP for the proposed project, SCAQMD staff stated that without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD staff would be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner, and that any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation would require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. As such, it is recommended that the Lead Agency extend the comment period to allow for additional review.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Further, when the Lead Agency makes the finding that the recommended mitigation measures are infeasible, the Lead Agency shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting then in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).

SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Jack Cheng, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA IGR Section, at (909) 396-2448, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.

Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun, J.D.

Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
LS:JC
SBC170310-01
Control Number

Ms. Gina Gibson 3 April 21, 2017

ATTACHMENT

Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403(e)

1. Since the proposed project is considered a large operation on a 101.7-acre site (50 acres or more of disturbed surface area; or daily earth-moving operations of 3,850 cubic yards or more on three days in any year) in the South Coast Air Basin, the Lead Agency is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403(e) – Additional Requirements for Large Operations 2. The requirements may include, but not limited to, Large Operation Notification (Form 403N), appropriate signage, additional dust control measures, and employment of a dust control supervisor that has successfully completed the Dust Control in the South Coast Air Basin training class3. Therefore, the Final EIR should contain a detailed description to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403(e).

Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution

2. The SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and the SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, the SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005. This Guidance Document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. The SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions.

This Guidance Document is available on SCAQMD’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/plan ning-guidance/guidance-
document. Additional guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placi ng homes near freeways or other polluting sources) can be found in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective , which can be found at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Numerous health studies have demonstrated potential adverse health effects associated with living near highly travelled roadways. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity is seen within 1,000 feet and is strongest within 300 feet4. California freeway studies show about a 70% drop off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet5. As a result of these studies, the CARB developed a Land Use Handbook6 that recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses (such as housing) within 500 feet of a freeway. Additional research has shown that the near roadway environment also contains elevated levels of many pollutants that adversely affect human health, including some pollutants that are unregulated (e.g., ultrafine particles) and whose potential health effects are still emerging7.

Notwithstanding the court rulings, the SCAQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing, mitigating, and disclosing the environmental impacts of a project. Because of SCAQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity

2 SCAQMD Rule 403. Last amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/ru le-iv/rule-403.pdf. 3 SCAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Staff Contact Information for Rule 403(e) Large Operations is (909) 396-2608 or by e-mail at [email protected].
4 California Air Resources Board. April 2005. “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.” Accessed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 See Chapter 9 of the 2012 AQMP for further information. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/Final-February2013 /Ch9.pdf.

Ms. Gina Gibson 4 April 21, 2017 of freeways or other sources of air pollution, the SCAQMD staff will continue to recommend that, prior to approving the project, Lead Agencies consider the impacts of air pollutants on people who will live in a new project and provide mitigation where necessary.

Limitations of the Air Filtration Systems

3. On page 4.8-38 of the DEIR, the Lead Agency discusses the use of air filtration systems with filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 8 or higher for sensitive uses. The SCAQMD staff believes that there are limitations to enhanced filtration units. The Lead Agency should consider the limitations of MERV filters on housing residents. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters8 similar to those proposed for this project, costs were expected to range from $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the resident. Filters are assumed to operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors and does not account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. MERV filters are effective in improving indoor air quality as compared to lower efficiency filters for PM10 and PM2.5 but they have no ability to filter out any toxic gasses from vehicle exhaust. The presumed effectiveness and feasibility of air filtration systems should therefore be evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate near roadway exposures. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency evaluate the effectiveness of MERV of 8 and include a discussion on the effectiveness of this in the Final EIR.

Recommended Changes to Existing Mitigation Measure AQ-1

4. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the preparation of future study when all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification. Based on a review of the air quality analysis, SCAQMD staff found that Tier 4 for all construction equipment was used to calculate NOx and PM2.5 construction emissions as substantial evidence to support the finding that construction emissions after incorporating Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would not exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of significance. Additionally, CEQA requires that mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(2)). To ensure that construction impacts from NOx and PM2.5 emissions are adequately mitigated, and to be consistent with the air quality modeling assumption, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency commits to using Tier 4 for all construction equipment throughout the entire construction phase. In the event Tier 4 engine certification is found not feasible, the SCAQMD staff recommends revising Mitigation Measure AQ-1 as follows and including the revised Mitigation Measure AQ-1 as a mandatory condition in the project’s Contractor Agreement.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies other 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. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner

8 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13+ filters. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf.

Ms. Gina Gibson 5 April 21, 2017 vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.

Additional Mitigation Measures

Technology Review

5. Given that the construction phase for the proposed project would take approximately 18 years, SCAQMD staff believes that the Lead Agency should take this opportunity to deploy the lowest emission technologies possible by requiring a review and implementation of new, feasible lower- emission technologies every two years as part of the future study prescribed in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, and include it as a new mitigation measure in the Final EIR. This deployment should include those technologies that are “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time” (Public Resources Code §21061.1), such as zero and near-zero emission technologies that are expected to be available during the life of the project. A technology review that is performed every two years will allow the Lead Agency to assess equipment availability, equipment fleet mixtures, and best available emissions control devices. Additionally, to ensure that the biennial technology review is enforceable during the eighteen-year construction phase, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include the biennial technology review in the project contract agreement, including the Contractor Agreement. Furthermore, when a new emission control technology is found to be feasible and would substantially reduce air emissions, but the Lead Agency declines to implement such technology, a subsequent EIR shall be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(C)).

Construction Mitigation Measures

6. The SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include in the Final EIR additional mitigation measures provided below to further reduce emissions from NOx and PM2.5 during construction. a) Include in all construction contracts the requirement to use 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export). In the event that that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, provide documentation as information becomes available and use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. b) Enter into a contract that notifies all vendors and construction contractors that vehicle and construction equipment idling time will be limited to no longer than five minutes or another time-frame as allowed by the California Code of Regulations, Title 13 section 2485 - CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.

For any vehicle delivery that is expected to take longer than five minutes, each project applicant, project sponsor, or public agency will require the vehicle’s operator to shut off the engine. Notify the vendors of these idling requirements at the time that the purchase order is issued and again when vehicles enter the gates of the facility. To further ensure that drivers understand the vehicle and construction equipment idling requirement, post signs at each facility entry gates stating idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. c) Employ on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks or equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater that complies with EPA 2007 on-road emission standards for PM and NOx (0.01 gram per brake horsepower - hour (g/bhp-hr) and at least 0.2 g/bhp-hr, respectively).
d) Maintain vehicle and equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the proposed project. All construction vehicles must be maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule. The Lead Agency will maintain their construction equipment and the construction contractor will be responsible for maintaining their equipment and maintenance records. All maintenance records for each facility and their construction contractor(s) will remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction.

Ms. Gina Gibson 6 April 21, 2017 e) Conduct a survey of the proposed project construction area(s) to assess whether the existing infrastructure can provide access to electricity, as available, within the facility or construction site, in order to operate electric on-site mobile equipment. For example, each project applicant, project sponsor, or public agency and/or their construction contractor(s) will assess the number of electrical welding receptacles available.
f) Construction areas within the facility or construction site where electricity is and is not available must be clearly identified on a site plan. The use of non-electric onsite mobile equipment shall be prohibited in areas of the facility that are shown to have access to electricity.

The use of electric on-site mobile equipment within these identified areas of the facility or construction site will be allowed.
g) Include in all construction contracts the requirement that the use of non-electric on-site mobile equipment is prohibited in certain portions of the facility as identified on the site plan. Maintain records that indicate the location within the facility or construction site where all electric and non-electric on-site mobile equipment are operated, if at all, for a period of at least two years from completion of construction.
h) Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of significant construction activity to maintain smooth traffic flow.
i) Provide dedicated turn lanes for the movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site.
j) Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. k) Coordinate with the local city to improve traffic flow by signal synchronization in the area near the construction site.
l) Ensure that drivers understand that traffic speeds on all unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph or less. In addition, post signs on all unpaved roads indicating a speed limit of 15 mph or less.
m) Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to occur during off-peak hours to the greatest extent practicable.
n) If and when winds speeds exceed 25 mph, suspend all excavating and grading activities and shall record the date and time when the use of construction equipment associated with these construction activities are suspended. This log shall be maintained on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction.
o) If and when any first stage smog alert occurs, record the date and time of each alert, suspend all construction activities that generate emissions, and record the date and time when the use of construction equipment and construction activities are suspended. This log shall be maintained on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. p) Coordinate with the construction contractor to site parking areas to minimize interference with roadway traffic.
q) Evaluate the use of alternate fuels for on-site mobile construction equipment prior to the commencement of construction activities, provided that suitable equipment is available for the activity. Equipment vendors shall be contacted to determine the commercial availability of alternate-fueled construction equipment. Priority should be given during the bidding process for contractors committing to use alternate-fueled construction equipment. r) Include in all construction contracts the requirement to cover all haul trucks delivering or hauling away dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. s) Require the construction contractor to install and use wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site for each trip to prevent drag-out.
t) Require the construction contractor to apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (e.g., previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

Ms. Gina Gibson 7 April 21, 2017 u) Require the construction contractor to replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible to minimize dust.
v) Require the construction contractor to pave road and road shoulders. w) Require the construction contractor to sweep streets at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 and 1186.1 compliant sweepers if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads.

In the event that water sweepers are used, recommend the use of reclaimed water by construction contractor.

Construct Roadside Vegetative Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality

7. Based on a review of the informational HRA in the DEIR, the SCAQMD staff is concerned about the significant adverse health impacts to on-site sensitive receptors as demonstrated in Table 4.B-16 on page 4.B-38 of the DEIR. As such, it is recommended that the Lead Agency use vegetative barriers as a measure to reduce near road air quality impacts to residents. For additional information on road side vegetation barriers, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/air-research/recommendations- constructing-roadside-vegetation-barriers-improve-near-road-air-quality.

Require Setbacks of at least 500 feet as a Project Design Feature

8. Because of the significant adverse health risks from the proposed project, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include in the project design feature setbacks of at least 500 feet between the residential development and the 210 Freeway to the north and the BNSF railroad to the west as recommended in the CARB’s guidance document described above.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-19 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Letter B
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Response to Comment B-1. The Lead Agency acknowledges the comment from the South Coast Air Quality Management District detailing the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project Description and agrees that the description is accurate of the Project.

Response to Comment B-2. The Lead Agency appreciates the concern the SCAQMD has for potential health impacts to on-site sensitive receptors associated with implementation of the Project. As stated by the commenter, the Lead Agency performed a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), for informational purposes only, because the Project site is in close proximity to the 210 Freeway, BNSF Railroad and other Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) sources. As shown in the Draft EIR, the cancer risk for carcinogenic exposures, from DPM emissions at the Project site resulted in a maximum carcinogenic risk of approximately 217 per one million for the 30-year residential exposure scenario. As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the cancer risk is above the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million.

The California Supreme Court, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless: 1) the proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or 2) a reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects.

The Draft EIR presented no determination of significance regarding TAC exposures to future residences, as a result of the HRA findings, since the Project site is subject to elevated TACs due to its existing environmental conditions (i.e. the 210 Freeway, BNSF Railroad, and other TACs).

Since the Project would not exacerbate these risks, the Project is not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents.

Therefore, the Lead Agency conducted an HRA and presented its findings in the Draft EIR for informational and design purposes only. The Project isn’t subject to the SCAQMD’s CEQA cancer risk threshold for a determination on significance.

Response to Comment B-3. The Lead Agency acknowledges the attachment regarding recommended changes to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and proposed new mitigation measures. The additional details in the attachment have been addressed separately as part of this letter. Please see Response to Comment B-7 through B-34.

Response to Comment B-4. The Lead Agency apologizes for not providing the SCAQMD with electronic versions of the air quality modeling and HRA files, including original emissions calculation spreadsheets and air dispersion modeling files, when they received the Draft EIR for review as they requested in their comment letter on the NOP for the Project. The Lead Agency

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-20 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
sent over the electronic versions of the files to the SCAQMD on April 24, 2017 for their review.

As stated in the comment, the public review and comments period ran from March 7 through April 24, 2017. Since PDFs of the files were included in the Draft EIR for review, the Lead Agency will not be extending the comment period on the Project.

Response to Comment B-5. The Lead Agency will provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained in this letter and the attachment prior to the certification of the Final EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. If the Lead Agency finds that the recommended mitigation measures are infeasible, it will provide specific reasons for rejecting them in the Final EIR.

Response to Comment B-6. The Lead Agency thanks the SCAQMD staff for being available to work with them on these or any other questions that may arise.

Response to Comment B-7. The Lead Agency acknowledges that the Project would be considered a large operation for purposes of Rule 403 and will comply with Rule 403(e) – Additional Requirement for Large Operations. The appropriate changes will be made in the FEIR as shown below and in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR.

Page 4 ends

It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the Project would reduce regional PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Additionally, the proposed Project would be considered a large operation under Rule 403 and would be required to comply with the measures outlined in Rule 403(e) – Additional Requirement for Large Operations. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project Site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Additional requirements under Large Operations for dust control include, but are not limited to, maintaining a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, conduct water as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction, apply water/dust suppressants to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed areas daily when there is wind driven fugitive dust emissions, establish vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased, water all roads used for any vehicular traffic to suppress dust, apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces, and apply chemical stabilizer to open storage piles or apply water to 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles when evidence of wind driven fugitive dust. Contingency control measures for Large Operations include, but are not limited to, applying water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil, apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months on the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or when active operations will not occur for a period of four days or more, apply water or chemical stabilizer on unpaved roads and open storage piles, and cover all haul

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-21 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
vehicles or comply with freeboard requirements. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Site watering would reduce the particulate matter from becoming airborne, while washing of transport vehicle tires and undercarriages would reduce re- entrainment of construction dust onto the local roadway network.

Response to Comment B-8. The Lead Agency has reviewed the SCAQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning and CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective which addresses siting incompatible land uses. The Lead Agency will use these guidance documents as one of their tools in making a decision on the proposed Project.

Response to Comment B-9. The Lead Agency is aware that numerous health effects are associated with living near highly travelled roadways and CARB’s recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway. The Project’s land uses were sited with this distance taken into consideration. The proposed Project only allows residential within one 9.4-acre Planning Area (PA3). This Planning Area is located over 600 feet from the SR-210 right-of-way. Any other sensitive land uses such as nursing homes, child day care centers, hospitals, etc., are either prohibited or conditionally permitted within 500 feet of the SR-210, where additional analysis would be required to address any potential air quality impacts.

Additionally, the Lead Agency had an HRA study conducted, for informational purposes, to aid in the decision-making process.

Response to Comment B-10. The Lead Agency acknowledges the SCAQMD concerns about siting sensitive populations within close proximity of freeways or other sources of air pollution.

As discussed above, the Project plan does not include any residential units within 500 feet of the SR-210 freeway. Also, a HRA was conducted, for information purposes, and the results of the HRA provided information to the Lead Agency and the applicant regarding health impacts and will allow the applicant to make an informed decision about site planning and design. Currently, as shown in the HRA, the Project site’s worst-case location would be exposed to cancer risk in excess of the SCAQMD significance threshold. It should be noted that the calculated cancer risk assumes no reduction measures, such as mechanical filtration, and full-time exposure with the windows open. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) typically requires mechanical filtration with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 8 or higher. This would reduce typical indoor PM10 concentrations up to 70 percent. Therefore, actual cancer risk impacts to on-site residents would be lower than those reported above. It should be noted that residential dwelling units would only be permitted on PA3, which is over 600 feet from the SR-210 right-of- way.

However, as a result of the HRA, the applicant and Lead Agency may implement additional reduction strategies at the time of Project design to further reduce health risk impacts. These reduction strategies could include, but are not limited to: additional filtration such as MERV 13 or higher which would reduce DPM concentrations at sensitive receptors by as much as 90 percent, final project design which places air intake vents farther away from the rail line to limit exposure to DPM; and inoperable windows to limit exposure to DPM.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-22 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Comment B-11. The Lead Agency acknowledges the SCAQMD’s concerns about the limitation of enhanced filtration units in the residences to reduce indoor air pollution and their use by residents. The Lead Agency conducted an HRA, for information purposes, and the results of the HRA provided information to the Lead Agency and the applicant regarding health impacts and will allow the applicant to make an informed decision about site planning and design. The HRA did not incorporate any reduction in air pollutants as a result of using enhanced filtration units. The Lead Agency has agreed to the reduction strategy of MERV 8. The Draft EIR does not state that enhanced filtration units will fully alleviate near roadway exposures, it states that MERV 8 would reduce PM10 concentrations up to 70 percent.

Response to Comment B-12. The Lead Agency agrees with the changes to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 proposed by the SCAQMD. The appropriate changes will be made in the FEIR as shown below and in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR.

Page 4 ends

Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.

Response to Comment B-13. The Lead Agency acknowledges that the SCAQMD would like the Lead Agency to require a review and implementation of new, feasible lower-emissions technologies every two years as part of the future study prescribed in Mitigation Measures AQ-1.

However, Mitigation Measure AQ-1, in the Draft EIR, is sufficient to reduce Project construction emissions to less than significant levels with regard to SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, no further mitigation measures or biennial technology review is required. Additionally, over the 18 years of the construction period, the construction fleet would need to adapt to emissions reduction rules and regulations and would emit less pollution in future years.

Response to Comment B-14. Contractors for the proposed Project are required to comply with CARB’s On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation, which requires diesel trucks and buses be upgraded to 2010 model year engines by 2023. Nearly all trucks and buses will have 2010 model year engines or equivalent by 2023. The proposed Project will balance soil on- site, so will not require haul trucks. Trucks bringing supplies will comply with the requirements mentioned above. Construction is scheduled to take place over 18 years and fleets have already begun transitioning and within the first five years of construction most should be changed over to

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-23 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
the 2010 model year or newer. As the Project is in compliance with SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-15. Idling time limited to a maximum of five minutes is a state regulation and no further action by the Lead Agency is necessary. All vendors and construction contractors are aware of this regulation and will comply. Thus, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-16. The Project will balance soil onsite and isn’t expected to have a significant number of haul trucks. Since on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks or equipment are not expected to be utilized, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-17. Vehicle maintenance records will be maintained by the Contractors or construction fleet owners. As the Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-18. The Project site is primarily undeveloped land with no existing infrastructure. Electricity is not readily available for use during construction. Therefore, a survey to determine access to electricity within the existing infrastructure is not needed. As the Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-19. The Project site is primarily undeveloped land with no existing infrastructure. Electricity is not readily available for use during construction. Therefore, a plan where electricity is available for use would not be beneficial. As the Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-20. The Project site is primarily undeveloped land with no existing infrastructure. Electricity is not readily available for use during construction. Therefore, a requirement of construction contracts that non-electric on-site mobile equipment is prohibited in certain portions of the facility as identified on a site plan is not needed. As the Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-21. The Lead Agency will implement or require that the general contractor provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of significant construction activity to maintain smooth traffic flow, and as needed for safety. This additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-22. The Lead Agency will implement or require dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site as needed for safety. This additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-24 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Comment B-23. Re-routing construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas is infeasible within the Project area as there is only one street to access the site. However, giving the adjacency to the freeway, trucks would not be on local streets for more than a half-mile. There is no need to coordinate with the local City regarding signal synchronization to improve traffic flow as there is only a short distance to the freeway. This additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-24. As outlined in SCAQMD Rule 403, speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph or less and signs will be posted. Therefore, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-25. Construction activities that have the potential to affect traffic, will be scheduled to occur during off-peak hours to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-26. As required by Rule 403, all excavating and grading activities will be temporarily suspended if wind speeds are in excess of 25 mph.

Response to Comment B-27. As the Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the additional recommended mitigation measure of suspending construction activities during a first stage smog alert is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-28. As required by the City Building Code and consistent with standard construction practices, all construction parking and staging will occur on-site and will not interfere with roadway traffic. Therefore, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-29. As the proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the use of alternative fuels for on- site mobile construction equipment does not have to be evaluated prior to commencement of construction activities. While alternative fuels and associated alternative-fueled equipment are available, they are not readily available and may not be feasible for Project implementation. The use of biodiesel would not decrease, and in fact may slightly increase NOx, the pollutant for which emissions exceed the regional threshold (Emissions of NOx contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog), the South Coast Air Quality Basin is designated as non-attainment for the federal and state ozone standards). Therefore, biodiesel would not be feasible for this Project. Accordingly, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-30. As outlined in SCAQMD Rule 403, all haul trucks that are delivering or hauling away dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material will be covered, wheel washers will be installed and used where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or trucks and equipment will be washed off to prevent drag-out, non-toxic soil stabilizers, mixed with water, will be applied to all inactive construction areas (previously graded) prior to a weekend, holiday or any other period when active operations will not occur for four or more consecutive days, and ground cover will be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible to minimize dust or water will be applied to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface area

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-25 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
on a daily basis when there is wind driven fugitive dust or dust suppressants will be applied to control fugitive dust. As these are required under SCAQMD Rule 403, these additional recommended mitigation measures are not necessary.

Response to Comment B-31. Under SCAQMD Rule 403, it is not necessary to pave the road or road shoulders for large operations as long as all roads used for any vehicular traffic are watered at least once per every two hours of active operations or three times per normal 8 hour work day or water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour or apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. As the proposed Project will comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, therefore, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-32. The Lead Agency will comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring wheel washers be installed and used where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads and/or trucks and equipment will be washed off to prevent drag-out. Compliance with Rule 403 will keep visible soil form being carried onto adjacent streets. Therefore, the street sweepers will not be necessary to sweep streets at the end of each day. As the proposed Project will comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, this additional recommended mitigation measure is not necessary.

Response to Comment B-33. The Lead Agency appreciates the SCAQMD staff suggestion of using vegetative barriers as a measure to reduce near road air quality impacts to residents.

Although roadside vegetative barriers are recognized as a method to reduce near road air quality impacts, there are many factors which influence the efficacy and appropriateness of vegetative barriers. Specifically, issues such as the type and number of vegetation required to be effective, seasonality of vegetation, waxy and/or hairy leaf surfaces, maintenance, water requirements, etc., must be considered. In addition, the choice of species must not emit compounds which can increase air pollution or allergic responses, and be resistant to air pollution and other traffic stressors. An effective barrier should consist of at least 33 feet of an uninterrupted vegetation thickness, be at least 16 feet tall, and should extend 164 feet or more beyond the area to be protected, or can wrap around and extend perpendicularly away from the roadway

1. If the
vegetation cannot maintain its integrity (i.e. isn’t maintained properly, not resistant to air pollution, water requirements, etc.) and gaps in the barrier form it can lead to increased pollutant concentrations downwind. Additionally, trees typically serve as a temporary retention site for particles which can be re-suspended to the atmosphere during high winds, washed off by precipitation, or dropped to the ground with leaf and twig fall2 which can impact local air, water, and soil pollution. The vegetative barrier could also be a safety hazard to drivers along the freeway and/or Pepper Avenue if they block views or have the potential to fall on the freeway.

Caltrans has implemented the following requirements for vegetative barriers: trees must be planted at least 30 feet from the edge of the traveled way, overhanging foliage must be 15 feet

1 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2017 . Landscape Guidance for Improving Air Quality near Roadways.
2 Nowak DJ, Civerolo KL, Trivikrama Rao S, Gopal S, Luley CJ, E. Crane D. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment. Vol 34: pp. 1601-1613.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-26 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
vertically from the pavement to the overhanging branches, vegetation must be planted at least 10 feet from fences, walls, ditches or drainage features, vegetation must not interfere with safety features such as shoulders, existing barriers, guardrails or signs and must not interfere with a driver’s ability to see a continuous length of roadway, and a vegetative barrier must be maintained and managed in perpetuity by the entity responsible for planting.3 The Lead Agency may consider, but is under no obligation to implement, vegetative barriers as a further reduction strategy during the approval process and/or as part of the final Project design.

Response to Comment B-34. The Lead Agency appreciates the SCAQMD staff recommendation of including in the Project design setbacks of at least 500 feet between the residential development and the 210 Freeway to the north and the BNSF railroad to the west as recommended in CARBs guidance document. The proposed Project design complies with this recommendation as the residential development is located a minimum of 600 feet from the SR- 210 right-of-way. Also, a HRA study conducted, for informational purposes, to aid in the decision-making process.

3 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2017 . Landscape Guidance for Improving Air Quality near Roadways.

Letter C: Peukert
C-1

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-28 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Letter C
John Peukert, Rialto Resident
Response to Comment C-1. This comment raises general comments visual pollution (aesthetics) and noise/vibration. The commenter is referred to Chapter 4.A, Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR for an analysis of aesthetics impacts. As discussed therein, all impacts related to views/scenic vistas, aesthetics/visual character, and light and glare would be less than significant given compliance with Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines and Development Standards, as applicable. Specifically, as indicated on page 4.A-11 of the Draft EIR, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines establishes levels of significance for aesthetic impacts. These thresholds relate to scenic vistas, scenic resources, the existing visual character of the site, and light and glare. As indicated in the above- referenced analysis, the Project will be developed in the foreground of any views of the mountains to the north and will not significantly impact these views. The Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines that regulate the aesthetic development of the existing vacant site. The Project site does not contain any scenic resources. Lastly, the light and glare impacts are reduced below a level of significance by requiring future developments to comply with requirements and design guidelines within the Specific Plan and Rialto Municipal Code.

The commenter is also referred to Chapter 4.G, Noise, for an analysis of noise and vibration impacts. As discussed therein, six (6) noise measurement locations were taken at the edges of the Project site. All locations had existing average noise levels less than 65dB with the exception of at the northeast edge of the WVWD Property (PA4), which had an existing average daytime noise level of 68dB. Table 4.G-9 of the Draft EIR indicates that noise from Project would not increase noise levels beyond the threshold identified in the City of Rialto General Plan (an increase in excess of 5dB). It is calculated the Project would the calculated noise levels by a maximum of

63.3dB when the Project initially opens. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant operational noise impact.

The Draft EIR also describes the anticipated construction-related noise impacts to existing off-site and future on-site sensitive uses, and the analysis determined that the impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.

Regarding vibration impacts, the vibration from construction activity is greatly reduced with distance. The Draft EIR states that the nearest dwelling unit is located approximately 200 feet from any of the Project’s grading activities. It should be noted that this is a single residence located to the east of the Project site. As described on page 4.G-25 of the Draft EIR, the threshold for any significant impacts related to vibration is 0.035 inches per second (PPV) at the nearest off-site residential use. This is the level when vibration is perceptible to people. The nearest residence in San Bernardino is expected to receive a maximum velocity of 0.004 PPV as a result of Project construction activities. It should be noted that the neighborhoods located in the City of Rialto are located at least 800 feet from any construction activities and the vibration experienced in these homes would be much less than described above. Therefore, no significant impact will occur from Project construction activities.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-29 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
However, as indicated on pages 4.G-27 through, 4.G-31, cumulative off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the existing residential uses in the surrounding area since no additional mitigation measures would be feasible (i.e., sound walls) along the existing roadways. As such, if the City of Rialto approves the Project, the City shall be required to cite their findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Letter D: RHWC

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-33 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Letter D
Riverside Highland Water Company
Response to Comment D-1. The initial comment is introductory to the remaining comments submitted in the August 25, 2017 letter, in which the comment identifies Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy as General Counsel to RHWC. This comment states that the comments herein supplement those previously submitted by RHWC and others in connection with the Project, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment D-2. RHWC is the owner of Assessor's Parcel No. 026-909-120. This parcel is bounded on the west side by the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan area. It is bounded on the northeast by Lytle Creek and on the Southeast by the railroad. RHWC is not the water supply agency to the Project site, does not have discretionary approval power of the Project and is not considered to be a “Responsible Agency” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15381. The City provided direct notification to RHWC for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for public review. RHWC provided an NOP comment letter, dated February 2, 2016. This comment letter was reviewed and considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The comment letter indicated that the Specific Plan makes no provisions to extend public access and utilities to the RHWC property essentially land locking the property. No development plans have been submitted to the City for the RHWC property. The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan is a program-level document that covers multiple property owners and does not require or specify any design elements except for a minimum 400-foot long “town center” street off the Main Driveway for the Project. Another potential design element is a welcoming plaza at the terminus of the potential pedestrian bridge. However, this welcoming plaza would only occur on the west side of Pepper Avenue. All other design elements of the Project will be reviewed and analyzed with a future application, including the ability of the Project to provide a private, internal connection with the RHWC property.

It should be noted that the existing site access for the RHWC property does not occur within the Project boundaries. Existing access occurs just east of the Project site, approximately 12 feet east of the West Valley Water District property. As depicted below, the existing RHWC site access continues south through the Union Pacific Railroad’s property, to N. Martin Road, which provides direct access to E. Baseline Road. Also, the RHWC property is currently zoned as the “Public Flood Control” (PFC) zone in the City of San Bernardino (the subject property is not within the City of Rialto boundaries). The purpose of the PFC zone is “to provide for the continuation, maintenance, and expansion of public flood control facilities” (Section

19.10.010.2.C of the City of San Bernardino Zoning Code). This existing zone does not allow for the establishment of new residential or retail uses. Since the existing site access does not occur within the Specific Plan area and no provisions within the Specific Plan prohibit RHWC’s ability to secure an access and/or utility easement with the Project’s property owners, no direct access to the RHWC property is necessary as part of the Specific Plan, as the property is not landlocked.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-34 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017

Image Source: Google Earth
In addition, this comment states that the City has not adequately attempted to coordinate environmental input from all interested parties. Contrary to the comment, the City provided notices to interested parties, including relevant agencies, during both the Initial Study and Draft EIR stages to solicit input and comments on the scope and environmental impacts associated with the Project.

Response to Comment D-3. Refer to Response D-2, above. The City reviewed and considered RHWC’s NOP comment letter, dated February 2, 2016, during preparation of the Draft EIR. This comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and therefore, no further response is necessary.

2.. Comments and Responses

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-35 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Response to Comment D-4. The commenter provides an opinion with respect to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, including general statements regardi ng mitigation measures and alternatives which would lessen the impacts of the project, but does not provide any evidentiary support for the assertions. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. C ounty of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580 [A comment that consists exclusively of mere argument and unsubstantiated opinion does not constitute substantial evidence]; CEQA Guideli nes § 15384.) Because this comment provides no evidence that the analysis and conclusions contained in the Draft EIR are inadequate or inappropriate, no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment D-5. The commenter provides an opinion with respect to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, but does not provide any evidentiary support for the assertions. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580 [A comment that consists exclusively of mere argument and unsubstantiated opinion does not constitute substantial evidence]; CEQA Guidelines § 15384.) Because this comment provides no evidence that the analysis and conclusions contained in the Draft EIR are inadequate or inappropriate, no further response is necessary.

Response to Comment D-6. Written responses to comments raised in an NOP comment letter are not required under CEQA. Rather, PRC Section 21091(d) requires NOP comments to be considered. RHWC’s NOP comment letter was considered during preparation of Draft EIR as discussed under Response D-2. Written responses are required for comments on a Draft EIR, which are provided herein. Regardless, Response D-2 addresses RHWC’s NOP comments regarding its property being potentially land-locked by the Specific Plan.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 3-1 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
CHAPTER 3
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
A. Introduction
This chapter provides changes and additions to the Draft EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or add to the information provided in that document as a result of comments received on the document. These changes and additions are based on comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review. These changes do not add significant new information to the Draft EIR, nor do they result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts from the Project.

B. Corrections and Additions
Changes to the Draft EIR are indicated below under the respective EIR section heading.

Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with a double underline.

Executive Summary

1. Page ES-7. Modify 1st paragraph with the following changes:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies 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. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.

Air Quality

1. Page 4.B-15. Modify Mitigation Measure AQ-1 with the following changes:

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 3-2 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
considered a large operation under Rule 403 and would be required to comply with the measures outlined in Rule 403(e) – Additional Requirement for Large Operations. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project Site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Additional requirements under Large Operations for dust control include, but are not limited to, maintaining a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, conduct water as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction, apply water/dust suppressants to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed areas daily when there is wind driven fugitive dust emissions, establish vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased, water all roads used for any vehicular traffic to suppress dust, apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces, and apply chemical stabilizer to open storage piles or apply water to 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles when evidence of wind driven fugitive dust. Contingency control measures for Large Operations include, but are not limited to, applying water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil, apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months on the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or when active operations will not occur for a period of four days or more, apply water or chemical stabilizer on unpaved roads and open storage piles, and cover all haul vehicles or comply with freeboard requirements. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Site watering would reduce the particulate matter from becoming airborne, while washing of transport vehicle tires and undercarriages would reduce re- entrainment of construction dust onto the local roadway network.

2. Page 4.B-40. Modify Mitigation Measure AQ-1 with the following changes:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies 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. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-1 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
CHAPTER 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A. CEQA Requirements
Section 15091(d) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the changes it has required in the project or conditions of approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) summarizes the mitigation commitments identified in the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016021047) which constitutes the Responses to Comments and the Draft EIR.

The City of Rialto is the Lead Agency for the Project and therefore is responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and Final EIR (designated by the respective environmental issue within Chapter 4.0 of the EIR) are implemented thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The MMRP also includes the proposed Project Design Features (PDFs) listed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, and throughout Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR.

The PDFs are specific design elements proposed by the Project that will be incorporated into the Project to prevent the occurrence of or to minimize the significance of potential environmental effects. Since PDFs have been incorporated into the Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures, as defined by Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). However, PDFs are included in this MMRP to ensure their implementation as a part of the Project. The Project would include PDFs related to: Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Material, Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic/Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems.

The MMRP for the Project will be in place through all phases of the Project, including design (preconstruction), construction, and operation (both prior to and post-occupancy). The City of Rialto Development Services Department will ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems.

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-2 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Each mitigation measure and PDF is categorized by impact area, with an accompanying identification of:
 Implementation Responsibility: Identifies the project applicant, department within the City, or other entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.  Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department within the City, project applicant, or consultant responsible for mitigation monitoring. However, until the mitigation measures are completed, the City of Rialto, as the CEQA Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the MMRP (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097(a)).
 Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.  Compliance Verification Responsibility: Identifies the department of the City or other State agency responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation.

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-3 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Air Quality
AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies 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. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously.

Project
Applicant/Construction
Contractor
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division (building
construction).

Referenced as a note
on grading plans and
building plans. Site
inspection.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Biological Resources
Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Special- Status Species:

BIO-1: Prior to and during construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to special-status plant and wildlife species:
 Construction limits shall be temporarily fenced prior to construction activities to avoid the inadvertent disturbance of areas adjacent to the construction limits. This fence shall be constructed as SBKR proof within alluvial fan sage scrub habitat (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2);
 A biological monitor shall be present during clearing and grubbing of the Project Site;
 All movement of construction c ontractors, including ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, shall be limited to the designated construction zones;
 Construction staging areas sha ll be located as far from the wash area as feasible;
 The use or rodenticides, herbici des, insecticides, or other Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
the preparation of a
storm water pollution
prevention plan and
habitat mitigation and
monitoring plan. If
applicable, written
evidence of completion
of and compliance with
requirements related to
consultation with the
CDFW.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-4 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
chemicals that could potentially harm special-status plant and animal species shall be prohibited;
 The proposed use and disposal o f oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel shall be enforced;
 Orientation meetings shall be conducted for construction personnel to review construction limits, conservation
measures, and the locations of any listed species that must be avoided; and
 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented with a storm water pollution prevention plan to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources outside of construction areas.

BIO-2: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana River
woollystar (SARWS):
 The Project shall be designed to avoid Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, where possible.
 The pedestrian crossing shall be designed to minimize changes in the hydrology that could impact the ability of the SARWS to disperse or to establish in sandy soils created by scour, and also minimize the amount of habitat that could become less suitable for SBKR with reduced scour.
 Water runoff from impervious sur faces shall be captured to ensure that the hydrological regime is not altered from the existing condition. Capturing the flows would also help reduce the number of road contaminants that enter the wash.
 Temporary impact areas shall require a weed abatement program for approximately 5-years to ensure it remains
suitable to SARWS and SBKR.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
preparation of a weed
abatement program. If
applicable, written
evidence of completion
of and compliance with
requirements related to
consultation with the
USFWS under Section
10 or Section 7 of the
Federal Endangered
Species Act.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Santa Ana River Woollystar:

BIO-3: Prior to any permanent or temporary direct impacts to the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS) and where avoidance of impacts through Project design is not possible, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Seeds from all the SARWS proposed for impacts shall be collected from the Project Site and deposited at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. The seeds shall be collected in Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
the preparation of a
habitat mitigation and
monitoring plan. If
applicable, written
evidence of completion
of and compliance with
Initials: __________
Date: __________

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-5 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
September before the first sizeable rain event (i.e. one of ½ inch or more) to increase the ability to collect the seeds and to ensure a high rate of germination.
 The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden shall divide the seeds for three uses: 1) for a permanent seed bank; 2) for
germination and growing seedlings; and 3) to preserve for later seeding or authorized research purposes.
 The propagated seedlings and a portion of preserved seeds shall be replanted within any temporary impact areas once construction has ceased, and any permanent impacts to
individual plants shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio within the proposed avoidance area (PA 9). Planting shall be
conducted October to December or as close to the winter rainy season as possible. All replanting shall be conducted pursuant to an approved mitigation and monitoring plan prepared and overseen by a qualified biologist. The plan should include, at minimum, a map of the restoration areas, a description of any irrigation methodology, measures to control exotic vegetation, specific success criteria, a detailed monitoring program, contingency measures should the success criteria not be met, and identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Monitoring of restoration areas should extend across a sufficient time frame to ensure that the new habitat is established, self-sustaining, and capable of surviving drought. requirements related to
consultation with the
USFWS under Section
10 or Section 7 of the
Federal Endangered
Species Act.

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat:

BIO-4: Prior to construction within San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) critical habitat, which consists of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS), the project applicant shall purchase mitigation credits from the Vulcan Materials mitigation land bank in Cajon Wash or equivalent preserved SBKR RAFSS habitat to offset permanent impacts to occupied SBKR critical habitat at a 3:1 ratio, and temporary or indirect impacts at a 1:1 ratio.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
verification of the
purchase of mitigation
credits.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Initials: __________
Date: __________
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to construction within Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
 A 4-foot high, 0.5-inch temporary steel mesh SBKR
exclusionary fence shall be placed along the perimeter
footprint where suitable SBKR habitat exists. The bottom of the exclusionary fence shall be buried below ground a minimum depth of 24 inches to minimize the potential that SBKR can re- Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
the preparation of a
habitat mitigation and
monitoring plan. If
applicable, written
evidence of completion
Initials: __________
Date: __________

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-6 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
enter the construction area and to preclude impacts to adjacent habitat. Trapping shall be conducted for SBKR within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities. Any SBKR or other sensitive mammal species that are captured shall be relocated outside the exclusionary fencing. Trapping shall be conducted by a permitted biologist and according to protocol;
 The temporary SBKR exclusionary fencing shall be maintained in place throughout the duration of construction in these areas to minimize take of SBKR during the construction phase and preclude the inadvertent disturbance of outlying areas by construction personnel. Access to SBKR habitat outside of the construction limits shall be prohibited and posted accordingly.

The exclusionary fence shall be inspected weekly and repaired as necessary so that there are no gaps greater than 0.5 inch on any portion of the fence that could allow SBKR entry into the Project Site;
 All the construction equipmen t shall meet applicable noise ordinances. Compliance with this requirement would minimize noise stress to SBKR in the vicinity of the Project Site; and  Contractor pets shall be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.
of and compliance with
requirements related to
consultation with the
USFWS under Section
10 or Section 7 of the
Federal Endangered
Species Act.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
 The pedestrian bridge supports s hall be designed to minimize impacts to SBKR habitat and allow continued movement of SBKR.
 Temporary impacts areas shall be revegetated with native shrub vegetation through container plantings to reestablish SBKR habitat and provide cover and facilitate movement of small mammals. All replanting shall be conducted pursuant to a mitigation and monitoring plan prepared and overseen by a qualified biologist.
 To minimize light and noise pollution, no night lighting shall be directed into the open space areas and noise levels should not exceed City standards.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
the preparation of a
habitat mitigation and
monitoring plan.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-7 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to burrowing owls.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: A protocol survey for burrowing owl shall be required prior to any ground disturbing activities within disturbed and non-native grassland habitats. The surveys shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol provided as Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) dated March 7, 2012. A qualified biologist, as defined in the CDFW Staff Report, shall conduct the surveys. Surveys shall preferably be conducted during the breeding season which requires 4 site visits, including at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15; and a minimum of three site visits at least three weeks apart between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15.

If burrowing owls are determined present during the focused survey, occupied burrows and habitat shall be avoided if feasible following the guidelines in the above referenced CDFW Staff Report. This includes, but is not limited to, avoiding direct or indirect destruction of burrows, implementing a worker awareness program, biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging burrows for avoidance with visible markers. Avoidance measures shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist. If occupied burrows or habitat cannot be avoided, appropriate compensation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the CDFW staff report and subject to approval by CDFW. This includes a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan for temporary or permanent exclusion of owls from occupied burrows, and/or a Mitigation Land Management Plan for permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering and dispersal comparable to or of higher quality than the impact area.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division; California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife.

Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Pre-Construction
Survey per CDFW
requirements prior to
issuance of a grading
permit and/or an action
that would result in
project site disturbance
(whichever occurs
first).

If present, preparation
and approval of a
mitigation plan.

Implementation of plan
prior to issuance of a
grading permit and/or
an action that would
result in project site
disturbance (whichever
occurs first).

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6 for mitigation measures regarding significant impacts to sensitive habitats. In addition, the following mitigation measure is prescribed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional features.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent or temporary impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as
applicable. The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies:

1. On-site and/or off-site creation, enhancement, and/or Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications. If
applicable, written
evidence of completion
of and compliance with
requirements related to
consultation with the

USACE, RWQCB,
and/or CDFW.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-8 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
restoration of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”/“waters of the State” within the Santa Ana Watershed at a ratio no less than 1:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for any temporary impacts to restore the impact area to pre-Project conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate where applicable). Off-site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in-perpetuity preservation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.

2. On-site and/or off-site replacement and/or restoration of CD FW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat within the Santa Ana Watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 3:1 for
permanent impacts, and for any temporary impacts to restore the impact area to pre-Project conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate where applicable). Any off-site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in- perpetuity preservation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.

3. Any purchase of mitigation credits through an agency- approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program shall occur prior to any impacts to jurisdictional drainages. If off-site mitigation is proposed on land acquired for the purpose of in- perpetuity mitigation that is not part of an agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program shall include the preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). A HMMP shall also be prepared for on-site
mitigation. The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to jurisdictional features, and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater function and value than the impacted habitat.

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to migratory birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would remove potentially suitable nesting habitat for raptors or songbirds, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Rialto that either of the following have been or will be accomplished.

1. Vegetation removal activiti es shall be scheduled outside the Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications, including
a report of the results
of any pre-construction
nest surveys.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-9 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
nesting season (i.e., September 1 to February 14 for
songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.

2. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting se ason (i.e., February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) would require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction, or as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. An appropriate buffer shall be determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts to the nesting bird(s) accounting for factors such as the species, type of construction activities, in addition to habitat and topography that may provide natural sound attenuation. The buffer may be modified and/or other
recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts.

Cultural Resources
Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Archeological Resources:

CUL-1: Conduct a Phase I Archaeological/ Historical Resources Assessment. For specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project that require excavation (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) or demolition activities, the City shall require Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessments on a project-by-project basis within the Specific Plan area to identify any archaeological resources within the footprint or immediate vicinity.

The level of effort for a Phase I assessment shall include a Sacred Lands File search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and a full-coverage pedestrian survey of the Project Site. In addition, the assessment shall include a review available geotechnical studies, site plans, and drilling/grading studies to determine the nature and depth of the construction activities to assist in determining the depths of fill versus native soils across the improvement footprint. If no resources are identified as a result of the pedestrian survey, it does not preclude the existence of buried resources within the improvement footprint. If this is the case, a qualified archaeologist shall determine the potential for the Project to encounter buried resources during construction based on the results of the record searches, depth of native versus fill soils, and proposed excavation parameters.

The following scenarios shall be followed depending on the results Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Preparation of
significance
evaluations as
applicable.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-10 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
of the Phase I assessment:
 If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, the n a Phase II evaluation shall be required, as described in CUL-2.  If no resources are identified as part of the assessment, no further analyses or mitigation shall be warranted, unless it can be determined that the project has a moderate to high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources.
 If it is determined that there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources, appropriate
mitigation such as construction monitoring shall be required as described in CUL-4, -5, and -6.

CUL-2: Conduct a Phase II Archaeological/Historical Resources Evaluation. If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, a Phase II Archaeological Resources Evaluation may be warranted if impacts from the improvements cannot be avoided.

The Phase II assessment shall evaluate the resource(s) for listing in the California Register and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to CEQA. If enough data is obtained from the Phase I assessment to conduct a proper evaluation, a Phase II evaluation may not be necessary.

Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not limited to: subsurface archaeological test excavations, additional background research, property history research, and coordination with Native Americans and other interested individuals in the community.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Preparation and
compliance with
applicable mitigation
plan to protect the
significant cultural
resource in question (if
applicable).

Initials: __________
Date: __________

CUL-3: Conduct a Phase III Assessment if Resources are Eligible.

If, as a result of the Phase II evaluation, resources are determined eligible for listing in the California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, potential impacts to the resources shall be analyzed and if impacts are significant (i.e., the improvement will cause a “substantial adverse change” to the resource) and cannot be avoided, mitigation measures shall be developed and
implemented, such as archaeological data recovery excavations to reduce impacts to the resources to a level that is less than significant.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring. If it is determined by the qualified archaeologist preparing the Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment that:
1) there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources; and 2) that construction monitoring is required during construction excavations such as clearing/grubbing, Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Establishment of
monitoring procedures.

Site observation.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Initials: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-11 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the proposed improvements, then the City shall require future development/Project applicants on a project-by- project basis within the Specific Plan area to retain a qualified archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor who shall be present during construction excavation activities.

The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the archaeological monitor.

Date: __________
CUL-5: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the archaeologist. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources are prehistoric in age) to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource or preserve it in place. The Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources are prehistoric in age), shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Establishment of
monitoring procedures.

Site observation.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Initials: __________
Date: __________
CUL-6: Prepare Archaeological Monitoring Report. The
archaeological monitor shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA, and treatment of the resources.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Preparation of
monitoring report.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Human Remains. Refer also to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to CUL-3.

CUL-7: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications. Site
Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-12 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
unearthed during construction exaction activities, the construction contractor shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The contractor and Project applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the landowner, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the landowner means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the landowner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and cultural items associated with Native American burials.

Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. MLDs in the region typically recommend reburial of the remains as close to the original burial location as feasible accompanied by a ceremony. The MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the Project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SBAIC.

If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the
recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the facility property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. A record of the reburial shall be filed with the NAHC and the CHRIS-SBAIC.
observation. Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-13 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Tribal Resources.

CUL- 8: If a tribe formally requests, in writing, to be notified of future specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project, the City shall begin AB 52 consultations with those particular tribes for all future development proposals within the Project Site. The purpose of those consultations would be to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources from a given development proposal.

City of Rialto Development
Services Department,
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Geology/Seismic
Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto Public
Works Department,
Engineering and Traffic
Division
Submittal and approval
of design level
geotechnical report, as
applicable, and
incorporation of the
requirements of such
reports into grading
and building plans.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-14 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division
Prior to real estate
transactions within the
project site.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Hazards
Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant/
Construction Contractor
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division (building
construction).

Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Sampling prior to
issuance of grading
permits. Direct
observations / site
inspections.

Evidence of
contaminated soil
sampling and removal,
as necessary.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Noise
NOISE-1: Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, to reduce and/or ensure exterior noise levels are at or below 65 CNEL at potential outdoor sensitive uses (i.e., residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas) proposed by the Specific Plan, a combination of sound barrier walls, earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by a qualified acoustical consultant, as necessary. Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind buildings (not facing traffic corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses from roadway noise and reduces the exterior noise level to 65 CNEL or below. Also, an acoustical engineer shall submit evidence, along with the application for a building permit, any design plans or features of sound insulation sufficient to mitigate interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Review and approval
of land use
applications, submittal
and review of noise
analyses as specified.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-15 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Public Services
Design Feature 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 andprovid e 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 em ergency 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.

Project Applicant/
Construction Contractor
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division (building
construction).

Submittal of
Construction
Management Plan to
City.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature DF SERVICE-2: Fire Fees – The applicant of each applicable 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature DF SERVICE-3: Police 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 3.33.210 – Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-16 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Design Feature DF SERVICE-4: Schools Fees – The applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees to the Rialto Unified School District (RUSD) as full mitigation for potential impacts to schools pursuant to 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Transportation and Traffic
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 Engineering Division. The City shall ensure that the improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at the Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-17 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
point in time necessary to avoid identified significant traffic impacts.

Riverside Avenue/Easton Street (Intersection #3):
 Participate in the signal modification to provide separate rig ht turn overlap signal phasing for the existing westbound right turn lane.

Eucalyptus Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #8):
 Northbound Approach: Provi des 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/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/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 ad ditional (second) left turn lane.

Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #11):
 Northbound Approach: Provide separate right turn lane.  Eastbound Approach: Provide ad ditional (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. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-18 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
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/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.

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

Design Feature DF TRAF-1: Pepper Avenue / Northerly Right‐ In/Right‐Out (RIRO) Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
 SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared
through‐right turn lane.
 EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division and Department
of Public Works,
Engineering and Traffic
Division
Evaluation of
development
proposals. Evidence of
improvements as
necessary to maintain
acceptable LOS and/or
provide acceptable
access.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-19 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Design Feature DF TRAF-2: Pepper Avenue / Main Driveway (intersection #23) – Install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
 SB Approach: Provide two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
 EB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and one shared through‐right lane.
 WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature DF TRAF-3: Pepper Avenue / Southerly RIRO Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐ out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
 SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared
through‐right turn lane.
 EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature DF TRAF-4: Pepper Avenue / South Driveway (intersection #24) – At complete build-out, or as otherwise determined by traffic needs, install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared
through‐right lane.
 SB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and two through lanes.  WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, and one right turn lane.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-20 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
Utilities Infrastructure
Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division and Department
of Public Works,
Engineering and Traffic
Division
Incorporation of
requirement into
building plans.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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 offsite 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 Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division and Department
of Public Works,
Engineering and Traffic
Division
Incorporation of
requirement into
building plans.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-21 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
station shall be designed to accommodate the calculated peak flow plus 9 percent.

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.

Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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.

Project Applicant/
Construction Contractor
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division (building
construction).

Submittal of SWPPP to
City.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

Design Feature 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 Project Site where LID features are not feasible or do not meet the feasibility criteria, treatment control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) with biotreatment
Project Applicant/
Construction Contractor
City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Building
Division (building
construction).

Submittal of WQMP to
City.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-22 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
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.

Design Feature 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.

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 southerly portion of the Project Site (within their respective Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division and Department
of Public Works,
Engineering and Traffic
Division
Incorporation of
requirement into
building plans.

Project Applicant

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4-23 ESA PCR
Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017
Mitigation Measure/Project Design Features
Implementation
Responsibility
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring/Reporting
Action
Monitoring Compliance Record
(Name/Date)
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.

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.

Project Applicant City of Rialto
Development Services
Department, Planning
Division
Imposition of
conditions of approval
for applicable land use
applications.

Initials: __________
Date: __________

PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report

State Clearinghouse Number 2016021047
Prepared for March 2017
City of Rialto

PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report

State Clearinghouse Number 2016021047
Prepared for March 2017
City of Rialto

2121 Alton Parkway
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
949.753.7001
www.pcrnet.com

Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan DEIR
Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ES-1 A. Project Description .......................................................................................... ES-1 B. Issues Raised During Notice of Preparation Process ..................................... ES-1 C. Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................... ES-2 D. Alternatives that Would Reduce or Avoid Significant Impacts ........................ ES-3 Chapter 1, Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 - 1 A. Purpose of the Draft EIR .................................................................................... 1-1 B. Program EIR ...................................................................................................... 1-2 C. EIR Scoping Process ......................................................................................... 1-3 D. Format of the Draft EIR ...................................................................................... 1-4 E. Public Review of the Draft EIR .......................................................................... 1-6 F. Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2, Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 B. Project Location and Surrounding uses ............................................................. 2-1 C. Project Site Ownership and Existing General Plan/Zoning Designations .......... 2-4 D. Existing Site Conditions ..................................................................................... 2-4 E. Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 2-6 F. Description of the Proposed Project .................................................................. 2-7 G. Anticipated Construction Schedule .................................................................. 2-27 H. Necessary Approvals ....................................................................................... 2-27 Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis ....................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 4.A-1 B. Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 4.B-1 C. Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 4.C-1 D. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 4.D-1 E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 4.E-1 F. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................. 4.F-1 G. Noise ............................................................................................................. 4.G-1 H. Transportation ............................................................................................... 4.H-1 Chapter 5, Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 5 - 1

1. Summary of the Alternatives .............................................................................. 5-1

2. Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 5-2

3. Alternatives Considered and Rejected ............................................................... 5 - 3

4. Analysis Format ................................................................................................. 5-4 Table of Contents

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ii ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................... 6-1 A. Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................................. 6-1 B. Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 6-2 C. Reasons Why the Project Is Being Proposed, Notwithstanding Significant Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................................... 6-2 D. Potential Secondary Effects Related to Project Mitigation ................................. 6-3 E. Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................... 6-5 F. Energy Conservation ......................................................................................... 6-6 G. Effects Found Not to be Significant .................................................................. 6-15 Chapter 7, List of Preparers .............................................................................................. 7-1

Appendices
A. Initial Study / Notice of Preparation
B. Air Quality Technical Appendix
C. Biological Resources Assessment
D. Cultural Resources Assessment
E. GHG Technical Appendix
F. Noise Technical Appendix
G. Traffic Impact Analysis
H. Energy Calculations

Figures
2-1
Regional Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 2-2 2-2 Local Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Existing Site Photographs ........................................................................................ 2-5 2-4 Land Use Plan ......................................................................................................... 2-9 2-5 Circulation Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-14 3-1 Related Projects Map............................................................................................... 3-4

4.C-1 Plant Communities ............................................................................................... 4.C-7

4.C-2 Santa Ana River Woollystar and Red-Tailed Hawk Nest Observations ............. 4.C-13

4.C-3 Jurisdictional Features ....................................................................................... 4.C-17

4.C-4 Potential Impacts to SARWS Plants and RAFSS Habitats ................................ 4.C-25

4.C-5 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ....................................................... 4.C-31

4.G-1 Common Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 4.G-2

4.G-2 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................ 4.G-6

4.H-1 Study Intersecti ons Location Map ........................................................................ 4.H-3

Table of Contents

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan iii ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Page

Tables
ES-1 Summary of Project Impacts, M itigation Measures, and Design Features ............ ES-6 2-1 Planning Area Land Use Summary ........................................................................ 2-10 2-2 Development Sc enarios Summary ........................................................................ 2-10 3-1 List of Rela ted Projects ............................................................................................ 3-3

4.A-1 Consistency o f the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Community Design Policies of the General Plan ............................................................................ 4.A-22

4.B-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2013–2015) ............................................................... 4.B-5

4.B-2 Project Area A ttainment Status ............................................................................. 4.B-6

4.B-3 State and National Criteri a Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ........... 4.B-8

4.B-4 SCAQMD Regional Air qualit y Significance Thresholds ..................................... 4.B-18

4.B-5 SCAQMD Localized air qualit y Significance Thresholds ..................................... 4.B-19

4.B-6 Scenario 1 Regional Unmiti gated Construction Emissions ................................. 4.B-24

4.B-7 Scenario 2 Regional Unmiti gated Construction Emissions ................................. 4.B-25

4.B-8 Scenario 1 Regional mitigat ed Construction Emissions ...................................... 4.B-26

4.B-9 Scenario 2 Regional Mitigat ed Construction Emissions ...................................... 4.B-26

4.B-10 Scenario 1 Regional Unmiti gated Operational Emissions ................................... 4.B-28

4.B-11 Scenario 2 Regional Unmiti gated Operational Emissions ................................... 4.B-29

4.B-12 Scenario 1 L ocalized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................... 4.B-33

4.B-13 Scenario 2 L ocalized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................... 4.B-34

4.B-14 Scenario 1 L ocalized Daily Operational Emissions ............................................. 4.B-35

4.B-15 Scenario 2 L ocalized Daily Operational Emissions ............................................. 4.B-36

4.B-16 Summary of Carcinogenic Ri sks for On-Site Sensitive Receptors ...................... 4.B-38

4.C-1 Plant Co mmunities ............................................................................................... 4.C-6

4.C-2 Jurisdicti onal Features ....................................................................................... 4.C-16

4.D-1 Consistency o f the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Cultural Resources Policies of the General Plan ........................................................................... 4.D-19

4.E-1 State of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................... 4.E-3

4.E-2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Required by AB 32............... 4.E-5

4.E-3 Scenario 1 – Annual GHG Emi ssions at Bulidout Year 2035 .............................. 4.E-17

4.E-4 Scenario 2 – Annual GHG Emi ssions at Bulidout Year 2035 .............................. 4.E-17

4.E-5 Project Consist ency with City of Rialto Reduction MEasures ............................. 4.F-18

4.F-1 Consistency o f the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan with Goals of the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS ......................................................................................................... 4.F-12

4.F-2 Comparison of the Pepper A venue Specific Plan with Applicable Policies of the General Plan .............................................................................................. 4.F-14

4.G-1 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteri a ............................... 4.G-4

4.G-2 Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements ......................................................... 4.G-7

4.G-3 Traffic Noise Model Calibration Results ............................................................... 4.G-8

4.G-4 Predicted Existing Vehicular Traffic Noise Levels ................................................ 4.G-9

4.G-5 City of Rialto Land Use Co mpatibility for Community Noise Environments........ 4.G-11

4.G-6 Maximum Noise Levels and Es timated Usage of Typical Construction Equipment ...................................................................................................... 4.G-16

4.G-7 Estimate of Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receiver Locations ........................................................................................................ 4.G-17

4.G-8 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Existing Baseline Conditions ........................... 4.G-19

4.G-9 Off-Site Traffic Noise I mpacts – Future 2017 Baseline Conditions .................... 4.G-21

4.G-10 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Future 2035 Baseline Conditions .................... 4.G-23

4.G-11 Typical Vibration Velocities for Potential Project Construction Equipment ......... 4.G-26

4.G-12 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Opening Year 2017 Cumulative Increment ..... 4.G-28

4.G-13 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Long Range Year 2035 Cumulative Increase .. 4.G-30 Table of Contents

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan iv ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Tables (cont.)

4.H-1 Intersection A nalysis Locations ............................................................................ 4.H-2

4.H-2 Roadway Segmen t Analysis Locations ................................................................ 4.H-4

4.H-3 Freeway Mainline Segm ent Analysis Locations ................................................... 4.H-4

4.H-4 Signalized Intersecti on Description of LOS .......................................................... 4.H-7

4.H-5 Unsignalized Intersec tion Description of LOS ...................................................... 4.H-7

4.H-6 Intersection Operations Anal ysis Summary For Existing (2014) Conditions ........ 4.H-9

4.H-7 Traffic Signal Warr ant Analysis Locations .......................................................... 4.H-10

4.H-8 City of Rialt o Roadway Capacity ........................................................................ 4.H-15

4.H-9 Freeway Mainli ne LOS Thresholds .................................................................... 4.H-16

4.H-10 Project Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................... 4.H-24

4.H-11 Project Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................... 4.H-24

4.H-12 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditio ns ................................. 4.H-27

4.H-13 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2017) Without Pr oject Conditions ....... 4.H-29

4.H-14 Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2017) With Proje ct Conditions ............ 4.H-31

4.H-15 Intersection Analysis for Long Range (2035) Without Proj ect Conditions .......... 4.H-34

4.H-16 Intersection Analysis for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions ............... 4.H-36

4.H-17 Intersection Summary for Impacts at Non-Deficient Locations for Long Range (2035) Conditions ........................................................................................... 4.H-38

4.H-18 Roadway Volume/Capacity Analysis for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4.H-39

4.H-19 Basic Freeway Segment A nalysis for Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4.H-40

4.H-20 Basic Freeway Segment A nalysis for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4.H-41

4.H-21 Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Interchange Area Queuing Analysis S ummary for Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions, With Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................. 4.H-45 5-1 Alternative 2 Vehicle Trips Compared to Project Vehicle Trips .............................. 5-11 5-2 Alternative 3 Vehicle Trips Compared to Project Vehicle Trips .............................. 5-19 5-3 Comparison of Alternatives – Ability to Meet Project Object ives ............................ 5-21 5-4 Comparison of Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-22 6-1 Estimated Project Cons truction Fuel Usage ............................................................ 6-9 6-2 Estimated Project O perational Energy Usage ........................................................ 6-14

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et. seq.) with respect to the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15123, this chapter of the EIR includes (1) a brief description of the project; (2) issues raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process including areas of controversy known to the lead agency; (3) identification of potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those impacts; and (4) issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether and how to mitigate the potential significant impacts.

A. Project Description
The City of Rialto is proposing the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (the “Project”) to guide development of a primarily vacant approximate 101.7-acre site south of the 210 Freeway along Pepper Avenue in the City of Rialto. Proposed land uses include community commercial uses with up to approximately 462,000 square feet (SF) of retail shopping center and 125,000 SF of business park uses. In addition, a residential overlay would allow up to 275 multi-family dwelling units, which if developed, would replace 116,000 SF of retail shopping center, leaving a total of 346,000 SF of retail shopping center use.

A detailed discussion of the Project is provided in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR.

B. Issues Raised During Notice of Preparation Process
The following summarizes the key potential environmental issues raised in response to the NOP and during the public scoping meeting (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR chapter/section in which the analysis is provided) and areas of controversy known to the City of Rialto. The NOP comments related to the Initial Study analysis are contained in Appendix A of this EIR.

Project Description
 Extension of public access and utilities to the Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC) property (Refer to Chapter 1, Project Description, of this EIR).  Open space preservation and bridge to Frisbie Park (Refer to Chapter 1, Project Description, of this EIR).

Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 Pedestrian connections and easements (Refer to Chapter 1, Project Description, of this EIR).

Biological Resources
 Impacts on sensitive plant and animal species (refer to Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this EIR).
 Impacts on streams and wetlands (refer to Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this EIR).  Impacts on wildlife corridors (refer to Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this EIR).  California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional features and boundary (refer to Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this EIR).

Hydrology
 Hydrological and drainage conditions (refer to the Initial Study, Subsection IX, Hydrology, contained in Appendix A of this EIR.

Geology
 Geological hazards (refer to the Initial Study, Subsection VI, Geology and Soils, contained in Appendix A of this EIR.

Land Use
 Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (adopted 2016) (refer to Section 4.F, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR).

Public Services
 Impacts to Rialto Unified School District facilities (refer to Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, of this EIR, and Initial Study Subsection XIV, Public Services, contained in Appendix A of this EIR).

Transportation/Traffic
 Operational characteristics of State facilities, including SR-210 (refer to Section 4.H, Transportation, of this EIR).

Utilities and Service Systems
 Water supply (refer to the Initial Study, Subsection XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR).

C. Summary of Environmental Impacts
This section provides a summary of impacts, mitigation measures, and impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures associated with implementation of the Project. The summary is provided by environmental issue area below in Table ES-1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Section 15126.2(b) of the 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 shown in Table ES-1, based on analyses contained in this EIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding off-site noise resulting from cumulative traffic. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, construction and operational noise, and transportation were determined to be potentially significant, but reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures. Other issues addressed in the Draft EIR, in which impacts were determined to be less than significant, include aesthetics and land use and planning.

Please see Section 4.G, Noise, or further discussion of the issues resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

D. Alternatives that Would Reduce or Avoid
Significant Impacts

1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
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.

2. Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity 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 Executive Summary

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

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).

3. Alternative 3: Existing Zoning Map 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.

4. Environmentally Superior Alternative
A comparative discussion of the environmental impacts anticipated under each alternative is provided in Chapter 5 of this EIR, while a summary of the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives is provided in Table 5-3, Comparison of Alternatives - Ability to Meet Project Objectives. A summary of impacts associated with each Alternative compared to Project impacts is provided in Table 5-4, Comparison of Impacts.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the 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. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. With respect to identifying an environmentally superior alternative among those analyzed in this EIR, the range of feasible alternatives to be considered includes Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative, Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Alternative 2 – Reduced Intensity Alternative, and Alternative 3 – Existing Zoning Designation Alternative.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the No Project/No Build 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.

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 shown in Table 5-3, Alternative 3 would not 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 Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE ES-1

SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND DESIGN FEATURES Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation

4.A Aesthetics
VIEWS/SCENIC VISTAS - Impact Statement AES-1: Because of the of the distances between the future development and public vantage points (setbacks created by permanent open space), ground elevation differences, and height restrictions on the Project’s commercial and residential buildings, the Project would not substantially block views of the San Bernardino Mountains or San Gabriel Mountains from off-site public view locations. This impact is considered less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant VISUAL CHARACTER - Impact Statement AES-2: The Design
Guidelines of the Specific Plan would guide development and ensure aesthetically pleasing building design, streetscape, landscape, building orientation, pedestrian amenities and other features that would contribute to the permanent visual character of the area. Thus, the Specific Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This impact is considered less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant LIGHT AND GLARE - Impact Statement AES-3: The Specific
Plan would require shielding of street lights and other exterior lighting, signage requirements to reduce glare, Implementation of the proposed project would not create substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact is considered less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant

4.B Air Quality
CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN - Impact
Statement AQ-1: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (including, but not limited to, the AQMP, RTP, general plans, etc.) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact is considered less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
VIOLATION OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - Impact Statement
AQ-2: Implementation of the Project could violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during Project construction activities. Maximum regional construction emissions resulting from construction of Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for NOX, without mitigation resulting in potentially significant construction impacts. Regional emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD daily significance thresholds, with impacts being less than significant. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce the Project’s potentially significant construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Mitigation Measure AQ-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines.

In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant must demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily NOx and PM

Less than significant
CUMULATIVE POLLUTANT INCREASES - Impact Statement
AQ-3: Implementation of the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). As the Project would have maximum daily construction emissions that exceed the thresholds for NOx, implementation of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan could contribute incrementally to regional ozone and NO2 and would therefore result in potentially significant impacts. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce the Project’s construction-related impacts to a less than significant level, thereby precluding the Project from resulting in cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant increases in this regard during construction activities. Operation of the Project would result in emissions that would not cumulatively contribute to any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment, therefore resulting in less than significant cumulative operational impacts.

Potentially significant Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Less than significant Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS - Impact Statement AQ-4:

Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction activities. Localized on-site construction emissions resulting from construction of Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD localized significance threshold for PM2.5, without mitigation resulting in potentially significant construction impacts. Localized emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD localized significance thresholds, with impacts being less than significant. In addition, implementation of the Project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to significant levels of toxic air contaminants or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots, resulting in less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce the Project’s potentially significant localized construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Less than significant EXPOSURE TO OBJECTIONABLE ODORS - Impact Statement
AQ-5: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Future development pursuant to the Specific Plan consists of business park, residential and commercial uses that are not expected to be a source of off-site odor complaints. In addition, the Project is not located near any sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD handbook. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding objectionable odors.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant

4.C Biological Resources
SENSITIVE SPECIES - Impact Statement BIO-1: Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, threatened or endangered in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Special- Status Species:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to and during construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to special-status plant and wildlife species:
 Construction limits shall be temporarily fenced prior to construction activities to avoid the inadvertent
disturbance of areas adjacent to the construction limits.

This fence shall be constructed as SBKR proof within
alluvial fan sage scrub habitat (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2);
Less than significant
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 A biological monitor shall be present during clearing and grubbing of the Project Site;
 All movement of construction contractors, including
ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, shall be limited to the designated construction zones;
 Construction staging areas sha ll be located as far from the wash area as feasible;
 The use or rodenticides, herbici des, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm special-status plant and animal species shall be prohibited;
 The propose use and disposal o f oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel shall be enforced;
 Orientation meetings shall be conducted for construction personnel to review construction limits, conservation
measures, and the locations of any listed species that
must be avoided; and
 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be
implemented with a storm water pollution prevention plan to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources
outside of construction areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS):
 The Project shall be designed to avoid Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, where possible.
 The pedestrian crossing shall be designed to minimize changes in the hydrology that could impact the ability of the SARWS to disperse or to establish in sandy soils
created by scour, and also minimize the amount of
habitat that could become less suitable for SBKR with
reduced scour.
 Water runoff from impervious s urfaces shall be captured to ensure that the hydrological regime is not altered from the existing condition. Capturing the flows would also
help reduce the number of road contaminants that enter
the wash.

Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 Temporary impact areas shall require a weed abatement program for approximately 5-years to ensure it remains
suitable to SARWS and SBKR.

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Santa Ana River Woollystar:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to any permanent or temporary direct impacts to the Santa Ana River woollystar (SARWS) and where avoidance of impacts through Project design is not possible, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Seeds from all the SARWS proposed for impacts shall
be collected from the Project Site and deposited at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. The seeds shall be
collected in September before the first sizeable rain
event (i.e. one of ½ inch or more) to increase the ability to collect the seeds and to ensure a high rate of
germination.
 The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden shall divide the
seeds for three uses: 1) for a permanent seed bank; 2)
for germination and growing seedlings; and 3) to
preserve for later seeding or authorized research
purposes.
 The propagated seedlings and a portion of preserved
seeds shall be replanted within any temporary impact
areas once construction has ceased, and any permanent
impacts to individual plants shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio within the proposed avoidance area
(PA 9). Planting shall be conducted October to
December or as close to the winter rainy season as
possible. All replanting shall be conducted pursuant to an approved mitigation and monitoring plan prepared and
overseen by a qualified biologist. The plan should
include, at minimum, a map of the restoration areas, a
description of any irrigation methodology, measures to
control exotic vegetation, specific success criteria, a detailed monitoring program, contingency measures
should the success criteria not be met, and identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Monitoring of restoration areas should extend across a sufficient time frame to ensure that the new
habitat is established, self-sustaining, and capable of Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
surviving drought.

Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat:

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to construction within San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) critical habitat, which consists of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS), the project applicant shall purchase mitigation credits from the Vulcan Materials mitigation land bank in Cajon Wash or equivalent preserved SBKR RAFSS habitat to offset permanent impacts to occupied SBKR critical habitat at a 3:1 ratio, and temporary or indirect impacts at a 1:1 ratio.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to construction within
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following measures shall be implemented to minimize temporary direct and indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
 A 4-foot high, 0.5-inch temporary steel mesh SBKR
exclusionary fence shall be placed along the perimeter
footprint where suitable SBKR habitat exists. The bottom of the exclusionary fence shall be buried below ground a minimum depth of 24 inches to minimize the potential
that SBKR can re-enter the construction area and to
preclude impacts to adjacent habitat. Trapping shall be conducted for SBKR within 30 days prior to ground
disturbing activities. Any SBKR or other sensitive
mammal species that are captured shall be relocated
outside the exclusionary fencing. Trapping shall be
conducted by a permitted biologist and according to
protocol;
 The temporary SBKR exclusionary fencing shall be
maintained in place throughout the duration of
construction in these areas to minimize take of SBKR
during the construction phase and preclude the
inadvertent disturbance of outlying areas by construction personnel. Access to SBKR habitat outside of the
construction limits shall be prohibited and posted
accordingly. The exclusionary fence shall be inspected
weekly and repaired as necessary so that there are no
gaps greater than 0.5 inch on any portion of the fence
that could allow SBKR entry into the Project Site;
 All the construction equipm ent shall meet applicable noise ordinances. Compliance with this requirement
would minimize noise stress to SBKR in the vicinity of
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
the Project Site; and
 Contractor pets shall be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prior to construction within and adjacent to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat the following design features shall be implemented to minimize long-term indirect effects to San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR):
 The pedestrian bridge supports shall be designed to
minimize impacts to SBKR habitat and allow continued
movement of SBKR.
 Temporary impacts areas shall be revegetated with
native shrub vegetation through container plantings to
reestablish SBKR habitat and provide cover and facilitate movement of small mammals. All replanting shall be
conducted pursuant to a mitigation and monitoring plan
prepared and overseen by a qualified biologist.
 To minimize light and noise pollution, no night lighting shall be directed into the open space areas and noise
levels should not exceed City standards.

Mitigation for Potentially Significant Impacts to Burrowing Owl:

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: A protocol survey for burrowing owl shall be required during prior to any ground disturbing activities within disturbed and non-native grassland habitats. The surveys shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol provided as Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) dated March 7, 2012. A qualified biologist, as defined in the CDFW Staff Report, shall conduct the surveys. Surveys shall preferably be conducted during the breeding season which requires 4 site visits, including at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15; and a minimum of three site visits at least three weeks apart between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
biologist. If occupied burrows or habitat cannot be avoided, appropriate compensation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the CDFW staff report and subject to approval by CDFW. This includes a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan for temporary or permanent exclusion of owls from occupied burrows, and/or a Mitigation Land Management Plan for permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering and dispersal comparable to or of higher quality than the impact area.

SENSITIVE HABITATS - Impact Statement BIO-2:

Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to B IO-6. In addition, the following mitigation measure is prescribed:

1. On-site and/or off-site creation, enhancement, and/or restoration of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”/“waters of the State” within the Santa Ana
Watershed at a ratio no less than 1:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent
impacts, and for any temporary impacts to restore the
impact area to pre-Project conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate where applicable). Off-site
mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in-perpetuity preservation, or through the purchase of
mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.

2. On-site and/or off-site replacement and/or restoration of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian
habitat within the Santa Ana Watershed at a ratio no less than 2:1 or within an adjacent watershed at a ratio no less than 3:1 for permanent impacts, and for any temporary
impacts to restore the impact area to pre-Project
conditions (i.e., pre-Project contours and revegetate
where applicable). Any off-site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in-perpetuity
preservation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.

3. Any purchase of mitigation credits through an agency- Less than significant
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program shall
occur prior to any impacts to jurisdictional drainages. If off- site mitigation is proposed on land acquired for the
purpose of in-perpetuity mitigation that is not part of an agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program
shall include the preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). A HMMP shall
also be prepared for on-site mitigation. The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to jurisdictional features, and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater
function and value than the impacted habitat.

WETLANDS – Impact Statement BIO-3: The Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Refer to M itigation Measure BIO-8. Less than significant WILDLIFE CORRIDORS - Impact Statement BIO-4:

Implementation of the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially significant Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to B IO-7. In addition, the following mitigation measure is prescribed:

1. Vegetation removal activi ties shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (i.e., September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
appropriate buffer shall be determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts to the nesting bird(s)
accounting for factors such as the species, type of
construction activities, in addition to habitat and
topography that may provide natural sound attenuation.

The buffer may be modified and/or other
recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by
the biologist to minimize impacts.

POLICY CONSISTENCY - Impact Statement BIO-5: The Project would be consistent with local policies to conserve and enhance biological resources within the City. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would ensure compliance with the City’s policies and, therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.

Potentially significant. Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-9. Less than significant CONSERVATION PLAN CONSISTENCY - Impact Statement BIO-6: There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with which the Project would conflict. No impact would occur in this regard.

No impact No mitigation meas ures are necessary. No Impact

4.D Cultural Resources
HISTORICAL ROURCES - Impact Statement Cul-1:

Implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impacts would occur in this regard.

No impact No mitigation measures are necessary. No impact ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Impact Statement CUL-2:

Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5. This impact is considered potentially significant.

However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Conduct a Phase I Archaeological/Historical Resources Assessment. For specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project that require excavation (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) or demolition activities, the City shall require Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessments on a project-by-project basis within the Specific Plan area to identify any archaeological resources within the footprint or immediate vicinity. The level of effort for a Phase I assessment shall include a Sacred Lands File search through the California Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) and a full-coverage pedestrian survey of the Project Site. In addition, the assessment shall include a review available geotechnical studies, site plans, and drilling/grading studies to determine the nature and depth of the construction activities to assist in determining the depths of fill versus native soils across the improvement footprint. If no resources are identified as a result of the pedestrian survey, it does not preclude Less than significant
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
the existence of buried resources within the improvement footprint.

If this is the case, a qualified archaeologist shall determine the potential for the Project to encounter buried resources during construction based on the results of the record searches, depth of native versus fill soils, and proposed excavation parameters.

The following scenarios shall be followed depending on the results of the Phase I assessment:
 If resources are identified during the Phase I
assessment, then a Phase II evaluation shall be
required, as described in CUL-2.
 If no resources are identified as part of the assessment, no further analyses or mitigation shall be warranted,
unless it can be determined that the project has a
moderate to high potential to encounter buried
archaeological resources.
 If it is determined that there is a moderate or high
potential to encounter buried archaeological resources, appropriate mitigation such as construction monitoring
shall be required as described in CUL-4, -5, and -6.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Conduct a Phase II
Archaeological/Historical Resources Evaluation. If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, a Phase II
Archaeological Resources Evaluation may be warranted if impacts from the improvements cannot be avoided. The Phase II
assessment shall evaluate the resource(s) for listing in the California Register and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to CEQA. If enough data is obtained from the Phase I assessment to conduct a proper evaluation, a Phase II evaluation may not be necessary.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Conduct a Phase III Assessment if Resources are Eligible. If, as a result of the Phase II evaluation, resources are determined eligible for listing in the California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, potential impacts to the resources shall be analyzed and if impacts are significant (i.e., the improvement will cause a “substantial adverse change” to the resource) and cannot be avoided, Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented, such as archaeological data recovery excavations to reduce impacts to the resources to a level that is less than significant
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring. If it is determined by the qualified archaeologist preparing the Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment that: 1) there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources; and 2) that construction monitoring is required during construction excavations such as clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the proposed improvements, then the City shall require future
development/Project applicants on a project-by-project basis within the Specific Plan area to retain a qualified archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor who shall be present during construction excavation activities.

The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered.

Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the archaeological monitor.

Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the vicinity of the find. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the archaeologist. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources are prehistoric in age) to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource or preserve it in place. The Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist and Native American monitor (if the resources are prehistoric in age), shall designate repositories in the event that archaeological material is recovered.

Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Prepare Archaeological Monitoring Report. The archaeological monitor shall prepare a final report at Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA, and treatment of the resources.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Impact Statement CUL-3:

Implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No impacts would occur in this regard.

No impact No mitigation measures are necessary No impact HUMAN REMAINS - Impact Statement CUL-4: Implementation of the Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown human remains to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to C UL-3. In addition, the following mitigation measure is prescribed:

Mitigation Measure CUL -7: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during construction exaction activities, the construction contractor shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The contractor and Project applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC.

The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the landowner, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the landowner means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the landowner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and cultural items associated with Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall Less than significant
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. MLDs in the region typically recommend reburial of the remains as close to the original burial location as feasible accompanied by a ceremony.

The MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the Project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SBAIC.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - Impact Statement CUL-5:

Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. This impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Potentially significant Mitigation Measure CUL-8: If a tribe formally requests, in writing, to be notified of future specific development proposals that are initiated under the Project, the City shall begin AB 52 consultations with those particular tribes for all future development proposals within the Project Site. The purpose of those consultations would be to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources from a given development proposal.

Less than significant

4.E Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG EMISSIONS - Impact Statement GHG-1: The Project would generate GHG emissions due to construction and operational activities; however, the net increase in annual GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, would be consistent with the City of Rialto GHG reduction measures and SBC Reduction Plan. Therefore, as the Project would be consistent with the applicable City’s goals and actions for GHG emissions, GHG emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLANS -Impact Statement
GHG-2: The Project would be consistent with the AB 32 goals and CARB guidelines for assessing GHG emissions. Further, the Project would include land use characteristics and design strategies that would be consistent with State, Regional, and Local Regulations for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, as the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, impacts regarding greenhouse gas reduction plans would be less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant

4.F Land Use and Planning

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES -
Impact Statement LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, including California Government Code 65450, SCAG policy documents, the City of Rialto General Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, land use impacts are considered less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Less than significant

4.G Noise
CONSTRUCTION NOISE - Impact Statement Noise-1:

Construction activities associated with Project implementation would be conducted within the allowable hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant OPERATIONAL NOISE - Impact Statement Noise-2: The
Project’s noise impacts on existing development from operational on-site stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

Project operational traffic would increase ambient noise levels at off-site noise-sensitive uses in the Project area; however, the increases would not exceed the established thresholds. Operational traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. Potential future residences could be exposed to traffic-related noise levels that would exceed thresholds. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would ensure this potentially significant noise impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

Cumulative noise due to roadway traffic would fall on noise- sensitive land uses within an area categorized as either “normally Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, to reduce and/or ensure exterior noise levels are at or below 65 CNEL at potential outdoor sensitive uses (i.e., residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas) proposed by the Specific Plan, a combination of sound barrier walls, earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by a qualified acoustical consultant, as necessary.

Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind buildings (not facing traffic corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses from roadway noise and reduces the exterior noise level to 65 CNEL or below. Also, an acoustical engineer shall submit evidence, along with the application for a building permit, any design plans or features of sound insulation sufficient to mitigate interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable Significant and
unavoidable
(Cumulative traffic
noise impact only)
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
incompatible” or “clearly incompatible.” Therefore, impacts would be significant.
room.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 does not apply to off-site noise sensitive receptors and does mitigate off-site significant cumulative traffic noise impacts.

VIBRATION - Impact Statement Noise-3: Construction activities would result in sporadic, temporary vibration effects adjacent to the Project Site, which would not exceed established thresholds. Thus, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant HUMAN ANNOYANCE - Impact Statement Noise-4: Project
operation would not generate excessive vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Thus, long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant

4.H Transportation
TRAFFIC - Impact Statement traf-1: With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure and the Project’s applicable design features, potentially significant traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, implementation of the Project under Existing Plus Project, Opening Year (2017), and Long Range (2035) conditions would not substantially conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Potentially significant 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 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.

Less than significant
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Eucalyptus Avenue/Baseline Road (Intersection #8):
 Northbound Approach: Provi des 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/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/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.

Pepper Avenue/Mariposa Drive (Intersection #13):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.

Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 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/Etiwanda Avenue (Intersection #15):
 Participate in construction of a traffic signal.

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.

The following design features are also applicable to minimizing traffic-related impacts during construction activities and long-term operation:

DF SERVICE-1: Construction Management Plan – A construction management plan shall be developed by the applicant or contractor of each future developments proposed within the Specific Plan area and approved by the City of Rialto Public Works Department prior to construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
 Identify the locations of the off-site truck staging and provide measures to ensure that trucks use the specified haul route, as applicable, and do not travel through
nearby residential neighborhoods or schools;
 Schedule vehicle movements to ensure that there are no vehicles waiting off-site and impeding public traffic flow on surrounding streets;
 Establish requirements for loading/unloading and storage of materials on the Project Site;
Executive Summary

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 Coordinate with the City and emergency service
providers to ensure adequate access is maintained to
and around the Project Site; and
 During construction activiti es 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.

Design Feature DF TRAF-2: Pepper Avenue / Main Driveway (intersection #23) – Install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through
lane, and one shared through right lane.
 SB Approach: Provide two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
 EB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and one shared through‐right lane.
 WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through
lane, and one right turn lane.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan ES-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Environmental Impact
Impact Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures/Design Features
Impact Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
 SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared
through‐right turn lane.
 EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.

Design Feature DF TRAF-4: Pepper Avenue / South Driveway (intersection #24) – At complete build-out, or as otherwise determined by traffic needs, install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared
through‐right lane.
 SB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and two through lanes.
 WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, and one right turn lane.

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT - 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.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant TRAFFIC HAZARDS - 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.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Refer also to DF TRAF-1 to DF TRAF-4.

Less than significant
PLAN AND POLICY CONSISTENCY - 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.

Less than significant No mitigati on measures are necessary. Les s than significant

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A. Purpose of the Draft EIR
The City of Rialto (the City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsible for preparing the EIR for the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (the Project or Specific Plan) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016021047). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Content of an EIR).

In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, a primary purpose of this EIR is to provide decision-makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with the Project, identify ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the Project. Mitigation measures are provided in order to reduce the significance of impacts resulting from the Project, as are alternatives to the Project. In addition, this EIR is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the Project.

The City, which has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the Project, will use and consider information in this EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process, during the decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the Project. Significant environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed, per Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “statement of overriding considerations.” This document analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. This analysis considers the actions associated with the Project, to determine the short- term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this Project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA requires the preparation of an objective, full disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
the direct and indirect environmental effects of the Project; provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant adverse effects; and identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Project that can reduce or eliminate significant adverse effects of the Project.

B. Program EIR
The Project is subject to a program EIR because the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan constitutes a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project that is related: “a) geographically; b) as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; and c) in connection with the issuance of…plans…to govern the conduct of a continuing program…” (CEQA Guidelines 15168[a]). A program EIR generally establishes a foundation for “tiered” or project-level environmental documents that may be subsequently prepared in accordance with the overall program. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b), a program EIR can provide the following advantages:

1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action;

2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a project-level analysis;

3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations;

4. Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at the earliest possible time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and

5. Allow a reduction in paperwork.

The Program EIR analyzes, at a general level, the maximum extent of potential development scenarios within the Project Site, policies and management actions. In this way, decision-makers and the public can get a sense of the overall physical effects of the whole Project. The purpose of the Program EIR is to focus attention to those aspects of a future project (often a long-range plan) that could bring about adverse physical impacts. A Program EIR in this way serves as a foundation for subsequent environmental documentation and/or clearance. CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 indicates that “the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” The Program EIR identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the program- wide policies and management actions presented in the Specific Plan, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce impacts determined to be significant. With the Program EIR, the City and the public will be able to consider the Project in its entirety and the impacts of associated with policies and management actions in the Specific Plan, some of which might be overlooked if considered on a case-by-case basis. The Program EIR also allows for consideration of broad policy alternatives and their possible environmental effects in a more exhaustive manner than would otherwise be possible. Optimally, this process allows for development of program-wide mitigation measures at a stage when the City has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative environmental impacts, and provides an opportunity to reduce paperwork. Program- level analysis differs from project-level analysis, which is based on evaluation of architectural plans for construction of a given.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or specific plan) with later environmental documents on narrower projects, incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR. Where a Lead Agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a specific plan, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Lead Agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. The approval of the Specific Plan itself would not directly result in any specific development project. However, the environmental analysis and mitigation measures provided within Chapter 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, have been prepared utilizing a programmatic approach under CEQA, intended to provide the opportunity for tiering (per Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines) when future development applications are received. As a Program EIR, it should be understood that certain of the impacts identified, and the mitigation measures recommended in this document, are inherently limited in their specificity. As such, subsequent and more focused environmental review may take place based on evaluation of individual project proposals if they have the potential to result in impacts that are not adequately addressed and mitigated in this Program EIR. With subsequent environmental review, this Program EIR will be used as the basis for Initial Study determinations of impact significance, to focus subsequent project review, if required, on only those effects not adequately considered before, and to incorporate relevant information and analysis by reference.

C. EIR Scoping Process
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, an effort was made to contact various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed project. This included the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the holding of a public scoping meeting.

1. Initial Study
In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that of the following environmental issue areas may be significantly impacted by Project and should be further evaluated in this Draft EIR:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Transportation/Traffic

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Based on the Initial Study, issues for which no or less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur are identified in Chapter 6, Other Environmental Considerations, of this EIR.

2. Notice of Preparation
Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public for a 30-day period commencing January 25, 2016 and ending February 19, 2016. The purpose of the NOP was to formally convey that the City is preparing a Draft EIR for the Project, and to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The Initial Study was circulated with the NOP. The NOP, Initial Study, and responses to the NOP are provided in Appendix A, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters.

3. Public Scoping Meeting
The City advertised a notice of public scoping meeting for the Project, which was held on Thursday, February 4, 2016 at Frisbie Middle School located at 1442 N. Eucalyptus Avenue in the City of Rialto. The meeting was held with the specific intent of affording interested individuals/groups and public agencies to assist the lead agency in determining the scope and focus of the EIR as described in the NOP and Initial Study.

4. Comments Received
The NOP/Initial Study was distributed to various public agencies, other entities, and members of the public in order to receive input on the scope and content of environmental information to be provided in this EIR. Comments were received from the Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC), West Valley Water District (WVWD), Rialto Unified School District (RUSD),San Bernardino County Department of Public Works (SBCDWP), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDWF), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as well as two private entities including BBC Properties, LLC, and Gresham/Savage Attorneys at Law. The NOP comments are contained in Appendix A and summarized in the Executive Summary under the “Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved” subheading.

D. Format of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR includes eight chapters as well as appendices, which are organized as follows:

1. Introduction . This chapter provides: background information on the Project; describes the purpose of the EIR; approach of the EIR; provides CEQA compliance information relative to

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
the Project and the EIR; provides a brief overview of the environmental review process; identifies areas of controversy and issues to be resolved in the EIR; and outlines the organization of the EIR.

2. Project Description . This chapter describes the Project location, Project details and the City’s overall objectives for the Project.

7. References . This chapter lists all of the references and sources used in the preparation of the document.

8. List of Preparers. This chapter lists all of the persons, public agencies, and organizations that were consulted or contributed to the preparation of this EIR.

This EIR includes the environmental analysis prepared for the project and appendices as follows:

1. Introduction

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix H: Energy Calculations
E. Public Review of the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR is subject to a 45-day review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. In accordance with the provision of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, serving as the Lead Agency will: 1) distribute a Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR to affected public agencies and other interested parties, which states that the Draft EIR will be available for review at: City of Rialto, Planning Department, 150 S.

Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376; and at the Rialto Library located at 251 W. First Street, Rialto, California 92376; 2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse; and 3) send notices to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing. All comments on the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

ATTN: Gina Gibson
City of Rialto
Planning Division
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376

Or via email to: [email protected]
Any public agency or members of the public desiring to comment on the Draft EIR must submit their comments in writing to Ms. Gibson prior to the end of the public review period. Upon the close of the public review period, the City will then proceed to evaluate and prepare responses to all relevant written comments received from both citizens and public agencies during the public review period.

The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR and responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties. After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft EIR will be provided to the respective agency.

F. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, this Program EIR incorporates by reference the following documents (available for review at the City of Fontana, Planning Department).

City of Rialto Municipal Code (Title 18) – Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the of City of Rialto Municipal Code prescribes and restricts what landowners can do with their properties and includes standards for the allowed uses of land; building size, shape, and placement; basic architectural and landscape guidelines; and, performance.

1. Introduction
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 1-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
City of Rialto General Plan, 2010 – The City of Rialto General Plan identifies goals and objectives to implement the community’s vision over the next 20 to 30 years. The community’s vision statement is based on four guiding principles: (i) Rialto is a “family first” community; (ii) Rialto shall attract high-quality new development and improve its physical environment; (iii) Rialto’s economic environment is healthy and diverse; and (iv)Rialto is an active community. The General Plan comprises six elements, including Land Use, Conservation, Economic Development, Circulation, Safety and Noise, and Housing, applicable to the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan.

City of Rialto Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, 2016 – The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan provides a detailed description of the proposed land uses, infrastructure and implementation requirements for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan project. The Specific Plan design guidelines are intended to assist in creating architectural themes and landscape character for future development. The development standards will establish permitted uses, setbacks and general development criteria.

The Specific Plan is expected to be adopted by resolution with the exception of Chapter 5.0, Development Standards, which will be adopted by ordinance and serve as the zoning for the Specific Plan.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Draft Program EIR, 2011 – The SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Draft Program EIR analyzes the effects of implementation of SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region. The SCAG region is comprised of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Draft Program EIR serves as an informational document to inform decision makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of approving the proposed RTP/SCS. The document includes an evaluation of a wide range of environmental impacts of the project, and also provides mitigation measures and project alternatives designed to help avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Final Program EIR, 2012 – The SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Final Program EIR analyzes the effects of implementation of SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region. The SCAG region is comprised of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Final Program EIR serves as an informational document to inform decision makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of approving the proposed RTP/SCS. The document includes responses to public comments on the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Draft Program EIR, corrections and additions to the Draft Program EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program which would be implemented to help avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
A. Introduction
The City of Rialto (City) is proposing the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Project) to guide development of an approximate 101.7-acre site (Project Site) in the City south of State Route 210 (210 Freeway) along Pepper Avenue. The Project Site is mostly vacant with the exception of the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, and the West Valley Water District (WVWD) Lord Ranch Facility (WVWD Facility), which includes production wells, a pump station, and a reservoir on approximately 13.7 acres. Proposed land uses include community commercial uses with up to approximately 462,000 square feet (SF) of retail shopping center and 125,000 SF of business park uses. In addition, a residential overlay would allow up to 275 multi-family dwelling units, which if developed, would replace 116,000 SF of retail shopping center, leaving a total of 346,000 SF of retail shopping center use.

B. Project Location and Surrounding uses
The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project Site is located within the eastern portion of the City.

In the local Project vicinity, the irregular-shaped Project Site is generally located east of Eucalyptus Avenue, south of the 210 Freeway, west of Meridian Avenue and north of Walnut Avenue. Pepper Avenue bisects the east and west halves of the Project Site. Pepper Avenue was recently extended from Winchester Drive on the south, through the Project Site, connecting to Highland Avenue through an underpass just north of the 210 Freeway. Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity Map, shows the Project Site location within a local context.

Adjacent and surrounding land uses in the Project area are summarized as follows:

NORTH: CalTrans right-of-way/210 Freeway followed by vacant land and aggregate mining operations north of Highland Avenue. The 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.

San Bernardino
Riverside
Los Angeles
Orange
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 2-1
Regional Vicinity Map
SOURCE: ESRI Street Map, 2009.
0 5
Miles

PROJECT SITE
^

PROJECT SITE
FF
FF
North Pepper Avenue
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Eucalyptus Avenue
Easton St
Walnut Ave
Winchester Dr
Baseline Rd
Highland Ave
Frisbie Park
North Pepper Avenue
Neighborhood
Morgan
Elementary
Frisbie
Middle
School
City of
Rialto
City of San
Bernardino
Lytle
Creek
Unincorporated San Bernardino County
1 2
3 4
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2015 (Aerial), KTGY, 2014.
0 1,000
Feet
Project Site
F
Photograph Locations
(Photographs in
Figure 2-3)

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
EAST: Vacant land and the BNSF Railroad followed by the Lytle Creek Wash which trends in a southeast to southwest direction. The Lytle Creek – Island Levee System protects the Project Site and surrounding development from potential flooding associated with Lytle Creek. In addition, there is a semi-rural residence to the east of the Project Site just beyond the railroad line to the east of the on-site WVWD facility.

WEST: Single-family residential uses and Frisbie Park. The Park, in addition to children’s play areas, includes six lighted baseball/softball fields.

SOUTH: An unnamed wash and vacant land followed by single-family residential uses.

C. Project Site Ownership and Existing General
Plan/Zoning Designations
The Project Site is comprised of 12 parcels, ten of which are privately owned with two parcels in the southern portion of the Project Site owned by WVWD. The current zoning for the Project Site is Single-Family Residential (R-1A). The corresponding General Plan land use designation is Residential 6. The Residential 6 designation permits a density range of 2.1-6 du/acre consisting of detached units in suburban-style subdivisions, with one unit per lot.

D. Existing Site Conditions
The Project Site is mostly vacant, with the exception of the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, which bisects the Project Site in a north-south direction, and a WVWD facility which includes three production wells, a pump station, and a reservoir (all to remain as part of the Project). Vacant portions of the Project Site are highly disturbed due to off-road vehicle (ORV) use, with some areas subject to unauthorized trash dumping. Figure 2-3, Existing Site Photographs, provides views of the existing conditions from various vantages throughout the Project Site. The locations of the photographs are illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Both the east and west portions of the Project Site (divided by Pepper Avenue) generally have a consistent gradual downward slope of 1.25 - 2.5% from the northwest corner at 1,300 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to a low point at the southeast corner at 1,260 feet amsl. The existing drainage pattern is consistent with existing topography, which conveys storm flows southeasterly.

The Project Site experiences offsite drainages which enter the Project Site at the northwest corner via 96- and 60-inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCP). This is the main source of storm run-on onto the Project Site. These flows generally traverse the Project’s proposed open space areas (discussed below) to stormwater culverts beneath Pepper Avenue (also discussed below).

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 2-3
Existing Site Photographs
SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2015
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Southeasterly view from NW corner of site near intersection at Easton Street and Eucalyptus Avenue (Frisbie Park).

PHOTOGRAPH 3. Northeasterly view from SW corner of site at terminus of E. Walnut Avenue.

PHOTOGRAPH 4. Northerly view from southern project boundary along Pepper Avenue.

PHOTOGRAPH 2. Southwesterly view from NE corner of site along SR-210.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The 96-inch RCP consists of drainage from areas north of the 210 Freeway, including developed residential areas east of Cactus Avenue. The 60-inch RCP conveys drainage from the 210 Freeway.

The Pepper Avenue roadway extension was constructed atop an earthen embankment with four, 10-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete block culverts constructed beneath the roadway to convey drainage across the Project Site in a northwest to southeast direction. These culverts were designed to provide adequate width and height for migration of wildlife through the Pepper Avenue watershed and for maintenance by the City, in addition to accommodating seasonal stream flows within the tributary and maintaining existing hydrological conditions. Beyond Pepper Avenue, flows trend in an easterly direction within an unnamed wash and feed Lytle Creek. Current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates the Project Site falls within a Zone X. FEMA defines a Zone X as, “the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood.”1 Nonnative grasslands (see Photograph 2 in Figure 2-3), which in some areas support a sparse population of elderberry shrubs, cover the central portion of the Project Site; relatively undisturbed mature and intermediate Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat dominates the western portion of the Project Site (see Photographs 1 and 3 in Figure 2-3) and a small are of southern willow scrub (SWS) habitat is located near the WVWD pumping facility in the southern portion of the Project Site. Based on a preliminary jurisdictional assessment conducted by PCR, the Project Site supports at least two jurisdictional drainage features which are subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as “waters of the U.S.,” and by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as jurisdictional streambed.

The entire Project Site is located within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the San Jacinto fault. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (Earthquake Fault Zone) Map of the San Bernardino North Quadrangle indicates that a trace of the San Jacinto fault passes through the southwest corner of the Project Site and a concealed (postulated) trace of the San Jacinto fault passes through the center of the Project Site. Also, the Exhibit 4.6-2, Geologic Hazards Map, in the City’s 2010 General Plan Draft EIR shows the San Jacinto fault passing through the southwest corner of the Project Site.

E. Project Objectives
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 objectives, 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.

1 Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Attachment B of t he Initial Study (see Appendix A of this EIR), provides a detailed discussion of the Project Site’s drainage and flood-related characteristics.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017

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

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.

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

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.

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 by providing a potential pedestrian bridge inclusive of interpretive signage, which 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.

F. Description of the Proposed Project
The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan comprises six chapters including Chapter 1, Introduction; Chapter 2, Planning Context; Chapter 3, Plan Elements; Chapter 4, Design Guidelines; Chapter 5, Development Standards, and Chapter 6, Implementation. Appendix A of the Specific Plan evaluates the consistency of the Specific Plan with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as required under by Section 65454 of the California Government Code. Appendix B of the Specific Plan includes a development tracking table. Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Specific Plan describes the purposes and components of the Specific Plan, the authority and format of the Specific Plan, Project setting, and Project objectives.

Chapter 2, Planning Context, describes the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City of Rialto General Plan and Zoning Code. The chapter describes existing environmental conditions and surrounding land uses. Chapter 3, Plan Elements, discusses the various plan elements for the Specific Plan including the Land Use Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Circulation Plan, Infrastructure and Public Services Plan, and Grading Plan. Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, contains the site planning, architectural, and landscaping design guidelines for the Specific Plan. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that the Project would develop as a quality retail center with consistent design elements. The Specific Plan makes a distinction between the design guideline requirements of the public and private realms. The public realm includes streets, sidewalks, parkways, medians and City-owned open space. The private realm includes privately owned land and developed portions of the Project, which are all non-dedicated portions of planning areas. Design guidelines for the public realm, which have a high level of exposure, impose greater regulation and specificity to ensure a high quality and attractive outcome. Design guidelines for the private realm are intended to provide developers, architects, planners, landscape architects and engineers the ability to implement their creative expertise while still maintaining conformity with the public realm and the aesthetic vision of the overall Specific Plan.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This flexibility will also allow designers to address current trends as well as future market demands with the greatest degree of specificity, which will ensure that the Project not only utilizes attractive design, but also economically viable.

Chapter 5, Development Standards, establishes the permitted uses and physical development standards for development in the Specific Plan Project Site. Standards in the Specific Plan supersede those of the Rialto Municipal Code, unless otherwise stated. Definitions are the same as described in Chapter 18.08 of the Municipal Code, except as otherwise defined. Land use designations include community commercial, open space, public facility, residential overlay and community commercial overlay.

Chapter 6, Implementation, describes the administration of the Specific Plan in accordance with State regulations and other administrative provisions related to interpretation, severability, determination of compliance, and implementation of development applications. Chapter 6 also describes phasing, infrastructure financing, developer funding, impact fees and exactions, assessment districts and other issues related to financing, development transfers, required compliance and modifications.

Project Components
The following describes the components of the proposed Specific Plan, including land uses, open space, infrastructure, and circulation elements that would provide for the orderly development of the Project Site. The Specific Plan includes community commercial, open space, public facility, and potential residential uses.

Land Use Plan & Summary
Figure 2-4, Land Use Plan, illustrates the overall land use plan for the Project Site with a summary of those uses provided below. The Project Site would be comprised of nine Planning Areas. Table 2-1, Planning Area Land Use Summary, provides the total acres and amount for each of the proposed land use by Planning Area, including total potential dwelling units. Table 2- 2, Development Scenarios Summary, describes the two maximum development scenarios that could occur in association with the proposed commercial and residential overlay areas.

Community Commercial Land Uses
The Community Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of commercial and retail uses, as well as business park development consisting of a mix of office, research and development, light industrial and other complementary uses. Community commercial uses are proposed by the Project due to its physical and visual accessibility from the 210 Freeway and the proposed interchange.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 2-4
Land Use Plan
SOURCE: KTGY Architecture+Planning, July 2015

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 2-1

PLANNING AREA LAND USE SUMMARY
Planning Area Acres Land Use Development Potential
PA 1 15.1 Community Commercial 95,000 sf Business Park Uses 108,650 sf Retail Uses
PA 2 14.6 Community Commercial 30,000 sf Business Park 127,000 sf Retail Uses
PA 3 9.4 Community Commercial with Residential Overlay 116,000 sf Retail Uses* PA 4 13.7 Public Facility West Valley Water District
Facilities
PA 5 4.5 Community Commercial 41,000 sf Retail Uses
PA 6 2.0 Community Commercial 8,400 sf Retail Uses
PA 7 5.4 Open Space with Community Commercial Overlay 52,700 sf Reta il Uses PA 8 0.9 Open Space with Community Commercial Overlay 8,250 sf Retail Uses PA 9 29.5 Open Space Natural Open Space
Pepper Avenue
Right-of-Way
(ROW)

6.6 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way
Totals: 101.7 462,000 Total Retail Uses
125,000 Total Business Park
Uses
a

a As part of the multi-family overlay zone, up to 275 multi-family dwelling units may be permitted with a corresponding reduction of up to 106,000 square feet of retail uses, as described in Section 5.4.2, Residential Overlay Development Equivalency.

SOURCE: City of Rialto, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Table 3.1, 2016.

TABLE 2-2

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS SUMMARY
Land use
Maximum
Development Potential
Scenario 1
Retail 462,000 SF
Business Park 125,000 SF
Scenario 2
Residential 275 Units
Retail 346,000 SF
Business Park 125,000 SF

SOURCE: ESA PCR, 2015.

The Community Commercial land use designation is applied to PAs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, which encompass approximately 45.6 acres of land in the northern portion of the Project Site adjacent to the 210 Freeway. The maximum buildout within these planning areas, assuming no utilization of the Multi-Family Overlay zone (discussed below), would be 462,000 square feet of retail uses and

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
125,000 square feet of business park uses (Scenario 1). In Scenario 2, retail square footage could be exchanged for multi-family residential units, up to a total of 275 multi-family dwelling units with a corresponding decrease of up to 116,000 square feet of retail uses. Retail uses include, but are not limited to, grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants and the like. Business park uses include, but are not limited to, general offices, medical offices, research and development, light industrial and the like. These uses would be within buildings up to a maximum of four stories.

As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, a “main street” aesthetic component would be fostered in parts of the Community Commercial planning areas with the creation of a central retail axis. This axis would be accessed off of Pepper Avenue and act as the Town Center portion of the Project; it would be visually anchored at the end of the main street, opposite the entrance off Pepper Avenue by a design feature that could take shape as a plaza, unique building, fountain, or object of similar visual interest.

Community Commercial Overlay
The Community Commercial Overlay is intended to increase the viability of commercial development within PAs 5 and 6 by potentially allowing commercial uses on the adjacent PAs 7 and 8. In this development scenario, an additional 6.3 areas of Community Commercial uses would be developable, allowing the possibility of larger retail tenants. Should PAs 7 and 8 ultimately be preserved as open space or not developed, the development allotted for these PAs may be transferred to another PA. Open space, retail, and business park uses are permitted in PAs 7 and 8.

Multi-Family Residential Overlay
The Multi-Family Residential Overlay is intended to provide flexibility to better address future market conditions and housing needs of the City of Rialto. Multi-family units, at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre, may be developed within PA 3 up to a maximum of 275 units. These units would be permitted with a corresponding reduction up to 116,000 square feet of retail uses (see Scenario 2).

Multi-Family Residential Overlay Development Equivalency Multi-family units may be developed in PA 3 at a rate of 421.81 retail square feet per dwelling unit, at the discretion of the future developer. This exchange operates on a sliding scale, and may be used to exchange up to 116,000 square feet of community commercial uses for up to 275 multi-family units in total. For example, should a future application include a proposal for 100 multi-family dwelling units, the allowed 116,000 square feet of retail development for PA 3 shall be reduced by 42,181 square feet (421.81 multiplied by 100), resulting in the potential remaining development of 73,819 retail square feet on PA 3.

Open Space
Currently, no parks are proposed within the Specific Plan area. However, the Specific Plan is proposing that at a minimum, PA 9 (29.5 acres) remain as open space. PA 9 consists for the most part of RAFSS habitat and jurisdictional drainage features located on/near its eastern boundary.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
If PA 7 and PA 8 (Community Commercial Overlay area = 6.3 acres) do not get improved with community commercial uses, they would remain as open space. Thus, the total open space could increase to 35.8 acres under this scenario. Similar to PA 9, PAs 7 and 8 consist for the most part of RAFSS habitat, with jurisdictional drainage features just beyond their western boundaries.

Uses allowed within both community commercial and open space zones would be allowed in the Community Commercial Overlay.

Pedestrian Bridge and Welcoming Plaza
As shown in Figure 2-4, the Specific Plan is also contemplating to provide a grade, separated pedestrian bridge connection between its developed areas and Frisbee Park to the west. The bridge would span over the RAFSS habitat in PA 9 and could be as short as approximately 300 feet long if PA 7 gets developed or upwards of 700 feet long if PA 7 does not get developed.

Under either scenario, the bridge would be 10-feet wide and for pedestrian use only. The bridge would also be designed to allow for the movement of wildlife through the RAFSS habitat. As mentioned above, the drainage culverts beneath Pepper Avenue were designed to provide adequate width and height for migration of wildlife through the Pepper Avenue watershed. Thus, with the proposed bridge and existing culverts, wildlife in the open space area (RAFSS habitat) on the west side of the Pepper Avenue would have a corridor to move through the Project Site from the opens space area to Lytle Creek Wash located on the east of the Project Site. The bridge would also include interpretive signage, which would allow visitors to view and learn about the habitat that they are crossing.

Once entering into the Project Site from Frisbie Park, visitors would enter into a welcoming plaza, announcing their arrival into the City’s northeastern gateway. The welcoming plaza is envisioned to be a pedestrian-friendly area with a focal element and seating. Additional details of the pedestrian bridge and the welcoming plaza are included in Section 4.1, Aesthetics.

It should be noted that there are a number of variables that need to be determined for the pedestrian bridge, including but not limited to, obtaining permitting agency approvals (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers). Although it is anticipated that the pedestrian bridge would not disrupt a significant portion of the RAFSS, timing and securing funding for the bridge may be difficult to coordinate. As such, the pedestrian bridge is an encouraged element of the Project. Should the pedestrian bridge not occur, the welcoming plaza in PA 5/7 would not be required.

Public Facility
The area designated for Public Facility uses is currently developed with the WVWD Facility. The facility consists of a combination of pump stations, water supply wells, and an aeration reservoir that serves WVWD’s Zone 4. No future development is proposed on this portion of the Project Site as part of the Project. However, WVWD is currently considering improvements to the facility that would include the construction and operation of a 1-million-gallon steel-welded reservoir, which measures 80 feet in diameter and 32 feet in height, and a 3,500 square-foot pump station within a concrete masonry building. The improvements would also include the construction of an asphalt driveway, paved areas around the pump station and reservoir, and a concrete block masonry retaining wall. A retaining wall would extend along the western property

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
line and a portion of the southerly property line to allow the ground surface around Well No. 36 to be raised about 8 feet. These improvements, if implemented, are expected to be constructed in 2016-17, with operation occurring in late 2017.

Site Access and Circulation
The Project Site would be locally accessed via Pepper Avenue from the north and south. The Pepper Avenue interchange with the 210 Freeway would provide regional access to the Project Site. Pepper Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Rialto General Plan. The Project includes improvements to Pepper Avenue by including four lanes of travel and a Class II bike lane in both directions. Pepper Avenue also includes a raised median at some locations, inclusive of turn pockets, as depicted in Figure 2-5, Circulation Plan. On-street parking would be prohibited along Pepper Avenue within the Specific Plan Project Site.

Also, the Project would accommodate the construction of four new signalized and non-signalized intersections that would provide access to the Project Site. Two driveways would be signalized and two others will only allow for right-in, right-out traffic to ensure safe, orderly and predictable vehicular travel. The four new driveways include:
 Driveway 1 - Northerly Right‐In/Right‐Out (RIRO) Driveway: The Driveway 1 intersection is the northernmost driveway, and is a right-in, right-out non-signalized configuration that provides direct access into PA 5. A stop sign would control traffic flow from PA 5 onto Pepper Avenue;
 Main Driveway (#23) - The Main Driveway intersection is a four-way signalized intersection that provides direct access into PAs 1, 2, 5, and 6. All turning movements would be conducted via a turn lane, with the exception of the southbound Pepper Avenue traffic into PAs 1 and 2, which would feature a dual turn lane. This intersection would also be the entry for the Town Center portion of the Project. The Main Driveway intersection would have pedestrian crossings in all directions;
 Driveway 2 - Southerly RIRO Driveway: The Driveway 2 intersection is a right-in, right-out non-signalized configuration that provides direct access into PA 8. A stop sign would control traffic flow from PA 8 onto Pepper Avenue; and
 South Driveway (#24) - The South Driveway intersection is a three-way signalized intersection that provides direct access to PA 2 and access to PA 3 through PA 2. The South Driveway Intersection would have pedestrian crossings in all directions.

The improvements to the driveway locations are included as project design features (PDFs) PDF TRAF-1 to -4, respectively, which are listed below. These improvements are also illustrated in Figure 2-5. Construction of any traffic improvements would occur in conjunction with adjacent development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 2-5
Circulation Plan
SOURCE: Urban Crossroads, 2015

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
In addition, the City of Rialto is served by OmniTrans, the transit service for San Bernardino County. The Project Site is not currently served by OmniTrans service. Transit service is reviewed and updated by OmniTrans periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. However, it is anticipated that OmniTrans would provide bus service to the Project Site, when Project operations commence.

In addition to the potential pedestrian bridge described above, wide, enhanced sidewalks would be provided along both sides of the “main street” of the retail center in PAs 1 and 2, which terminates in a plaza space that could be used for relaxation, dining, passive recreation, or a visual terminus, such as a building. This pedestrian circulation concept for the main retail axis is designed to bolster retail activity along the “main street” and plaza, while providing a pleasant and walkable shopping experience for users of the Project Site.

Infrastructure
As described above, the recent Pepper Avenue roadway extension bisects the east and west half of the Project Site from Winchester Drive to the 210 Freeway. The roadway improvements also included the addition of sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructure that parallel the roadway.

Due to this newly constructed infrastructure, the surrounding area has become far more conducive for development. The Project’s proposed infrastructure improvements are described below.

Drainage and Water Quality
The Specific Plan Project Site consists of existing storm drainage infrastructure within the Pepper Avenue-right-of-way. This infrastructure accommodates the run-off within the Pepper Avenue right-of-way and the existing flows into the right-of-way.

Proposed storm water drainage facilities and flows for private properties within the Project Site would be consistent with State and City requirements for storm water conveyance. Future development(s) within the Specific Plan area would require onsite storm drain facilities to convey storm flows, detain/retain peak storm events, and maintain water quality.

One option to meet state and local requirements is included in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. This conceptual-level system included two (2) common storm drainage and water quality systems, one on the west side of Pepper Avenue and one on the east side. This scenario is described below.

The final storm water design may differ from this design, as this 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 design would be analyzed as part of the Water Quality Management Plan for each future, precise development.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
West and East Systems Drainage Scenario
Under this scenario, generally, the drainage system would mimic the drainage patterns of the existing condition. The Project Site would be designed to convey flows southerly on each side of Pepper Avenue, which would then flow easterly towards the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge and join Lytle Creek as it currently does in the existing condition. Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Attachment B of the Initial Study, provides a detailed discussion of the proposed hydrological conditions under this scenario.

The West and East systems both include multiple parcels with two different property owners within each system, with the land use plan splitting each system into a northerly site. In the West system, the northerly site encompasses Planning Areas 5 and 7 and the southerly site encompasses Planning Areas 6 and 8. In the East System, the northerly site encompasses Planning Area 1 and the southerly site encompasses Planning Areas 2 and 3.

Regardless of development phasing, drainage and water quality improvements would be designed conceptually to function over the entirety of the Project Site, with both systems functioning independently of the other system. Conceptually, the drainage facilities could be designed as follows.

The West and East system would convey storm flows to the southeastern and southern portion of the Project Site, respectively, towards a proposed detention/retention system within each system.

The detention/retention facilities could serve as a dual function basin, providing mitigation for both the capital storm events and water quality compliance. The proposed retention/detention system would be designed to mitigate storm flows to pre-development conditions prior to discharging from the Project Site, towards the Pepper Avenue Watercourse.

If the Project Site west or east of Pepper Avenue is developed concurrently, the respective drainage and water quality system(s) could be constructed to the final design as mentioned above.

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

10. 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.

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

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
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.

Water Supply
Potable water service to the Project Site is provided and maintained by WVWD. The Project’s water service is within the WVWD Zone 4 service area which is generally bounded by Baseline Road on the south, Highland Avenue on the north, Arrowhead Avenue to the west, and the Lytle Creek Wash to the east.

With the recent Pepper Avenue roadway improvements, two water lines were constructed within Pepper Avenue. Three water lines within Pepper Avenue serve the WVWD Facility located on the east side of Pepper Avenue in the southern portion of the Project Site. Based on the West Valley Water District Water Master Plan (2012) (2012 Master Plan), the WVWD Facility consists of a combination of pump stations, water supply wells, and an aeration reservoir that serves the WVWD’s Zone 4. A 12-inch line runs south of the WVWD Facility along Pepper Avenue extending to an existing water main in Winchester Drive. A 30-inch line runs north of the WVWD Facility along Pepper Avenue extending and joining to an existing 16-inch water main just south of the 210 Freeway. This 30-inch line conveys water to upper pressure zones located north of the Project Site. A second 30-inch line runs from the WVWD Facility south along Pepper Avenue toward Winchester Drive.

As Pepper Avenue bisects the east and west portions of the Project Site, a connection to the servicing line would be required from both sides of Pepper Avenue. These future connections would lie north of the WVWD Facility and would 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. According to the City of Rialto, Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Water System Analysis (herein referred to as the Water System Analysis) and included in Appendix C of this Initial Study), prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, dated April 2015, currently, there is adequate capacity in both the 30-inch and 12-inch transmission lines to support the future development within the Specific Plan area. The Project’s water system requirements have been included in the list of project design features below.

Sewer
With the recent Pepper Avenue roadway improvements, two sewer lines were constructed within Pepper Avenue. The two lines consist of a 12-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and a 6-inch VCP force main. Per the City’s Sewer Master Plan (April 2013), the 12-inch line gravity flows south in Pepper Avenue from the 210 Freeway to a low point in Pepper Avenue and is capped for future connection to a future sewer lift station (described below). The 6-inch VCP force main would convey flows from the future lift station southerly to a drop manhole within Pepper Avenue, which would then gravity flow southerly and join the nearest existing manhole (MH No. 204-24) at the intersection of Winchester Drive and Pepper Avenue. The future sewer system for the Project would consist of two systems, the East and West systems. The East system, which would

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
serve development east of Pepper Avenue, would gravity flow southerly within the future commercial development area and then westerly to a proposed lift station on the east side of Pepper Avenue. The East system would consist of 8-inch and 6-inch laterals. Based upon a schematic grading design, portions of this system would “buck” grade as the system gravity flows westerly reaching depths of 20 to 25 feet where it would join a future lift station. This future lift station would convey flows southerly in Pepper Avenue via an existing 6-inch force main, which is currently inactive and awaiting future development.

The West system would gravity flow easterly towards Pepper Avenue and join an existing 12- inch VCP sewer line in Pepper Avenue. This sewer line is currently inactive and awaiting future development and a future lift station as previously stated.

A sewer lift station would be constructed to pump sewage flows southerly towards Winchester Drive. The approved sewer plans for the Pepper Avenue Extension Project identify a lift station location on the east side of Pepper Avenue. This future lift station would need to convey sewage flows southerly in Pepper Avenue via a force main into the gravity sewer system in Winchester Drive. The future lift station would need to be sized to accommodate the peak sewer flows from the Project as well as any potential offsite future developments that may be tributary to the lift station.

The service area for the future lift station would include the Project Site as well as the Caltrans- maintained area north of the 210 Freeway and south of Highland Area (which consists of 7.4 acres). Per the City of Rialto, 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 would be designed to accommodate the calculated peak flow plus 9 percent.

The onsite sewer system for the Specific Plan area may reach depths of 20-25 feet, therefore the future lift station must 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.

Final engineering and design specifications for the lift station would consider the above mentioned site constraints in order to adequately service the Project. These system requirements have been included in the list of project design features below.

Landscaping
Extensive landscaping would be provided throughout the Project Site. Additionally, development of the various proposed land uses within the Project Site would be subject to the landscaping guidelines proposed in the Specific Plan.

The purpose of the landscape guidelines is to provide a cohesive landscape design theme. The landscape will consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers, and will be high-quality, low maintenance and water efficient. The existing and future

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
landscape within the Pepper Avenue right-of-way will be similarly landscaped to clearly identify the Project. The following guidelines will be incorporated to achieve the intended design:

1. The Pepper Avenue streetscape shall be simple, strong and cohesive throughout. It shall extend the existing Pepper Avenue landscape design elements.

11. The landscape elements will focus on providing high visual interest at critical entry points.

12. Landscape elements shall enha nce and compliment the architectural design and overall character of the Project.

Design Features
The below listed design features (DFs) are design elements that are incorporated into the Specific Plan and would be implemented by future development(s) within the Project Site that would prevent the occurrence of or minimize the significance of potential environmental effects.

Because DFs are part of the Specific Plan and would be implemented by future development(s) on the Project Site, they do not constitute mitigation measures, as defined by Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). However, the DFs would be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure their implementation as a part of the Project. The Project would include the following DFs:

Traffic
DF TRAF-1: Pepper Avenue / Northerly Right‐In/Right‐Out (RIRO) Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.
 SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right turn lane.  EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.

DF TRAF-2: Pepper Avenue / Main Driveway (#23) – Install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
 SB Approach: Provide two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through right lane.
 EB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and one shared through‐right lane.  WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

DF TRAF-3: Pepper Avenue / Southerly RIRO Driveway – Install stop sign control on the EB approach, design the intersection to restrict left‐in access to the Project driveway and left‐out access from the Project driveway, and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide two through lanes.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 SB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right turn lane.  EB Approach: Provide a right turn lane.

DF TRAF-4: Pepper Avenue / South Driveway (#24) – At complete build-out, or as otherwise determined by traffic needs, install traffic signal control and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
 NB Approach: Provide one through lane and one shared through‐right lane.  SB Approach: Provide one left turn lane and two through lanes.  WB Approach: Provide one left turn lane, and one right turn lane Water Infrastructure
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.

Sewer Infrastructure
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.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
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.

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.

Stormwater Infrastructure
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 Project 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.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 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.

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

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees, Section 3.33.270 – Storm Drain Facilities Development Impact Fee of the Municipal Code.

Seismic
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.

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.

Hazards
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.

Public Services
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:

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 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.

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.

DF SERVICE-4: Schools Fees – The applicant of each applicable future development proposed within the Project Site shall be responsible for paying development impacts fees to the Rialto Unified School District (RUSD) as full mitigation for potential impacts to schools pursuant to 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.

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.

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.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Sustainable Design Strategies
Sustainable practices can lessen the environmental impacts of development with techniques that include compact development, reduced impervious surfaces and improved water detention and conservation, and improved pedestrian and bicycle amenities that reduce reliance on the automobile.

Because the concept of sustainability is still evolving, it is anticipated that new sustainable strategies would be continually developed during the build-out period of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan encourages the implementation of realistic sustainable design strategies into the Project design. As discussed in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan, sustainable design strategies that may be utilized in the Specific Plan include the following:

Site Planning
Elements of sustainable design and site planning may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Encourage developing a Traffic Demand Management program that supports alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.
 Provide physical linkages throughout the Project Site that promote bicycling and walking.  Consider the use pf pervious materials for walkways, trails, driveways and parking lots.  Minimize the amount of paved areas for roads, parking and patios where feasible.  Concentrate development near local services and amenities.  Encourage shared parking where determined possible.
 Preserve sensitive resources.
 Create open space amenities.

Energy Efficiency
Most buildings can reach energy efficiency levels that exceed California Title 24 standards, yet many only strive to meet the standard. It is reasonable to strive for energy reduction in excess of that required by Title 24 standards. At a minimum, all projects would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards. Where feasible and appropriate, the following strategies are encouraged, but not required:
 Passive design strategies can dramatically affect building energy performance. These measures include, but are not limited to, building shape and orientation, passive solar design, and the use of natural lighting.
 Incorporate the use of low-E windows or use Energy Star windows.  Use a properly sized and energy-efficient heating/cooling system in conjunction with a thermally efficient building shell.
 Consider utilizing light colors for wall finish materials.  Install high R-value wall and ceiling insulation.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 Installation of solar water heating systems that use rooftop solar technologies to offset natural gas use.
 Encouragement for new commercial businesses to install rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.  Encouragement of new commercial and industrial facilities greater than 100,000 SF to install co-generation facilities that combine heat and power systems for energy output.

Materials Efficiency
Select sustainable construction materials and products by evaluating characteristics such as reused and recycled content, zero or low off gassing of harmful air emissions, zero or low toxicity, sustainably-harvested materials, high recyclability, durability, longevity, and local production. Such products promote resource conservation and efficiency. Using recycled-content products also helps develop markets for recycled materials that are being diverted from California’s landfills, as mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act.  Encourage the use of low VOC paints and wallpapers.
 Encourage the use of low VOC Green Label carpet.
 Use dimensional planning and other material efficiency strategies. These strategies reduce the amount of building materials needed and cut construction costs.  Design with adequate space to facilitate recycling collection and to incorporate a solid waste management program that prevents waste generation.
 Establish a construction waste recycling program with a local waste management company, with a goal of recycling no less than 50 percent of the construction waste generated by construction of the project. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris does not contribute to this requirement.
 The waste disposal company shall be responsible for providing recycle bin(s) to facilitate recycling.

Water Efficiency
Elements of water efficiencies may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Minimize water usage by installing ultra-low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads and other water conserving fixtures.
 Use state-of-the-art irrigation controllers and self-closing nozzles on hoses.  Minimize turf areas within the community.
 Use a climate driven plant selection that specifies native, non-invasive, and drought tolerant plants requiring minimal or no irrigation.
 Use green waste mulch and soil amendments to retail soil moisture.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Occupant Health and Safety
 Choose construction materials and interior finish products with zero or low emissions to improve indoor air quality.
 Provide effective drainage from the roof and surrounding landscape.  Install adequate ventilation in bathrooms.

G. Anticipated Construction Schedule
The timing of development within the Project Site would be subject to local, regional, and national market conditions. Accordingly, the Project Site could be developed in one or more phases, with the earliest construction beginning in late 2017. No uses would be opened prior to 2017 (opening year). The build-out year would be 2035.

H. Necessary Approvals
It is anticipated that approvals required for the Project would include, but may not be limited to, the following:
 Approval of the General Plan Amendment: A General Plan Amendment would be necessary to change the entire Project Site from the current General Plan land use designation of the entire property from "Residential 6" to "Specific Plan" on the City's General Plan Land Use Map.
 Approval of the Specific Plan: The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan has been prepared to realize the objectives of the Project as defined in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would be adopted by resolution by the City of Rialto City Council, with the Development Standards chapter adopted by ordinance.
 Approval of a Zone Change: A zone change would be necessary to change the zoning of the Project Site from the current "Single-Family Residential" (R-1A) to "Pepper Avenue Specific Plan" on the City's zoning map.
 Approval of Tentative Tract/Parcel Maps (TTM/TPM): TTMs and/or TPMs would be necessary to develop some of the Project Site.
 Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR): This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Rialto would consider certification of the EIR prior to taking action on the requested approvals.  Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program: The City would evaluate and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which will be considered by the City related to the changes made to the Project or conditions of Project approval that were adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
 Section 404 Permit: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit may be required, as necessary.
 Section 401 Permit: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Section 401 Permit may be required, as necessary.

2. Project Description

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 2-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 Streambed Alteration Agreement: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Act may be required, as necessary.
 Section 7 Consultation: Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act may be required, as necessary.  Subsequent discretionary approvals from the City of Rialto (i.e., Conditional Permit, Site Development Permit).
 Other permits or approvals, as necessary.

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 3-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 3
Basis for Cumulative Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) analyze cumulative impacts. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a) states that an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3).

Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. However, an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.

Furthermore, when the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR must briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency must identify facts and provide analysis supporting the lead agency's conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) indicates that the analysis of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great a level of detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.

Instead, the discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the particular impacts to which the other related projects contribute to cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed project, rather than those attributes of the other related projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact in conjunction with the proposed project.

As indicated above, "cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts." A project has "cumulatively considerable" impacts when its incremental effects "are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” For an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow an EIR to determine cumulative impacts and reasonably foreseeable growth based on either of the following methods:
 A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or
 A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental planning document which has been adopted or

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 3-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

For the purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis for the Project, the list of “related projects” was developed by the City by reviewing the most current list of approved, pending, or reasonably foreseeable projects in the City’s project status database. Projects identified within the general area of the Project Site were confirmed by City staff to be current or probable future developments with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects in conjunction with the Project given their proximity and anticipated development intensity. The City identified seven related projects (with a total of 15 various components), which are summarized in Table 3-1, List of Related Projects. The locations of the related projects are shown in Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map.

Although the projects listed below serve as the primary bases for evaluation of cumulative impacts, the approach to these analyses vary for certain environmental issues. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(3), the City has established a general geographic scope of the area affected by the potential cumulative effects based on the potential for the Project and related projects to contribute impacts within a particular distance from the Project Site, jurisdiction, viewshed, watershed, air basin, service area, or other geography, as applicable. The specific geographic scope for each environmental issue analyzed in this EIR is provided below.  The scope for cumulative analysis of impacts related to aesthetics and views is the viewshed surrounding the Project Site, as only those projects that can be viewed in the context of the Project could contribute to cumulative visual effects.
 The geographic scope of cumulative effects for air quality and global climate change is the South Coast Air Basin, since all regional air emissions from development within the area occur within the Basin.
 The cumulative analysis of effects on biological resources considers species and habitats within a specific geographic area in which one would expect to find in the Specific Plan Project Site.
 The geographic scope for archaeological and paleontological resources is based on the Specific Plan Project Site.
 Land use and planning impacts generally affect the jurisdiction in which projects are located, and therefore the geographic context for cumulative analysis is the related projects study area in the City of Rialto.
 Noise effects are by nature localized, and therefore potential cumulative noise impacts are analyzed for those identified related projects in close enough proximity to the Project Site to increase ambient noise levels on-site or in the immediate Project vicinity and include cumulative traffic gains from the Pepper Avenue/SR-210 Freeway interchange.  The geographic context for cumulative traffic and circulation impacts is the area within which related projects could measurably affect traffic circulation within the street network serving the Project Site and thus co
uld contribute to cumulative traffic impacts at affected facilities.

In addition to the traffic associated with the identified related projects, the cumulative traffic analysis also includes an overall growth factor of 1.21 percent per year to account for smaller projects and other ambient growth in the City of Rialto and the Specific Plan Project Site.

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 3-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Cumulative analyses for each environmental issue are provided in their respective environmental subsections in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.

TABLE 3-1

LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS
Project ID Land Use Units or Floor Area
2a Single Family Detached Residential 24 residences
2b Single Family Detached Residential 23 residences
2c Shopping Center 4,800 square feet
2d Single Family Detached Residential 132 residences
4a Two-story Office Building 990 square feet
4b Apartment Building 5 residential units
5a Single Family Detached Residential 29 residences
5b Single Family Detached Residential 17 residences
5c Single Family Detached Residential 65 residences
5d Shopping Center 6,340 square feet
5e Single Family Detached Residential 70 residences
7 Industrial Park 1,789,990 square feet
8 Single Family Detached Residential 304 residences
9 Shipping Center Storage Yard 12,000 square feet
10 Discount Store 12,406 square feet

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

Pepper Avenue Specific Plan
Figure 3-1
Related Projects Map
SOURCE: Urban Crossroads, 2016
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CHAPTER 4
Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics

1. Introduction
This section addresses potential aesthetic and visual resource impacts that could result from the proposed Specific Plan with regard to visual quality, views, and light and glare. The analysis presented in this section is based on a review of applicable plans and regulations, including the City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan), the Rialto Municipal Code, the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, and Project Site reconnaissance by ESA PCR staff. (1) Views
A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed. Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features. Other designated federal and state lands as well as local open space or recreational areas may also offer scenic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape. The analysis of view impacts applies to the effects of a project on publicly available views of scenic vistas or valued views of aesthetic resources. Vantage points offering views may be a single location or a linear vantage, such as a roadway or trail. The degree of degradation or obstruction of views of valued resources is the basis for the determination of potential view impacts.
(2) Visual Character
“Visual character” refers to the appearance of an area or site and its relationship to the surrounding built or natural environment. An area’s visual character is based on the physical appearance and characteristics of the environment, such as the proximity and balance of man- made structures with open space or landscaping, or built landmarks, such as bridges or buildings.

As an overview, the analysis of visual character begins with the identification of the visual resources in relation to the surrounding environment, as well as the visual access to these resources. Certain visual resources are generally perceived to possess valuable attributes. Land uses, as well as natural features, are urban features of the landscape and, of these features, some may also be considered to be visual resources.

The analysis of visual character considers such characteristics as building siting, setbacks and articulation, mass, height, architectural finishes, and landscape and hardscape treatments, and

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
assesses the degree of compatibility or contrast with other features on the Project Site and land uses in the Project area. Visual character functions as a point of reference in assessing whether the project’s features would appear to be compatible with the established surrounding environment. Adverse visual quality impacts considered within the analysis include the loss of existing valued aesthetic features and the introduction of contrasting features that contribute to a decline in the overall visual character (e.g., the introduction of contrasting features that overpower familiar features, eliminate context or associations with history, or create visual incompatibility where there may have been apparent efforts to maintain or promote a thematic or consistent character). In general, the evaluation of visual character is determined by the degree of contrast that could potentially result between the Project and its setting, including the existing natural and built environments.
(3) Light and Glare
Artificial light impacts are typically associated with ambient light levels during the evening and nighttime hours. Sources may be stationary, such as streetlights and illuminated signage, or mobile, such as vehicle headlights. Certain land uses such as residences and hotels are considered light sensitive since typically they are occupied by persons who have an expectation of privacy during evening hours and are subject to disturbance by bright light sources. The analysis of lighting impacts focuses on whether the Project would cause or substantially increase lighting effects on light-sensitive uses.

Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials and to a lesser degree from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light-sensitive land use. The analysis of glare focuses on whether glare effects would interfere with glare-sensitive activities.

2. Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Visual Character
(a) Visual Character of the Project Site
The visual character of the Project Site is that of a predominantly undeveloped and disturbed open space. Photographs of existing conditions are provided in Figure 2-3, Existing Site Photographs, in Chapter 2, Project Description. As shown in these photographs, the Project Site is visible from surrounding streets and highways, including Eucalyptus Avenue, Easton Street, Walnut Street, and the Foothill Freeway (SR-210), and from the newly constructed Pepper Avenue extension, which bisects the Project Site. As shown in Figure 2-3, Photographs 3 and 4, the San Bernardino Mountains are visible in north-facing views across the Project Site. The Project Site slopes gradually to the southeast. A cross section of the area indicates that Eucalyptus Avenue near the Site’s west boundary is approximately 1,311 feet above mean sea level (amsl), dropping to approximately 1,284 feet amsl at Pepper Avenue and to approximately 1,267 feet

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
amsl at the east boundary. A southeasterly-flowing drainage, which eventually empties into Lytle Creek, runs through the southeast portion of the Site.

As shown in Figure 2-3, Photograph 3, the portion of the Site to the west of the Pepper Avenue contains patches of alluvial fan sage scrub. A storage tank associated with the existing West Valley Water District (WVWD) facility in the southeast portion of the Site is also visible in Photograph 3. The portion of the Site to the east of Pepper Avenue and to the north of the WVWD facility appears to be regularly disked and, as such, exhibits minimal native habitat or other visual resources.
(b) Visual Character of Surrounding Uses
Frisbie Park, a City public park adjoins the northwest sector (habitat area) of the Project Site. The 35-acre park provides manicured lawns, shade trees, picnicking areas, a children’s playground, basketball courts, three lighted Little League fields, three girls’ softball fields. Frisbie Park, located at approximately 1,328 feet to 1,311 feet amsl (west to east) has aesthetic value as both a view vantage point and as recreational open space visible from adjacent streets.

Single-family neighborhoods are located to the west and southwest of the Project Site. SR-210 is located immediately to the north of the Project Site. Highland Avenue and a sand and gravel mining operation are located to the north of the freeway and the Lytle Creek wash flowing from the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest are located to north of the mining operation.

The Riverside Highland Water Company property, the BNSF Railroad spur, and the Lytle Creek Wash (trending in a southeast/southwest) in the City of San Bernardino are located immediately to the east. A semi-rural residence and open fields are located to the east of the Site just beyond the railroad line to the east of the WVWD facility. Another sand and gravel mining operation is located at the immediate southeast of the Project Site.

The Lytle Creek Wash, water storage tanks and open, disked fields are located to the immediate south of the Project Site. Utility lines in the area are above ground. The freeway, residential neighborhoods, railroad, industrial uses, the wash, disked fields and other surrounding uses to the north, east and south do not feature historic or substantial natural aesthetic features or aesthetic character. With the exception of Frisbie Park, the uses immediately surrounding the Project Site do not constitute visual resources or possess unique visual character. (2) View Resources
(a) Scenic Routes
The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated as scenic highways by the State or are eligible for that designation. Local and state records do not identify any designated or eligible scenic highways within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Project Site.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(b) Scenic Vistas
Foreground and mid-distance views of the Project Site have limited scenic value. However, the long-distance background viewshed, particularly to the north, is dominant and represents a scenic vista of the San Bernardino Mountains (located approximately six miles to the north) and the San Gabriel Mountains located farther to the northwest. The City’s General Plan notes that views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and the foothills provide the perfect backdrop for creating scenic vistas and that views of natural landforms should be protected to help develop a “sense of place.” According the General Plan, the City should take great care in ensuring that building heights and scale of projects do not hinder or impede scenic views (Rialto 2010). (3) Light and Glare
Existing nighttime lighting within the Project Site consists of street lights along Pepper Avenue.

Other light sources, such as lighting for the WVWD’s Lord Ranch Facility in the southeast portion of the sit, are minimal. Lighting in the surrounding area consists of light emanating from streetlights, illuminated signage and vehicle lights on the 210 freeway, headlights on local and arterial streets, porch lights and light spillage from residences in the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and ballfield and parking lot lights in Frisbie Park Nighttime illumination is lowest in the area’s residential neighborhoods and undeveloped portions such as the on-site vacant land, and highest along the SR-210 corridor and Frisbie Park, particularly during evening use of the ballfields. Sensitive uses with respect to artificial or nighttime light and glare in the Project vicinity are the residential neighborhoods located to the west and south of the Specific Plan area.

Daytime glare in the area is generally associated with sunlight reflected vehicles. No large continuous expanses of highly reflective materials occur in the vicinity. Activities that would be sensitive to daytime glare from reflected sunlight include motorists traveling on the adjacent roadways or the 210 Freeway. No free-standing, illuminated signage or unusual high intensity lighting that would potentially generate significant glare occur on or near the Project Site. Some reflectivity from existing buildings occurs in association with existing development in the area; however, no glare that interferes with driving conditions has been observed during field inspections of the area. Nonetheless, given the proximity and elevated nature of SR-210 in the Project area, a limited potential exists during some seasons for reflected afternoon glare from the vehicles along the highway.
b. Regulatory Framework
The following discussion identif ies and generally describes the regulatory plans and policies and ordinances that would be applicable to development at the Proje ct Site under the Project. Specific provisions of those documents that pertain to the Project are l isted in the Impact Analysis section below and evaluated for consistency with the Project features.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(1) City of Rialto General Plan
(a) City of Rialto General Plan
The General Plan is expected to provide clear direction to the City leaders regarding the form and aesthetic character of development. The goals and policies of the General Plan are intended to implement the community’s vision and the implementation of these goals and policies are set forth in the City’s regulatory documents. The organizing principle of the Community Design component of the City’s General Plan Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Conservation Element is to create, in conjunction with the Land Use section, guidelines for the physical characteristics of the built environment, the scale of buildings, their relationship to one another, architectural details, neighborhood appearance, and streetscapes. The intent of the General Plan Community Design component is to create a sense of place that interprets the community’s values and culture as projected upon the built environment.

Under the Community Design component, the City would encourage the enhancement and embellishment of public space, including properties, rights-of-way, and larger areas that the City owns and controls and can enhance through urban design strategies, such as pedestrian friendly design. To enhance pedestrian friendliness, the General Plan encourages commercial developments and neighborhoods to be compact and include a network of paths and walkways that connect people to key destinations. Commercial buildings are encouraged to create a pedestrian scale by providing windows and store fronts facing sidewalks and avoiding long expanses of blank walls. The focus on pedestrian friendliness in the Community Design Element supports a variety of the City’s objectives by (i) stimulating commercial districts by generating foot traffic along store fronts; (ii) creating additional means of access to service; (iii) improving the quality of life for those without access to motorized vehicles; (iv) encouraging healthier lifestyles and exercise; and (v) fostering a sense of community and social connection in residential neighborhoods.

Another objective of the Community Design component is to provide well-marked and pedestrian- scaled intersections and crossings to ensure the safety of pedestrians in proximity to motor vehicles and to avoid intimidating pedestrians from crossing a street. Both commercial and residential developments are encouraged to integrate pedestrian amenities such as benches, street- lighting, and attractive and functional landscaping. Amenities such as trees along sidewalks are encouraged because they provide shade and comfort in warm and sunny weather, as well as adding to the walking experience. Decorative street lighting is also supported by the General Plan to improve the aesthetics of a development as well as providing safety and visibility for pedestrians during the night time.

The General Plan sets forth policies to provide unique identity along the City’s prominent entrances. Such gateways include design features such as signage, landscaping, and other elements to create a distinct aesthetic tone. In addition, gateway features help to slow traffic at key locations, functioning as traffic-calming devices. Under the General Plan, new gateways should be considered for new major development projects. Gateways may occur on major streets near freeway on- and off-ramps that identify entry into the City or as smaller entryways on streets that cross City boundaries.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Signage, such as free standing commercial signs that advertise a shopping center, signs affixed to the facades of buildings, and public signs such as directional signs or gateway signs, are considered to serve an important function for aiding businesses and providing information. The uncontrolled use of signs that dominate the landscape, distract the public, and adversely affect the aesthetics of the community is discouraged. The General Plan standards for the design and placement of signage for new developments require that signs complement the quality and design of the developments they intend to serve by utilizing the same architectural style, similar color palette, and matching materials. Poor sign construction and haphazard placement of signs is also discouraged. To maintain the integrity of developments, the General Plan requires the City to monitor and ensure that signs are properly maintained, and that inoperable or unused/outdated signs are removed.

Under the General Plan, landscaped and tree-lined corridors would also improve the visual quality of the community’s major streets. Buildings along these corridors should complement the streetscape and provide an atmosphere that accommodates both pedestrians and automobiles.

Special consideration should be given to street furniture and pedestrian friendly lighting.

Corridors should include continuous sidewalks with wide parkways that establish pedestrian connections from the residential neighborhoods to commercial districts, parks, job centers, and other activity areas. Street trees should be of appropriate height and stature for the scale and function of the street.

In the private realm, the General Plan provides policies for architectural style that would give each building a distinct character and feel. The General Plan allows that a building, development, or neighborhood can be designed in a variety of diverse architectural styles that are prominent throughout Southern California. Cohesiveness in a development and/or neighborhood is preferred and achieved by the use consistent architectural themes. New development should pay respect to site context and the predominant existing style as to maintain visual harmony. According to the General Plan, form (the physical design of a building) can be manipulated to produce buildings that are visually pleasing. Visual interest and diversity can be achieved through the use of varying heights, mass, density, and fenestration (placement of windows) of buildings so as to not have the same building design repeated. Developments should utilize high-quality materials that are durable and properly reflect the chosen style of architecture. As with style, new buildings and renovations should continue to be compatible with the form of adjacent buildings.

Design should incorporate building materials that are environmentally sound (recyclable, quickly regenerates, and produced with limited impacts to the environment) and buildings should be oriented to maximize the amount of light and heat that penetrates the interior. The General Plan also requires the City to take great care in ensuring that building heights and scale of buildings do not hinder or impede scenic views of the mountains and that building materials in such locations are carefully selected to not produce glare or other distracting occurrences (Rialto 2010). (b) City of Rialto Municipal Code
The City of Rialto Municipal Code contains several regulations related to visual character and lighting. Municipal Code Section 11.08.030 applies to street landscaping. Under Section

11.08.030, the City shall develop and maintain a street tree plan including a master list of trees

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
approved for planting in streets and parkways throughout the city. The plan would include rules and regulations governing the planting, location, spacing and maintenance of the various varieties of the listed trees. No persons shall plant or install any tree upon any portion of any street, park, parkway or other public property which does not conform to the type, variety, location and spacing designated by the director for that area.

The purpose of Municipal Code Chapter 18.61, Design Guidelines, is to promote a desired level of future development quality in the city of Rialto to (i) contribute a positive visual image; promote high quality development; (iii) provide matters of design and aesthetics within the zoning code; and (iv) implement the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Any new development must adhere to the design guidelines and, under 18.61.030, building placement that creates opportunities for plazas, courts, patio areas, or gardens are encouraged; focal points and public site entrances shall receive special landscape or architectural treatment to enhance the streetscape; and specialty decorative paving materials shall be used to enhance and identify building entries, plazas, and seating/patio areas. Multiple buildings shall be clustered on- site to achieve a "village" scale. This creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while preventing long rows of buildings. When clustering is impractical, a visual link shall be established between buildings.

Under Section 18.61.040, residential dwellings shall be arranged in a manner that creates a harmonious, varied appearance of building heights and setbacks. Dwellings shall be placed at varying distances from the front property line. A majority of the primary living spaces within a residential building shall receive direct sunlight for the daylight hours. Residential buildings shall be positioned to minimize the impact of shadows on adjacent properties. Landscaping and building architecture shall be designed to provide shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter.

Section 18.61.050 requires that commercial buildings locate loading areas and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and roof-mounted equipment be as far as feasible and practical from adjacent residences; adjacent residential and nonresidential uses be segregated as is necessary to maintain a livable residential environment by design elements such as masonry walls, landscape berms, building orientation and activity limitation; and trees shall be planted to screen parking areas and large commercial building walls in order to provide a visual barrier between commercial and residential uses. "L" shaped retail centers shall be avoided. Retail centers shall incorporate either a clustered type development or utilize at the street edge for visual interest.

Buildings shall be oriented parallel streets used by the public and shall be placed as close to those streets as established setbacks permit to allow buildings rather than parking areas to define the street edge. Other such design techniques, to define the street edge, include but not limited to: (i) buildings shall be placed at their front setback lines; (ii) on larger project sites, such as retail centers, thirty percent of the total building frontage be located at the front setback line. Such siting, together with substantial landscape treatment, is considered to reinforce and strengthen the streetscape, and screens the parking area; and only building entrances shall be oriented to face streets used by the public, never blank walls or loading areas, shall face streets used by the public.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Building design requirements under Section 18.61.060 require desirable colors on building exteriors, including muted natural colors, earth tone colors, pastel colors, and natural stains. No undesirable colors on building exteriors, such as fluorescent neon, bright colors as the primary wall color or primary colors (red, yellow and blue) as the primary wall color are permitted. Under Section 18.61.060.C, wall and ground sign design, material, and color shall be compatible with the building design on-site.

Residential building design under Section 18.61.070 requires that building design shall respect the predominant characteristics of neighborhood development, such as height, massing, setbacks, materials and architectural style. Unless appropriate to an architectural style, windows shall not be flush with walls. Glass shall be inset a minimum of three inches from the exterior wall and/or frame surface to add relief to the wall surface. Within multi-story buildings, stepping back upper floors shall be considered in order to diminish building mass.

Reverse floor plans are not included as different floor plans. For development projects that are to be constructed in phases, a phasing plan shall be submitted to assure that the requirements for the number of floor plans is being met. Front porches are encouraged to facilitate activity in front yards and to provide a semipublic transition zone between the dwelling and the street used by the public. Each vertical module of units shall incorporate architectural features that help to individually distinguish them, such as a wall break, projections, distinct color schemes, and individual roof treatments.

Facades of long buildings shall be architecturally subdivided into shorter segments of fifty feet maximum by incorporating facade protrusions, varying roof forms, varying setback of the building footprint. Architectural design treatments such as building offsets, recessed windows, offset roof plans, trellis, overhangs, columns, or other features shall be used to create both vertical and horizontal articulations on the building elevations. These design elements shall also be included on the rear and side facades of buildings which are adjacent to or visible from streets used by the public or open space areas.

Commercial building design regulations under 18.61.080 require that main building entrances are well defined. The entrances shall be visually and functionally distinct, pedestrian-oriented and visible from the adjacent street system. In order to avoid long, monotonous building facades and to create diversity, building facades greater than one hundred feet in length shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least three feet to break up the expansiveness of the exterior. The building design shall provide architectural and visual interest. Such design elements shall include the following roof treatments, roof overhangs, arcades, articulated mass and bulk, courtyards and patios, tower elements and recessed doors and window openings. Large blank, flat walls, flat roofs, square "box-like" buildings, highly reflective surfaces such as metal, exposed pip columns, and most types of plywood siding. Facades shall be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the one-dimensional appearance of large buildings and provide visual interest. The overall intent is to encourage a more human scale. Facades, exterior walls and entryways shall provide consistent architectural treatment. Facades that face streets used by the public or are visible to residential properties shall have a variety of windows, entry areas,

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
awnings or other such features along no less than fifty percent of their horizontal length unless the structural integrity of the building is at stake.

Facades that do not face a street used by the public shall incorporate a repeating pattern that includes, but not limited to, color change, texture change and material change, each of which shall be integral parts of the building. Buildings shall be designed to be viewed from all sides.

Blank walls and facades shall not be permitted except as required for the structure integrity of the building. Buildings shall provide protection for pedestrians from adverse weather conditions and not limited to utilizing overhangs, marquees, and awnings at entrances, along pedestrian pathways, and at transportation waiting areas. A decorative trellis, canopy, or other overhang shall be constructed over a drive-thru window and extend across the entire width of the drive-thru aisle. Landscaping shall also be provided. Service doors shall be recessed and integrated into the overall design of the building.

Pertaining to roofs, Section 18.61.090, disallows the location of equipment on the roof of a building unless the equipment can be hidden by building elements that are designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building design. Roof-mounted equipment must be fully screened by parapets roof screens or equipment wells; or roof-mounted equipment must be screened from public view by materials similar to those used in the overall structure and designed to minimize noise. To add interest and reduce the massive scale of large buildings, variations in roof lines shall be used through the use of overhanging eaves, parapets, pop-outs, height variations, and entrance features. In addition, roofline variations shall be used to demarcate primary building entrances.

Section 18.61.100, materials and colors on building exteriors of all elevations of a building shall be coordinated to provide a total continuity of design. Alteration of colors and materials shall be used to produce diversity and provide visual and architectural interest.

Section 18.61.140, Lighting, requires lighting to be designed as an integral part of the overall site and building design. The design of the light fixtures and their structural supports shall be architecturally compatible with on-site buildings and be architecturally integrated into the design of a building. All exterior lighting shall be coordinated as to style, material, and color and designed to avoid spillover glare beyond the site boundaries, particularly where incompatible uses are located in close proximity. Neutral and earth-tone color lighting fixtures with other appropriate measures to conceal the light source from adjoining properties and adjacent street used by the public shall be required.

Exterior lighting shall provide illumination for the security and safety of on-site areas such as entrances, exits, parking, loading, shipping and receiving, pathways, and other work areas. All building facade recesses shall be well lit to encourage a safe environment. Night lighting shall be provided for all pedestrian movement paths such as walkways and where stairs, curbs, ramps, and crosswalks occur. The level of lighting shall not exceed one-half foot-candle at any residential property line or one foot-candle at any nonresidential property line.

Under Section 18.61.160, service, storage and loading areas shall not face onto streets used by the public, wherever possible. When these features must face a street used by the public due to site

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
constraints, they shall be screened with a solid decorative wall, berm, trellises, and/or landscaping.

3. Project Impacts
a. Methodology
(1) Views
The analysis of views is to identify the extent to which the Project would interfere with visual access to visual resources from a vantage point or corridor. “Focal views” consist of views of a particular object, scene, setting, or feature of visual interest; “Planning Panoramic views” or vistas consist of views of a large geographic area for which the view may be wide and extend into the distance. Structures and other elements constructed or added to a project may obstruct focal or Planning Panoramic views. The City of Rialto has recognized the value of access to visual resources through planning and zoning regulations that help prevent the obstruction of views.

These standards include the regulation of building height and mass, which are principal issues regarding view obstruction.

A viewshed is an area that can be seen from a given vantage point and viewing direction. A viewshed is composed of foreground items (items closer to the viewer) that are seen in detail and background items (items at some distance from the viewer) that frame the view. The intent of the evaluation of viewsheds is to determine if valued visual resources exist and whether valued visual resources would be blocked or diminished as a result of project development based on the anticipated maximum structural heights, setbacks, and development density. The evaluation further considers whether the Project would enhance viewing conditions through the creation of new resources and whether the Project includes design features that would offset or mitigate specific impacts.

A viewing location must include views of scenic resources that are available to the public. Under CEQA, an office building or private residence would not be considered a viewing location since views of broad horizons, aesthetic structures, and other scenic resources would not be available to the public. In addition, the California courts have routinely held that “obstruction of a few private views in a project’s immediate vicinity is not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact.” (Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego, 139 Cal. App. 4th 249, 279 [2006]).
(2) Visual Character/Quality
The evaluation of visual character pertains to the degree and nature of contrast between the Project and its surroundings. In the analysis of visual character, the existing visual properties of the Project Site are compared to the expected appearance of the Project Site and the surrounding area to determine whether the visual character of the area would be degraded. Factors such as changes in the appearance of the Project Site, building height and standards and regulations contained in the General Plan, zoning code, and Pepper Avenue Specific Plan are taken into account. The evaluation, therefore, considers the amount or relative proportion of existing

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
features or elements that substantially contribute to the valued visual character or image of the area that would be removed, altered or demolished. It takes into consideration the amount of natural open space to be graded or developed, the degree to which proposed structures in natural open space areas would be effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site through appropriate design, the degree of contrast between proposed features and the area’s existing features that represent its valued aesthetic image, the degree to which the Project would contribute to the area’s aesthetic value, and applicable guidelines and regulations. (3) Light and Glare
The analysis of light and glare identifies the location of light-sensitive land uses and describes the existing ambient conditions on the site and in the vicinity. The analysis describes the Project’s proposed light and glare sources, and the extent to which Project lighting, including illuminated signage, would spill off the Project Site onto light-sensitive areas. The analysis also describes the affected street frontages, the direction in which the light would be focused, and the extent to which the Project would illuminate sensitive land uses. The analysis also considers the potential for sunlight to reflect off building surfaces (glare) and the extent to which such glare would interfere with the operation of motor vehicles or other activities. (4) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
The evaluation of aesthetic resources also compared the Project to the standards and policies set forth in the General Plan and Municipal Code. These include the applicable goals and policies of the Community Design component of the City’s General Plan. Consistency with the City’s policies applicable to aesthetic elements, such as landscaping, streetscape, building design, lighting and other requirements is an indicator of a project’s aesthetic character. Note that comparison to the Municipal Code is to indicate the general consistency of the Specific Plan with the City’s aesthetic principles.
b. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of the Project Initial Study, which is contained in Appendix A of this EIR. The Initial Study Environmental Checklist questions relating to aesthetics have been utilized as the thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project may create a significant environmental impact if it would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (refer to Impact Statement AES-1);
Threshold 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway (refer to Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the Initial Study contained in Appendix A. No impact would occur in this regard.);

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Threshold 3: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (refer to Impact Statement AES-2); or
Threshold 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (refer to Impact Statement AES-3). c. Project Design Features
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the Specific Plan would allow for the future development of one of two scenarios, including Scenario 1, which would allow a maximum of 462,000 square feet of retail uses and 125,000 square feet of business park uses, or Scenario 2, which would allow a maximum of 275 residential units, 346,000 square feet of retail uses, and 125,000 square feet of business park uses. Under both scenarios, commercial buildings would be a maximum of four stories, with two stories anticipated under the Concept Plan.

Planning Area 9, comprising approximately 29.5 acres, would be retained as permanent open space. Planning Areas 7 (approximately 5.4 acres) and 8 (approximately 0.9 acre) are located the west of Pepper Avenue adjacent to Planning Area 9. These Planning Areas are designated as a Commercial Overlay zone, which could be developed with community commercial uses, or retained as open space with the allowable density transferred to other community commercial areas within the Project Site. If retained as permanent open space, the total open space could increase to 35.8 acres. Similar to Planning Area 9, Planning Areas 7 and 8 consist primarily of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat. Jurisdictional drainage features are located just beyond Planning Area 9’s west boundary. A pedestrian bridge could be constructed across the drainage leading from Planning Area 9 to Frisbie Park. If constructed, the bridge would span over the RAFSS habitat in Planning Area 9 and could be as short as approximately 300 feet long with the development of Planning Area 7 or more than 700 feet long if Planning Area 7 is retained as permanent open space. The bridge would also be designed to allow for the movement of wildlife through the RAFSS habitat.

If Scenario 2 were implemented (based on market conditions and the discretion of the private property owners) up to 275 multi-family residential units could be developed within Planning Area 3 in lieu of up to 116,000 square feet of retail uses. The multi-family residential units could be constructed within buildings up to a maximum of three stories and a density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Currently, no parks are proposed within the Specific Plan area. However, the Specific Plan is proposing that at a minimum, PA-9 (29.5 acres) remain as open space. PA 9 consists for the most part of RAFSS habitat and jurisdictional drainage features located on/near its eastern boundary.
(a) Specific Plan Design Guidelines
Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan sets forth planning, architectural, and landscaping design guidelines for future development. These guidelines would ensure quality retail center with consistent design elements. This Specific Plan distinguishes between the public and private realms. Design guidelines dictating requirements for the public realm typically impose greater regulation and specificity to ensure the resulting outcome is of high quality and attractive design. These outcomes are especially important in the public realm

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
due to the high level of visual exposure in public areas. Design guidelines for the private realm are intended to provide planners and designers the ability to implement creative expertise while still maintaining conformity with the public realm and the aesthetic vision of the overall Specific Plan. Where Specific Plan Design Guidelines provide similar regulations to the Municipal Code, the Specific Plan takes precedence.
(i) Gateway Statement
As discussed in the Design Guidelines, the location of the Project Site provides an opportunity to create a gateway statement into the City of Rialto. The Site is located upon Rialto’s eastern city limit, immediately adjacent to the 210 Freeway. Pepper Avenue, a major arterial street, bisects the Project Site and would eventually be connected to the 210 Freeway via a proposed interchange.

Focal features (e.g. art installations) are encouraged to be integrated into the Project site. These features may take the form of murals, sculptures, fountains, unique landscaping features or architectural elements that are specifically designed for the Project and would contribute to the high quality design and character of the Specific Plan.

Site-specific monuments that would be visible to passing vehicles would be incorporated at major entry points to the Project Site along Pepper Avenue and along the 210 Freeway. The signage would be of appropriate scale and design to provide a sense of entry that corresponds to the character of the Project, and attractive landscaping would be incorporated along Pepper Avenue to complement this design, which would further enhance the feeling of arrival to both the City of Rialto and the Specific Plan Area.
(ii) Main Street Concept
Community commercial uses in Planning Areas 1 and 2 would be oriented around a retail axis that would act as the Project’s “main street” and retail center. Pedestrian-oriented design measures would be enacted within upon the main street district. Stores should be entered from “main street” and should have highly articulated and unique facades that generate visual interest.

On street parking would add a “main street” aesthetic along with street-oriented shops. A community plaza space would be provided at the end of the main street, where a combination of high-quality architecture, landscaping elements, and public art should be implemented that visually anchor this retail space. The plaza could perform multiple functions, and may be utilized for community events, relaxation, dining, or other similar uses.

Well-furnished pedestrian walkways that include landscaped parkways and hardscaping elements should run the length of the main street and make the linear connections between various retail areas and the community plaza space. In addition to sidewalk parkways, the primary driveway in the main street area would also have a landscaped median that is aesthetically appealing; both sidewalk parkways and street medians should include trees, shrubs and groundcover that are consistent with the architectural vernacular of the Project. (iii) Veneto Architectural Style
Under the Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines, buildings would reflect the Veneto architectural style, in which four-sided architecture would be implemented where buildings are visible from the public realm.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
This architectural style is influenced by the vision of the Project was selected to evoke a Mediterranean aesthetic reminiscent of the community of Venice and the Rialto Bridge. Elements of the Veneto architectural style include:
 Simple, box-like one, two- or three-story massing.
 Façades are generally symmetrical and may or may not include block accents on the front elevation.
 Main roof form should be a hip roof with secondary hip or shed roofs. Roof pitch should not exceed 4:12.
 Roof material should be clay-colored “s” shaped concrete roof tile.  All publicly-visible windows should be tall and narrow, typically in groups of two (2) or three (3). Windows are encouraged to be recessed.
 Body colors include light to medium, earthy warm colors. Trim colors should be mid to dark brown, simulating stained wood or medium pre-cast colors. Accents should be dark, saturated, warm and cool colors.
 The primary hip roof should have decorative cornices underneath the eaves.  The exterior material should be stucco with some pre-cast concrete trim or stacked stone on publically visible-elevations. The body may also be designed to mimic stone. (iv) Architectural Design Guidelines
The Specific Plan’s Architectural Design Guidelines address commercial and residential building design. With regard to commercial uses, the streetscape, building placement, massing and facade details would incorporate the following elements to facilitate the streetscape appearance by enhancing the dynamic interrelationships of light, depth and place.  Scale and massing should be given careful consideration. Long, uninterrupted expanses of walls are discouraged.
 Interconnection and lapping of building forms and heights to break up long expanses of blank walls help relieve monotony and are desirable.
 Buildings in the Town Center area should have offset massing, wall planes, and breaks in building architecture that help break up the overall mass of a building.  Buildings in excess of 15,000 square feet shall include a landscape screen to create articulation that improves the pedestrian experience.

When buildings of a single form and height are used, these buildings should be articulated with layered wall planes, banding, architectural details and/or materials.  Large expanses of reflective, opaque, or highly-tinted glass are discouraged.  Artwork and storefront windows are encouraged for retail buildings to help create a dynamic and interesting façade.
 Projections, overhangs, recesses, banding and architectural details should be used to provide shadow, articulation and scale to building elevations.
 On smaller “pad” buildings, all building sides should be treated architecturally.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Architectural projections, such as balconies, recessed windows, roof overhangs, awnings, and other features, would be used to emphasize features such as entries, major windows, or outdoor spaces. Under the architectural guidelines, roofs should appear to be composed of simple forms, vary in massing along the street scene and open spaces, and use pitches appropriate to the style of the building. Colors and finishes on buildings would be coordinated to provide continuity and shall include muted natural colors, earth tone colors, pastel colors, and natural stains.

At least one window treatment should be present on all exposed building elevations. Mechanical and functional equipment shall be screened. Other guidelines include:
 Large waste containers shall not be located between a building and Pepper Avenue and the main entryways.
 All roof-mounted equipment (excluding roof-mounted solar equipment) shall be screened by parapets, screen walls, fencing, equipment wells, structural enclosures or similar features from ground-level views from Pepper Avenue.
 On-site utilities should be installed underground where feasible and as permitted by the utility companies. Above-ground utilities shall be screened or incorporated into landscape whenever possible.
(v) Community Gathering Spaces
The Specific Plan provides for two principal community gathering spaces, including a welcoming plaza and a retail plaza. The welcoming plaza would be located at the west end of the potential pedestrian bridge where the Project connects with the adjacent neighborhoods and Frisbie Park to the west. The plaza would incorporate enhanced planting and hardscape features and would serve as one of the Project’s primary pedestrian gateways.

The retail plaza would be located at the east end of the “main street” of the community commercial or retail use area. This plaza is intended to act as a visual anchor to the retail main street, and would be designed to reflect the Mediterranean “Veneto” aesthetic desired for the Project. In addition to providing visual interest, the retail plaza would bring the opportunity for outdoor retail uses, such as kiosks and outdoor dining. The retail plaza is expected to utilize design cues that emphasize the pedestrian scale.
(vi) Signage
Freeway-oriented signage within the Project Site would be specifically designed to be highly visible from 210 Freeway. These signs would be standalone, structures that would serve as gateway monuments that communicate tenant information to drivers on the freeway and immediately establish the Specific Plan’s desired aesthetic through their architecture and design.

Three such signs are planned for the Project, and would be spaced approximately evenly along the edge of the Specific Plan area that borders the 210 Freeway.

Monument signs within the Project Site would be smaller, stand-alone, two-sides structures less than ten feet in height. Monument signs would be required to be aesthetically consistent with other signs throughout the Project, and would communicate tenant information to those passing through the Site within the Pepper Avenue median and at the four driveways entries into the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Specific Plan area. Monument signs must utilize an architectural style that is consistent with the Project’s desired aesthetic. All signs would be architecturally consistent with each other. Other signs, such as tenant signs, wayfinding and pageantry signs would be designed to adhere to the desired aesthetic of the Specific Plan. The plaza and potential pedestrian bridge crossing Planning Area 9 would also interface with the natural open space by providing the opportunity for interpretive signage.

Development Standards require that all direct light rays from all signs must be confined within the Project Site and shall not shine directly upon neighboring property. All exposed raceways are prohibited. Temporary lighting such as search or flood lights that are used on a permanent basis would be prohibited.
(vii) Landscaping Design Guidelines
Landscape would be consistent with the Veneto architectural style and physically and visually buffer pedestrian and retail areas from parking lots and vehicular rights-of-way. Three tiered levels of plantings at low, medium, and tall heights would allow the landscape to be relatable at a human scale as well as visually congruent with taller buildings and architectural features. Skyline palms, specific plant groupings, and a consistent plant palette are encouraged to act as unifying elements throughout the Project and to promote the desired Mediterranean aesthetic.

Landscape would also provide visual and physical buffers from traffic through planted medians and parkways within and along the streets. In the Town Center, traffic calming measures would be implemented with finger islands that break up parking lanes while bringing landscaping to the roadway edge, reducing the visual impact of cars on the pedestrian.

The following guidelines would be incorporated to achieve the intended design:

1. The Pepper Avenue streetscape shall be simple, strong and cohesive throughout. It shall extend the existing Pepper Avenue landscape design elements.

2. The landscape elements shall focus on providing high visual interest at critical entry points.

3. Landscape elements shall enhan ce and compliment the architectural design and overall character of the Project.
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
Impacts of the Specific Plan related to visual character and lighting would occur during both temporary construction activities and throughout ongoing operation of the Project. The following analysis of visual character and lighting discusses the construction (short-term) and operation (long-term) impacts of Project implementation.
(1) Views/Scenic Vistas
Threshold AES-1 : A significant impact would occur if the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Impact Statement AES-1: Because of distances between future development and public vantage points (setbacks created by permanent open space), ground elevation differences, and height restrictions on the Project’s buildings, the Project would not substantially block views of the San Bernardino Mountains or San Gabriel Mountains from off-site public view locations. This impact is considered less than significant.

The Specific Plan would guide future development within the various on-site Planning Areas, allowing primarily retail and other commercial uses and potential residential development in Planning Area 3 (a 9.4-acre parcel in the east/central sector of the Project Site). Public vantage points and streets that have northerly views across the Project Site of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges include the east terminus of Walnut Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, Terrance Road, and Baseline Road. Direct north views across the Site from Walnut and Chestnut Avenues would be across the Project’s proposed open space areas and would not be directly blocked by development. Northeasterly views of the San Bernardino Mountain Range from these vantage points would be across foreground open space, with the two-story commercial uses in the background. The Walnut and Chestnut Avenue vantage points (approximately 1,310 feet amsl) are approximately 25 feet higher in elevation than the proposed development area at approximately 1,285 feet amsl. Because of the permanent open space in Planning Area 9, the proposed development would be a minimum of more than 1,000 feet from the Walnut and Chestnut Avenue vantage points. The commercial buildings in the foreground would be limited to four stories (although two stories are contemplated in the Concept Plan) and the residential buildings in the background would be limited to three stories. Because of the deep setback, the drop in topography, and limited building heights, future development under the Project would not block north- and northeasterly-facing views of the San Bernardino Mountains from these vantage points.

Other north-facing views are farther to the south and include potential views from the Pepper Avenue corridor and views from east/west-bound Baseline Road to the south of the Project Site.

Pepper Avenue runs in a north/south direction through the Project Site and would continue to provide a north-facing view corridor. As with the Walnut and Chestnut Avenue vantage points, Pepper Avenue just to the north of Winchester Drive/Terrace Drive currently provides views of the San Bernardino Mountains and, as with the Walnut and Chestnut Avenue vantage points, the developed area along Pepper Avenue is more than 20 feet higher than the Project Site and located more than 1,000 feet north of the vantage point. Because of the limited (up to four stories) commercial building height, views of the mountains across the commercial sector would not be blocked by the future development. Planning Area 3, which would be more than 1,500 feet from the Pepper Avenue vantage point would be approximately 25 feet lower in elevation and would cause less obstruction because its distance and location in the background of the commercial uses.

As such, the Project would not block mountain views from the portion of Pepper Avenue near existing residential neighborhoods.

North-facing views of open space and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges also occur along some segments of Baseline Road. However, the Project Site is generally obscured from this public road and Project development would not cause any new significant view obstruction.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Frisbie Park has direct northerly views of the mountains and, thus would not be impacted by the Specific Plan.

The Project Site is located with the south-facing line of sight toward the La Loma Hills from the 210 Freeway and southeasterly-facing views from Eucalyptus Avenue and Frisbie Park.

However, because the La Loma Hills are approximately twice the distance of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges from the freeway, Eucalyptus Avenue, and the park and do not have distinctive height, they are minimally visible. As such, any views of the hills from these locales are not considered valued views. Therefore, because of the topographical differences and distances between the future development and public vantage points, and height restrictions on the Project’s commercial and residential buildings, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This impact is considered less than significant. (2) Aesthetics/Visual Character
Threshold AES-2: A significant impact would occur if the Project would substanti ally degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Impact Statement AES-2: The Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan would guide development and ensure aesthetically pleasing building design, streetscape, landscape, building orientation, pedestrian amenities and other features that would positively contribute to the visual character of the area. Thus, the Specific Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This impact is considered less than significant. (a) Construction Impacts
Construction of future commercial and potential residential uses would require Project Site clearing and grading activities within each affected planning area (excepting permanent open space in PA 9, which is part of RAFSS habitat, or, potentially, PA 7 and PA 8, if maintained as open space. Grading would be followed by trenching/utility installation and street and building construction. Pepper Avenue is currently in place. Construction activities would occur intermittently throughout implementation of the Specific Plan, with market forces determining the timing and location of each development Project. As such, construction activities at any one location would be temporary and would result in impacts only for the duration of construction within that particular Planning Area. Nonetheless, given the undeveloped nature of the Project Site, short-term adverse visual character impacts could occur during temporary construction activities as equipment, materials, personnel, temporary structures (contractor trailers), worker vehicles, and other features would be located on the Project Site. While Site clearing and grading, as well as the placement of construction equipment, vehicles, materials, and other visually unappealing features on the Project Site, could detract from the visual character of the Project Site, this impact is not considered significant because of the temporary character of construction activities. In addition, construction fencing with visual screening would be installed around the perimeter of all construction areas, thereby minimizing the potential for substantial adverse aesthetic/visual character impacts during construction activities.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(b) Operation Impacts
The majority of the Project Site has historically been used for farming and, with the exception of the WVWD facility in the southeast sector of the Site, few structures currently exist on-site. The westerly sector of the Project Site contains RAFSS habitat that has been disturbed by off-road vehicle activity, as viewed from off-site areas. As such, the Site generally lacks a high level of visual quality or other valued aesthetic features such as outcroppings, historic buildings, landscaping or other visual buffers. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the long- term, incremental development of urban uses within the various Planning Areas, which would fundamentally change the visual character of the Project Site. However, future development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan Community Design Component that encourage improvements in the visual character of the City’s public and private realms (please refer to the discussion presented below in Table 4.A-1, Consistency of the Specific Plan with the Community Design Policies of the General Plan).

With the conversion of vacant land to urban uses, development of 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. The Specific Plan’s Development Standards and Design Guidelines regulate allowable uses, building heights, clustering, building design, wall/fence features, landscaping, streetscape, signage, and lighting throughout the Specific Plan area, which would reduce the potential for incompatible or inconsistent development patterns or urban designs. Because development of future uses would occur in accordance with the extensive guidelines contained in the Specific Plan, the change from existing open space to urban uses would not degrade the Site’s visual quality relative to the existing vacant, undeveloped condition of the majority of the Project Site. As such, the Specific Plan would result in less than significant visual character impact during operation. (3) Light and Glare
Threshold AES-3: A significant impact would occur if the Project would create a n e w source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affe ct day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Statement AES-3: The Specific Plan would require shielding of street lights and other exterior lighting, signage requirements to reduce glare. Implementation of the Project would not create substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact is considered less than significant. (a) Construction
Lighting needed during Project construction could generate visible light in the vicinity of the Project Site including residential uses to the west and south. However, construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours and any construction‐related illumination would be used for safety and security purposes only, in compliance with Rialto M u n i c i p a l C o d e l i g h t i n t e n s i t y requirements (construction lighti n g i s n o t a d d r e s s e d i n t h e Specific Plan). Construction lighting also would last only as l ong as needed in the short‐term

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
construction process. Thus, with the implementation of existing Municipal Code regulations, artificial light associated with construction activities would not significantly impact residential uses, substantially alter the character of off‐site a r e a s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off‐site activity. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in large expanses of flat, shiny surfaces that would reflect sunlight or cause other natural glare. Therefore, the P roject would not create a new source of substantial light or g lare which would adversely affe ct day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts with respect to construction lighting would be less than significant. (b) Operation
(i) Artificial Light
Implementation of the Specific Plan over the long-term would incrementally increase the relatively low levels of ambient light under the existing conditions. The recently constructed Pepper Avenue through the Project Site currently provides street lights. Light-sensitive land uses in the area include residential uses to the west and south and particularly along Eucalyptus Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue. However, these areas would be separated from future development and light sources by the approximately 29.5-acre Planning Area 9 permanent open space.

New light sources within the Specific Plan area would include signage, visible from the light from windows of residential buildings and retail uses, outdoor architectural lighting, parking lot lighting, and sign-related lighting, as well as light from street lights, vehicles traveling along on- site and adjacent roadways, and security lighting. Illuminated signs would include signs visible from the 210 Freeway and commercial building signs. Such lighting has the potential to create a “glow” effect within and around the Project area, including adjacent residential neighborhoods, and result in an overall increase ambient light in the area. This increase in ambient lighting, however, is not expected to interfere with activities in on-site or adjacent residential neighborhoods, as they already would be subject to similar lighting conditions (street lights, neighborhood lights). The Specific Plan’s Development Standards require that all direct light rays from all signs must be confined within the Project Site and not shine directly upon neighboring property. Temporary lighting such as search or flood lights that are used on a permanent basis would be prohibited. The effect of the incremental increase in ambient light sources associated with the Specific Plan’s residential uses would be negligible in the context of the overall development pattern in the area, which includes freeway lights and evening traffic, lighting of the Frisbie Park ballfields, and indoor and outdoor lighting from residential neighborhoods.

Landscaping along the periphery of the proposed developed areas would also limit light-related impacts to adjacent uses.

The Specific Plan’s exterior lighting would also 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., paseos and common open space areas) for both architectural highlighting and security purposes. Lighting for security purposes would occur from dusk to dawn to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors. Lighting would primarily consist of a mix of standard incandescent light fixtures, as well as various types of efficient/low energy

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
fixtures. Lighting would be designed (shielded) and strategically placed to minimize glare and light spill onto off-site residential neighborhoods. Specifically, any pole-mounted light fixtures located on-site or within the adjacent public rights-of-way would be shielded and directed toward the areas to be lit and away from adjacent sensitive uses. Landscaping along streets and building edges would also reduce light spillage and ambient night glow.

Based on the above, with adherence to the Specific Plan lighting guidelines and other applicable Rialto Municipal Code regulations (i.e., pertinent to construction lighting), lighting associated with the Project would not substantially alter the character of the off-site areas surrounding the Project Site and would not interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Impacts attributable to Project-induced artificial lighting would be less than significant. (ii) Glare
Daytime glare can result from sunlight reflecting from a shiny surface that would interfere with the performance of an off-site activity, such as the operation of a motor vehicle. Reflective surfaces can be associated with window glass and polished surfaces, such as metallic or glass curtain walls and trim. Under the Specific Plan’s Architectural Guidelines, buildings of a single form and height are used, these buildings should be articulated with layered wall planes, banding, architectural details and/or materials. The Specific Plan would prohibit large expanses of reflective or highly-tinted glass. In addition, building walls would articulated to reduce highly reflective surfaces, or use of metal and reflective glass.

Existing glare generation within the Project vicinity is limited because of the residential character of the area. However, passing vehicles on the 210 Freeway have the potential to generate short- term glare as viewed from the south. The east/west- bound 210 Freeway and north-bound streets in the area are considered glare sensitive because the light source (sunlight) would be behind the driver and reflect off shiny objects in the drivers view field across the Project Site. Because the Specific Plan’s Development Standards and Design Guidelines include provisions for architectural design (including window design/placement), types of building materials, landscape screening, and discouragement of large expanses of reflective glass or metal building surfaces, glare impacts within the view field of the freeway or northbound streets in the area would be minimal or absent. Because of the proposed architectural character of future uses and associated design requirements, glare impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. (4) Policy and Regulatory Compliance
(a) City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto General Plan includes various goals and policies within the Community Design component that relate to aesthetics, visual quality, and scenic resources. An analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies contained in the General Plan is presented in Table 4.A-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, below. As discussed in Table 4.A-1, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Community Design component and, thus, represent the City’s aesthetic values. As such, impacts with respect to the General Plan would be less than significant.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.A-1

CONSISTENCY OF THE PEPPER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH COMMUNITY DESIGN POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-10: Create distinctive gateways at all entry points into Rialto and for individual districts or neighborhoods.2- Policy 2-10.1: Continue the use of monument signs at focal points within the community and at major and minor
gateways. Establish unified entry treatments at major
entries into the City.

Policy 2-10.2: Design and implement themed landscape
treatments near freeway off- and on-ramps to announce
entry into Rialto.

Policy 2-10.3: Encourage new and established
neighborhoods to provide ground signs and landscaping at a major street entrance to reinforce their identity.

Consistent. The Project would be the gateway to the
northeastern area of the City and would incorporate
freeway-oriented signage, where appropriate, and
monument signage that would contribute to the overall
sense of place. The signage would be designed to be
consistent with the Project’s high quality architecture.

Landscaping within the Pepper Avenue median and
parkways is planned to be implemented as part of the
Project. This landscape theme is consistent with the
existing landscape already installed in Pepper Avenue, as identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines. This
landscaping would be attractively designed and announce the entry for both the Project and the City. Medians and parkways on the “main street” within the Project would
reinforce the commercial identity by utilizing special
landscaping treatments. Special signage would be
incorporated into the Project and tailored in design to effectively communicate directional information throughout the Site and establish retail and/or residential character.

Goal 2-11: Design streetscapes in Rialto to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and dine.

Policy 2-11.1: Require the screening of commercial or
industrial parking areas, storage yards, stockpiles, and other collections of equipment from the public right-of-way.

Policy 2-11.2: Provide and maintain street trees and
parkway landscaping within the public right-of-way for
developed properties within Rialto. Require private
development to do the same as per City design
regulations.

Policy 2-11.4: Incorporate street trees and other landscape treatments along corridors to provide sufficient shade
canopy and promote pedestrian comfort.

Policy 2-11.5: Require that projects with perimeter walls (including gated residential communities) provide an
interesting streetscape, with pedestrian access to major travel ways.

Consistent. On the east side of Pepper Avenue, the
Project would screen loading and service areas from public view through the building orientation, design, walls and/or landscape. On the west side of Pepper Avenue, walls and landscape screen would detract from the overall aesthetic of the Site and be an inappropriate buffer from the adjacent natural open space. However, service areas would be
screened by using unique architectural and landscape
treatments, as indicated in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines.

Also, these buildings require architecture and appropriate landscape treatments on all exposed elevations, similar to the level of design on the front elevation. The Design
Guidelines include sample, innovative treatments to reduce the visual impact of service areas.

Medians would be provided, where feasible, within the
public right-of-way of the Project Site. Trees, shrubs and ornamental landscaping would be planted within medians
and Planning parkways throughout the public realm.

Ornamental and functional landscaping within the private realms of the Project would be consistent with that of the public realm, such that landscaping in both areas
demonstrates the desired Mediterranean, “Veneto”
aesthetic and contributes to the overall sense of place of the Project. Pedestrian comfort would be taken into
account when designing landscaping along sidewalks and
pedestrian paths. Where feasible, canopy trees would be provided to shade pedestrian walkways.

Goal 2-12: Design new streets to be pedestrian friendly.

Policy 2-12.1: Require the use of attractive street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, planters, bicycle racks) in the Downtown area, along Foothill Boulevard, and other highly visible areas to communicate the City’s identity and pride.

Policy 2-12.2: Use textured paving or similar design
features to define pedestrian crossings, particularly near pedestrian activity areas such as Downtown.

Policy 2-12.3: Install curb extensions (i.e., bulb out or similar enhancements) at pedestrian crossings to shorten the crossing distance required, wherever feasible.

Additional pedestrian protections, including bollards and Consistent. The Project would emphasize a meaningful
pedestrian experience that creates an attractive and safe environment suitable and desirable for pedestrian use. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the design and use of street furniture, such as benches, planters, bike racks, pedestrian level signage, lighting fixtures, trash receptacles, etc., would bolster the Project’s character and create an approachable, enjoyable environment.

In areas with high levels of expected pedestrian activity, textured, stamped, or stained paving would be encouraged to generate visual interest at the pedestrian level.

Pedestrian crossings for major streets would be delineated using one of the aforementioned paving techniques, and

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
defensible space landscape treatments, should be utilized as well.

Policy 2-12.4: Enhance pedestrian walkways directly under building canopies by one or more of the following
techniques: interlocking or textured paving, turf block walls, theme plantings, trees projecting through canopies,
bollards and kiosks, pavilions or gazebos, and trellises and arbors planted with flowering vines.

Policy 2-12.5: Maximize potential pedestrian connections through the use of highly visible gateways, walkways, and directional signs and the installation of traffic-calming devices where appropriate.

Policy 2-12.6: Require landscape screens in new
commercial developments larger than 15,000 square feet
directly in front of the stores rather than leaving the façade barren. The intent of the landscape screen is to improve the scale by visually lowering the building height and mass without impeding access or identity of the buildings
function.

Policy 2-12.7: Shade bus shelters and other outdoor use areas from the sun. Commercial projects along major
corridors in Rialto shall incorporate at least one bus shelter, taxi stop, bicycle rack, and/or similar transportation or pedestrian features. The design of these features shall be consistent with the identity, feel, and theme of that corridor. would reduce the crossing distance by using curb
extensions where feasible or appropriate. Bollards,
landscaping buffers, and other techniques that define
pedestrian spaces can also be utilized as appropriate.

Highly visible gateways would communicate the pedestrian nature of the walkway and denote the beginning and end of major pedestrian paths. Landscaping, signage, and traffic calming design features installed at these pedestrian
activity areas would further encourage pedestrian usage.

As described in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, landscape screening would be implemented upon commercial
buildings that exceed 15,000 square feet in size in order to reduce the negative visual impacts of large, uninterrupted facades upon the pedestrian and to create articulation that improves the pedestrian experience.

Pepper Avenue north of Baseline Road does not currently have any public transit services. With the recent opening of the Pepper Avenue extension, bus services could be
extended to the Project Site. Chapter 5, Development
Standards requires that all major developments work with Omnitrans in determining if bus services shall service the Project Site. Should services be provided to the Site, the developer(s) would install a bus shelter consistent with the Mediterranean “Veneto” architectural theme of the Project.

Bicycles racks are also to be provided as part of the
Project.

Goal 2-13: Achieve quality aesthetic design of all signage in the City of Rialto.

Policy 2-13.2: Require consistent design quality and
themes for directional signage along public streets.

Policy 2-13.3: Require that all ground signs incorporate landscape treatment to reduce visual height and impact
from the street.

Consistent. The Specific Plan entails future development projects within the Specific Plan boundaries. Developers would be required to construct on-site traffic system
improvements as well as paying applicable fair-share
contributions to local and regional off-site improvements in order to mitigate Project-related traffic impacts. With implementation of applicable improvements, the Specific Plan would not hinder the preservation or sustainability of the regional transportation system.

Goal 2-14: Protect scenic vistas and scenic resources.

Policy 2-14.1: Protect views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing
development.

Policy 2-14.2: Protect views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Consistent. Commercial buildings would be restricted to a maximum height of four stories, with two stories anticipated under the Concept Plan, and residential buildings would be restricted to a height of three stories. With building height restrictions, scenic vistas of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain Ranges from public vantage points and
streets to the south and views of the La Loma Hills from the 210 Freeway would be substantially protected.

Goal 2-15: Establish a public art program that engages the public and enriches the pedestrian experience.

Policy 2-15.1: Encourage the incorporation of public art into large-scale development projects.

Policy 2-15.3: Encourage the creation of art pieces that represent the agricultural history of the community, family- first values, and vision for the future.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, public art is encouraged be incorporated into high visibility areas of the Project. Specifically, public art should be considered for implementation along the “main street”, the community commercial plaza, and the welcome plaza
adjacent to the potential pedestrian bridge. This art may take the form of murals, sculptures, fountains, unique
landscaping features or architectural elements that are specifically designed for the Project and contribute to the high quality design and character of the Specific Plan and are encouraged to represent the agricultural history of the City and the site, or the community, family-first or family- first values.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-16: Improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto.

Policy 2-16.1: Require new development and construction to exhibit a high level of quality architectural design to emphasize community uniqueness, individuality, and
historical references.

Policy 2-16.2: Require architectural identity for individual commercial corridors, while also encouraging a variety of architectural features to create visual interest and
pedestrian scale.

Policy 2-16.3: Discourage architectural monotony.

Policy 2-16.4: Discourage the design of boxy structures; emphasize articulation of the front façade and the
horizontal plane with multi-story structures.

Policy 2-16.5: Require developers to vary building and
parking setbacks along the streetscape to create visual interest.

Policy 2-16.6: Require architectural treatments on all
façades facing rights-of-way, public streets, and alleys, including windows, doors, architectural details, and
landscape treatment.

Consistent. Chapter 4, Design Guidelines include
provisions that would ensure a high-level of quality
architectural design that is consistent throughout the
Project and provides a unique retail (and possibly
residential) experience within the City of Rialto. Where appropriate, historical references would be made through the incorporation of design themes and public art.

Variety in scale, massing, setbacks and design of
commercial areas would reinforce the identity of the
Project, while allowing for unique and interesting
architectural features throughout the planning areas. Highly articulated façades and rooflines would discourage
architectural monotony
Goal 2-17: Provide high-quality and environmentally
sustainable landscaping.

Policy 2-17.1: Require the planting of street trees along public streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for private developments to improve air shed, minimize urban heat island effect, and lessen impacts of high winds.

Policy 2-17.2: Require all new development to incorporate tree plantings dense enough to shade and beautify
residential and commercial areas.

Policy 2-17.3: Require the use of drought-tolerant, native landscaping and smart irrigation systems for new
development to lower overall water usage.

Consistent. The Project would comply with these policies by requiring medians and parkways in the right-of-way and other public realms to be planted with trees and thoroughly landscaped with ornamental drought tolerant landscaping.

Trees planted within community commercial and
multifamily residential areas would be dense enough to
provide shade and would minimize urban heat island effect, especially within parking lots and open spaces. The
proposed landscape plan would im plement a design that is intended to use lower overall water usage, as compared to developments consisting of turf.

Goal 2-18: Protect Rialto’s small-town character.

Policy 2-18.1: Require all new development and
renovations within residential neighborhoods to be
consistent with the existing scale, massing, and
landscaping of that neighborhood.

Policy 2-18.2: Protect, to the extent feasible, the natural character of the areas bordering or in close proximity to the Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek
Consistent. The Specific Plan design considers the
existing scale, massing, landscaping and typology of the existing development near the Project Site. The Site is currently undeveloped, and is close to some existing
single-family homes, across a natural wash to the south and west of the Project Site. This neighborhood would be buffered by the large natural open space that
encompasses the natural drainage features in PA 9.

Furthermore, height restrictions for the Project are similar to those in other areas of the City. Given the buffer and the height limitations, there would be no inconsistencies in scale, massing, and landscape between the Project Site
and the nearby single-family residential uses.

The Project preserves a large open space wash that would continue to function as a natural habitat area and drainage feature that flows into Lytle Creek.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-19: Encourage neighborhood preservation,
stabilization, and property maintenance.

Policy 2-19.1: Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to
neighborhood context and building form and scale.

Policy 2-19.2: Encourage property maintenance by
requiring new development to submit precise plans of
design to maintain landscape areas that incorporate
property maintenance standards from the City’s property maintenance ordinance.

Policy 2-19.5: Integrate residential developments with their built surroundings, and encourage a strong relationship between dwelling and the street.

Consistent. Due to the location of the multi-family
residential overlay on the Project Site, new residential development within the Specific Plan would respect the
scale and massing of these nearby neighborhoods. The
multi-family portion of the Project Site is located on a lower grade than the nearby single-family residential. With the multi-family portion limited to three stories in height and the distance of the multi-family housing from the existing
single-family homes (1,500 feet), the multi-family housing would not be incompatible with the nearby single-family homes.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Development Standards, plans for future development would include the specific design and maintenance standards identified in the City’s
Landscaping Maintenance specifications.

Chapter 4, Design Guidelines include design guidelines
that would ensure development within the multi-family
overlay zone would integrate into surrounding
development, with units having a strong interrelationship with the street and open spaces PA3. The multi-family
development within the overlay zone would be residential in nature, but would be designed so that it is not a
“residential island,” isolated in the midst of community commercial uses. The multi-family residences would be
physically separate from community commercial uses, but visually integrated consists of strong pedestrian
connections.

Goal 2-20: Require high-quality multi-unit design,
landscaping, and architecture.

Policy 2-20.1: Require multi-unit buildings design to be visually and architecturally pleasing by varying the height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim and roof shape.

Policy 2-20.2: Do not allow box-like forms with large,
unvaried roofs by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes by creating clusters of units, variations in height, setback, and roof shape.

Policy 2-20.3: Require use of porches, stairs, railings, fascia boards, and trim to enhance multi-unit buildings’ character.

Policy 2-20.4: Provide for multi-unit buildings to relate to the street and be located to reinforce street frontages.

Policy 2-20.5: Emphasize private, ground-level entries to individual units so that primary building entries are
prominent and visible.

Policy 2-20.6: Require pedestrian accessibility to adjacent uses with paseos, gates, pedestrian walkways, crossings, and sidewalks.

Policy 2-20.7: Require parking lots to be located at the rear or side of a site to allow a majority of dwelling units to front on the street.

Policy 2-20.8: Encourage that each unit have some form of useful private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck, balcony, yard, or shared entry porches or balconies.

Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, multi-unit residential buildings would be architecturally pleasing by incorporating varying height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim and roofs within the multi-family overlay zone. These design features would
create visual interest and contribute to the Mediterranean, “Veneto” character of the Project. Functional aspects of the unit designs, such as porches, stairs, and railing shall be designed to be aesthetically appealing, consistent with the desired community aesthetic while performing their
practical purpose as a functional architectural element.

As described in the design guidelines, units should be
clustered in design and would incorporate ground level
entries into designs that face the street in order to promote the relationship of the residences with the public realm.

Parking lots would be located in the rears in order to
reduce the visual impact of parked cars upon the public realm, and promote residential character of the multifamily residential zone by having units fronting onto the
streets/drives. As identified in Chapter 5, Development Standards, each individual multi-family unit would be
required to have access to some form of personal open
space, such as a patio or balcony. Residential projects within the multi-family overlay would have a series of
internal sidewalks, paseos and crossings for a pedestrian- friendly environment and to connect the dwellings to the community commercial uses and facilitate access between the two uses.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-21: Ensure high-quality planned developments in
Rialto.

Policy 2-21.1: Require the provision of landscape buffers, walls, additional setbacks, and landscaped Planning
Parking lots as buffers between commercial and/or
industrial uses with residential land uses.

Policy 2-21.2: Require that the layout of units and/or
buildings be staggered to maximize visual interest and
individual identity.

Policy 2-21.3: Discourage rectangular building footprints that lack visual interest or articulation along street
frontages, and encourage the arrangement of structures on the site to allow for adequate screening of parking and loading areas as well as alleys on all industrial and
commercial sites.

Policy 2-21.4: Encourage creative site planning, making use of patio homes, zero lot line units, planned unit
“cluster” development, attached townhouse products, and auto courts.

Policy 2-21.5: Encourage the clustering of residential units which provide semi-private common areas, maximize
views, and provide passive open space and recreation
uses within multi-unit developments.

Policy 2-21.6: Encourage developments to incorporate
meandering greenbelts into subdivision projects,
particularly along trails, collector streets, secondary streets, and major highways, protected environmental areas, or
other special features. Bicycle and pedestrian trails should be connected with similar features in neighboring projects so that upon completion newer neighborhoods would be
linked at the pedestrian level.

Policy 2-21.7: Require parkways to be placed on the
outside of the public sidewalk immediately adjoining the curb to provide shade for pedestrians, and provide a
canopy of trees to be either uniformly spaced or informally grouped.

Policy 2-21.8: Require that new residential subdivisions adjacent to secondary or major highways be oriented
inward and provided with buffers to reduce exposure to
traffic and noise.

Consistent. The Design Guidelines section of this Specific Plan identifies that the multi-family residential should be designed to interact with the adjacent commercial uses.

However, in the event that the residential is adjacent to the side or rear portions of the commercial, the residential would have walls and landscape to function as a barrier to reduce impacts associated with an undesirable commercial edge.

In accordance with Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, multi- family units would be staggered and well-designed in order to generate visual interest and contribute to the
Mediterranean, “Veneto” character of the overall Project.

Articulated walls and footprints would discourage monotony in architecture, and a well-designed and creative site plan would promote the livability, walkability, aesthetics, and inviting open spaces. Sidewalks and paseos within each
developed planning area would make internal connections to various points of interest within that planning area, and would also connect to surrounding uses.

Public parkways would be placed on the outside of the
sidewalk, separating the curb and the pedestrian walkway.

Trees would be planted in these landscaped parkways in
order to shade sidewalks and encourage walkability.

Residential units would only permitted to be located within PA3, which is separated from both Pepper Avenue and the 210 Freeway by community commercial uses.

Goal 2-22: Promote commercial and/or industrial
development that is well designed, people-oriented,
environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the needs of the visitor or resident, and functionally efficient for its purpose.

Policy 2-22.1: Require that developments incorporate
varied planes and textures and variety in window and door treatments on building façades.

Policy 2-22.2: Encourage architecture which disaggregates massive buildings into smaller parts with greater human scale.

Policy 2-22.3: Require that landscape plantings be
incorporated into commercial and industrial projects to define and emphasize entrances, inclusive of those areas along the front of a building facing a parking lot.

Policy 2-22.4: Require all major commercial developments to incorporate theme elements to create a distinct identity, foster individuality, and provide gathering opportunities.

Policy 2-22.5: Require developments to provide pedestrian Consistent. As identified in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, commercial buildings within the Specific Plan are
encouraged to be arranged to minimize the appearance of long, unbroken, rectangular axes, where feasible, without compromising the efficiency of the site design and layout.

Landscaping would be used to visually “break up” long,
straight axes. For smaller buildings, treatments may
include clustering them together around a small plaza,
green space, or other focal point. To the extent feasible, large commercial buildings would be visually broken up into smaller components by changes in color, texture, rooflines, window and door spacing, or massing. Landscaping and
vertical trees would also help to break up building massing, and would also be used to highlight building entries and architectural features. Commercial building facades would incorporate varied planes, colors, and textures to promote interest. Architectural detailing would take place upon any building façade that is visible from a public street, 210 Freeway or faces the unnamed was to the west and south
of the Project Site.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
and vehicle connections and pathways between parking
lots at the rear and front of buildings.

Policy 2-22.6: Require delivery areas to be separated from pedestrian areas.

Policy 2-22.7: Require outdoor storage areas, where
permitted, to be screened from public view.

Policy 2-22.8: Insist that full architectural treatments and details be provided on all facades visible to the street of development projects.

Community commercial development would be encouraged
to incorporate theme elements intended to distinguish them from other developments, foster individuality, and promote gathering opportunities. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, outdoor cafes, gateways, kiosks, flag courts, trellises and arbors, bell towers, theme towers, galleries, patios and plazas, water elements, booths,
outdoor markets, colonnades, and arcades.

Parking lots would not be isolated from the fronts of
buildings. Commercial developments would provide either mid-building pedestrian access or fully treated rear
entrances. Service and delivery areas would be separated from pedestrian areas such that they would not interfere with pedestrian traffic and would have minimal aesthetic impact on pedestrian nodes.

Although not initially proposed, any accessory outdoor
storage areas would be reviewed as part of the Project’s design and would be appropriately screened from public
view.

Goal 2-23: Minimize the visual impact of parking lots.

Policy 2-23.1: Require mature trees and landscaping in off- street parking areas to make them more inviting and
aesthetically appealing, and to provide sufficient shading to reduce heat.

Policy 2-23.2: Encourage the inclusion of textured parking along pedestrian walkways and under building canopies.

Policy 2-23.3: Require use of drainage improvements
designed, with native vegetation where possible, to retain or detain water runoff and minimize pollutants into drainage system.

Consistent. Chapter 18.58 of the City of Rialto Zoning
Code requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the parking area shall be landscaped. Design guidelines are included in this Specific Plan that encourage parking lots to include a combination of landscaping belts, planters, and design features that reduce the massive and unbroken
appearance of parking surfaces. Where appropriate and
feasible, parking lot drainage design would utilize
landscaping planters as a means to reduce runoff. Native vegetation would be planted where possible to reduce the amount of water required for irrigation.

Goal 2-24: Take advantage of opportunities to increase
and enhance open spaces throughout Rialto.

Policy 2-24.1: Identify and explore opportunities for
acquisition of land in the Lytle Creek floodplain and fault- impacted areas for use as open space, parkland, or
recreational areas.

Consistent. The Specific Plan area includes a significant portion of the site that includes a fault hazard. This area of the Project also consists of protected habitat and is
identified as natural open space. The potential pedestrian bridge connecting Frisbie Park and the community
commercial uses within the Project would provide species information and offer views of the habitat to visitors of the Project site.

Goal 2-26: Maximize open spaces in urban areas.

Policy 2-26.1: Require that private open space be
integrated into new development by providing green
spaces and landscaped plazas between buildings.

Policy 2-26.2: Enhance street corridors by incorporating small green areas, extensive landscaping, and street trees.

Policy 2-26.3: Explore opportunities to create pocket parks within urbanized areas for public and/or private use.

Consistent. As indicated in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, the Project design includes plazas and resting areas within the “main street” area and also a welcoming plaza at the terminus of the potential pedestrian bridge into the Project.

The main street would also feature extensive landscape
treatment on both sides of the traveler for an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian experience. The Pepper Avenue right- of-way would be enhanced by incorporating street trees, small green areas and extensive landscaping into medians and parkways
Where appropriate, additional private green spaces would be incorporated into the site design. Opportunities for the implementation of pocket parks within the multi-family
overlay zone would be reviewed at the design-level. In any case, any multi-family residential would be required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of common open
space, as indicated in Chapter 5, Development Standards.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Policies Evaluation of Consistency
Goal 2-27: Provide a variety of park facilities that
meet the diverse needs and interest of the community.

Policy 2-27.1: Establish a Master Plan for Parks and
Recreation that achieves a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, evenly distributes park facilities throughout the community, and contains strategies for funding facilities and maintenance.

Consistent. Chapter 5, Development Standards, requires
that each multi-family dwelling unit shall provide a minimum of 400 square feet per unit and would be evaluated at the design-level review. Should the 400 square feet per unit be less than this policy, the Project would provide additional open space or pay park in-lieu fees to meet this
requirement.

SOURCE: Pepper Avenue Specific Plan, Appendix A, 2016.

(b) City of Rialto Municipal Code
The Specific Plan would supersede the design guidelines for commercial and residential development includes in the Municipal Code. However, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code in reflecting the City’s standard for aesthetic and high quality development. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the Code’s special landscape or architectural treatment to enhance focal points and public site entrances. As described in Table

4.A-1, the Specific Plan would meet the City’s goals that require residential dwellings to be arranged in a manner that creates a harmonious, varied appearance of building heights and setbacks (similar to Code Section 18.61.040). Design requirements of the Specific Plan would be consistent with Code Section 18.61.050, which requires that commercial buildings locate loading areas and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and roof-mounted equipment be as far as feasible and practical from adjacent residences and orientation of buildings along streets used by the public that allow buildings to define the street edge. The Specific Plan would be consistent with building design requirements under Section 18.61.060 that require desirable colors on building exteriors, including muted natural colors, earth tone colors, pastel colors, and natural stains. The Specific Plan would be consistent with residential building design regulations under Section 18.61.070, that requires building design to respect the predominant characteristics of neighborhood development, such as height, massing, setbacks, materials and architectural style.

Under the Specific Plan, facades of long buildings would be segmented and well-defined, which is consistent with Section 18.61.080. Similar to the Municipal Code, large blank, flat walls, flat roofs, square "box-like" buildings, highly reflective surfaces such as metal would not be permitted. The Specific Plan would be consistent with Section 18.61.100, which requires that materials and colors on building exteriors of all elevations of a building shall be coordinated to provide a total continuity of design and with Section 18.61.140, which requires lighting to be designed as an integral part of the overall site and building design. Because the Specific Plan would be substantially consistent with applicable aesthetic regulations of the Municipal Code, impacts related to Code consistency would be less than significant. (b) Rialto Zoning Ordinance
Title 18 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code establishes land use requirements for all new development in the City. All new development would be reviewed by the City’s Department of Building and Safety to ensure compliance with all aspects of the Rialto Municipal Code, including Title 18. In addition to compliance with all applicable aspects of Title18, the Specific Plan must meet the requirements of Sec. 18.78, which provides procedures for the adoption of

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
specific plans. The Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines (Chapter 4.0) and Development Standards (Chapter 5.0) would meet the requirements of Title 18 for the systematic implementation of the General Plan regarding the location of uses together with regulations establishing height, bulk, and setback limits; the location and extent of existing or proposed streets, standards for building density, permissible types of construction and provisions for services.

Overall, future development associated with the Project would be subject to review through the development application process and would be analyzed by the City to ensure that the development is consistent with the development regulations and requirements. It should be noted that where the Specific Plan is silent on a development standard or design requirement, the City’s Rialto Municipal Code applies. Although a zone change from the existing Single-Family Residential (R-1A) would be required as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan, compliance with the development standards of the Specific Plan, once it has been adopted, would ensure that development would not conflict with the standards and regulations of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, with approval of the proposed zone change, the Specific Plan would be considered consistent with the regulations of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and respective land use impacts would be less than significant. e. Cumulative Impacts
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR describes planned or recent related projects in the Project study area. Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map, illustrates the locations of all related projects. Related projects, in combination with the Project, have the potential to contribute to, or generate, cumulative impacts. Proximity to the Project Site increases the potential for related projects to occur within a similar line-of-sight or view field and, as such, would increase the potential to generate cumulative aesthetic impacts. The nearest related project to the Project Site is Related Project 9, which is located to the north of Baseline Road approximately 0.5 mile to the south of the Project Site. Related Project 9 consists of a shipping container storage yard on an approximately 12-acre site to north of the Meridian Avenue terminus, in the vicinity of the BNSF Railroad spur. The proposed storage yard would be in proximity to and consistent with other container storage facilities near the railroad track. The proposed shipping container facility would be low-rise in character and comprise primarily rows movable containers. Because of its height profile and distance from the Project Site, long-range views to the north and northwest across Related Project 9 in combination with the Project would not block views of the mountains or other scenic vistas from view locations, such as Baseline Road, that have views across Related Project 9 and the Project Site.

Related projects 2a through 2d are located south of Walnut Avenue in the vicinity of Cactus Avenue, approximately 1.8 miles to the west of the Project Site. Several related projects, including Related Projects 4a, 4b, and 5a through 5e, are located in existing urban areas south of the Project Site. Related Projects 4a and 4b are south of Foothill Boulevard to the southwest of the Project Site, which are over 1.7 miles from the Project Site. Related Projects 5a through 5e, are located farther to the south of Rialto Avenue and Merrill Avenue, respectively. As with Related Projects 2a through 2d, 4a, and 4b, these projects are located in existing urban areas and are sufficiently distant from the Project Site to not occur within the same field of view. As such,

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. Aesthetics
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.A-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
these related projects would not block views across the Project Site. In addition, because of their existing urban settings, the development of Related Projects 2a through 2d, 4a, 4b, and 5a through 5e, in combination with the Project, would not cause a sufficient change in the visual character of the City to result in a cumulative significant impact. Related Projects 7, 8 and 10 are located to the north of the 210 Freeway and would not occur within the same line of sight as the Project and, in combination with the Project, would have no effect on scenic vistas. Therefore, the cumulative impact to views/scenic vistas would not be considered significant and the Project’s contribution to this impact would not be considerable.

Regarding light and glare, with the exception of Related Projects 2c and 5d, which contain retail components and Related Project 9, a proposed storage facility, the majority of related projects are residential in character. Residential uses generate lower lighting effects and are considered areas of moderate ambient lighting. In these areas, nighttime lighting is used for safety and convenience and late evening light sources may be extinguished or reduced as activity levels decline. In the Project area, the 210 Freeway constitutes the highest night lighting source. Although any new development would further intensify the urban lighting environment, because of the primarily residential character of related projects, high levels of new light are not anticipated. In addition, because of the distance of the commercial related projects (Related Projects 2 and 4), which are approximately 1.8 and 2.5 miles from the Project Site, light sources are not anticipated to cumulatively combine with the Project. Further, Related Projects 2c and 5d are located in existing urban areas and would not substantially affect urban lighting conditions in those areas. Related projects in combination with the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to ambient nighttime lighting would be less than significant.

4. Mitigation Measures
The Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts with regard to views/scenic vistas, aesthetics/visual character, light and glare and consistency with applicable land use policies and regulations and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

5. Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable. All impacts related to views/scenic vistas, aesthetics/visual character, and light and glare would be less than significant given compliance with Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines and Development Standards, as applicable. Additionally, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the Community Design Component of the City’s General Plan.

6. References
City of Rialto, 2010. Rialto General Plan. Adopted December 2010, page 2-22. Available at:
http://www.rialtoca.gov/documents/downloads/General_Plan_Update _2010.pdf.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-1 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
B. Air Quality

1. Introduction
This section addresses potential effects on air quality associated with air emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. The analysis also addresses the consistency of the Project with the air quality policies set forth within the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan and the City of Rialto General Plan. The analysis of Project-generated air emissions focuses on whether the Project would cause exceedance of an ambient air quality standard or SCAQMD significance threshold. Calculation worksheets, assumptions, and model outputs used in the analysis are contained in Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report. The Air Quality Technical Report is included as Appendix B to this EIR.

2. Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Regional Setting
The proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would encompass 101.7 acres on mostly undeveloped land in the eastern portion of the City of Rialto, located in the southwestern portion San Bernardino County. The Project Site is situated south of State Route 210 (SR-210), west of the BNSF Railroad, and northeast of single-family residences. The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The Project Site location, in a regional and a local context, is illustrated in Figure 2.A-1, Regional Vicinity Map.
(2) Climate and Meteorology
The Basin is an approximately 6,600-square-mile coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The ambient concentrations of air pollutants in a given area are determined by the amount of air emissions released by pollutant sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions, such as in the Project area, are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources.

Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to make the Basin an area with the potential for high air pollution concentrations.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-2 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The general region of the Project area lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions with ozone precursor emissions that produce ozone. (3) Criteria Pollutants
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) currently focus on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable or breathable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead.

These pollutants are referred to as “criteria air pollutants” since they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health, and an extensive number of health-effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare. Federal standards have been established for the concentration of each criteria pollutant to meet specific public health and welfare criteria set forth in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards, or state standards) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard.

Ozone: Ozone is a gas, not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight for approximately 3 hours. Ozon e is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted direct ly by sources, but is formed do wnwind of sources of ROG and NOx under the influence of wind and sunlight. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Carbon Monoxide: CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is a relatively nonreactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicle exhaust. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s, when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-3 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
because of the retirement of older polluting vehicles, lower CO emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels.

Nitrogen Dioxide: NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes.

Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX, which are reported as equivalent NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high-pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels.

Sulfur Dioxide: SO2 is a colorless, extremely irritating gas (or liquid), which enters the atmosphere as a pollutant, mainly as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide (SO3), collectively, referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil-burning residential heaters. Emissions of SO2 aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis, and constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease.

Respirable Particulate Matter: PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high levels of particulate matter include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Particulate matter can also damage materials and reduce visibility. One common source of PM2.5 is diesel exhaust emissions.

PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air (e.g., fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown dust) and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of SO2 and ROGs. Vehicle traffic generates particulate matter emissions through the entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 and PM2.5 are also emitted by wood burning in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM2.5 can also be formed through secondary processes such as airborne reactions with certain pollutant precursors, including ROGs, ammonia, NOx, and SOx.

Lead: Ambient lead concentrations meet both the federal and state standards in the Project area.

Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects, and was formerly released into the atmosphere primarily via leaded gasoline products. The phase-out of leaded gasoline in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. The Project would not introduce any new sources of lead emissions; consequently, lead emissions are not required to be quantified and are not further evaluated in this analysis.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-4 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
(4) Toxic Air Contaminants
Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB, 2013), the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter). Diesel particulate matter (PM) differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel particulate matter is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present.

Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel particulate matter because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM
10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel particulate matter. In addition to diesel particulate matter, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene. (5) Odorous Emissions
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress, generating citizen complaints to local governments. Although unpleasant, offensive odors rarely cause physical harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed, direction, and the sensitivity of receptors. (6) Existing Air Quality
SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The Project Site is located in San Bernardino County. The nearest monitoring station to the Project Site is the San Bernardino 4th Street monitoring station (24302 4th St., San Bernardino, CA). This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, but does not monitor SO2. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of SO2 is the Fontana – Arrow Highway Monitoring Station. Concentrations from the monitoring stations for the most recent three years (2013–2015) are shown in Table 4.B-1.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-5 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2013–2015)
Pollutant
Monitoring Data by Year
Standarda 2013 2014 2015
Ozone – San Bernardino- 4th Street Monitoring Station
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.139 0.121 0.134
Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 22 38 52
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.113 0.100 0.118
Days over National Standard 0.070 ppm 36 51 57
Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 53 76 79
Carbon Monoxide – San Bernardino- 4th Street Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 3.8 4.1 2.3
Days over National Standard 35 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 20 ppm 0 0 0
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 1.7 2.4 *
Days over National Standard 9 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide – San Bernardino- 4th Street Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0721 0.0726 0.0714
Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 0.180 ppm 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide – Fontana- Arrow Highway Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0043 0.0040 0.0041
Days over State Standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10) – San Bernardino- 4th Street Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (g/m3)b 117.3 157.2 187.0
Days over National Standard (measured)c 150 g/m3 1 1 1 Days over State Standard (measured)c 50 g/m3 2 2 3
Highest Annual Average (g/m3)b 20 g/m3 32.7 35.8 33.0 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – San Bernardino- 4th Street Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (g/m3)b 55.3 32.2 53.5
Days over National Standard (measured)c 35 g/m3 1 0 2
Highest Annual Average (g/m3)b 12 g/m3 11.4 * 10.7

NOTES:
ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. * = Insufficient data available to determine the value. a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. c Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded.

SOURCE: CARB, 2016a. SCAQMD, 2014.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-6 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the Project area is provided in Table 4.B-2.

TABLE 4.B-2

PROJECT AREA ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – 1 hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment
Ozone – 8 hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified

SOURCE: CARB, 2015.

(7) Sensitive Receptors
Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air quality conditions because infants, children, the elderly, and people with health afflictions (especially respiratory ailments) are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present.

Sensitive receptors will be most exposed to air pollution when in close proximity to construction activity (i.e., fugitive dust, mobile emissions, etc.). Construction activity is limited to the areas of Community Commercial and Residential land uses on the Project Site. No construction is anticipated to occur on the Open Space or Public Facility land uses. Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptor to any area of construction is the semi-rural residence located approximately 200 feet east of the Project Site, directly across the Union Pacific railroad. Other sensitive land uses surrounding the Project Site include Frisbie Park located approximately 700 feet west of the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-7 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
northern portion of the construction area and single-family residences approximately 800 feet southwest of the construction area, directly across Shirley Bright road. b. Regulatory Framework
Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and state ambient air quality standards and through emissions limits on individual sources of air pollutants. Local air quality management districts (AQMDs) and air pollution control districts (APCDs) are responsible for demonstrating attainment with state air quality standards through the adoption and enforcement of Attainment Plans.
(1) Federal
a. Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal CAA requires the USEPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Table 4.B-3 shows current national and state ambient air quality standards and provides a brief discussion of the related health effects and principal sources for each pollutant. Pursuant to the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the USEPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutants, based on whether or not the NAAQS had been achieved, as shown in Table 4.B-2. b. State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control p lan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAAA added requirements for states containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.

The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the C AAA and will achieve air qualit y goals when implemented. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a F ederal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the nonattainment area and may impose additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within mandated timeframes can result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. (2) State
a. California Air Resources Board
CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. CARB is responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, requires CARB to establish the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CARB has established

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-8 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. Applicable CAAQS are shown in Table 4.B-3.

TABLE 4.B-3

STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State
Standard
National
Standard
Pollutant Health and
Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation.

Long-term exposure may cause
damage to lung tissue.

Formed when reactive organic
gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) react in the presence of
sunlight. Major sources include on-
road motor vehicles, solvent
evaporation, and commercial /
industrial mobile equipment.
8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical
asphyxiant, carbon monoxide
interferes with the transfer of fresh
oxygen to the blood and deprives
sensitive tissues of oxygen.

Internal combustion engines,
primarily gasoline-powered motor
vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere
reddish-brown.

Motor vehicles, petroleum refining
operations, industrial sources,
aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Avg. 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Sulfur
Dioxide
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.75 ppm Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can
yellow the leaves of plants,
destructive to marble, iron,
and steel. Limits visibility and
reduces sunlight.

Fuel combustion, chemical plants,
sulfur recovery plants, and metal
processing.
3 hours --- 0.50 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual Avg. --- 0.03 ppm
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity,
cancer and increased mortality.

Produces haze and limits
visibility.

Dust and fume-producing industrial
and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and
natural activities (e.g., wind-raised
dust and ocean sprays).

Annual Avg. 20 g/m3 ---
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM

2.5)
24 hours --- 35 g/m3 Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death. Reduces
visibility and results in surface
soiling.

Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources;
residential and agricultural burning;
Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants, including
NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.

Annual Avg. 12 g/m3 12 g/m3
Lead Monthly
Avg.

1.5 g/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal system,
and causes anemia, kidney
disease, and neuromuscular
and neurological dysfunction.

Present source: lead smelters,
battery manufacturing & recycling
facilities. Past source: combustion
of leaded gasoline.

Quarterly --- 1.5 g/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm No National
Standard
Nuisance odor (rotten egg
smell), headache and breathing
difficulties (higher
concentrations)
Geothermal Power Plants,
Petroleum Production and refining
Sulfates 24 hour 25 g/m3 No National
Standard
Breathing difficulties, aggravates
asthma, reduced visibility
Produced by the reaction in the air
of SO

2. Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hour Extinction
of 0.23/km;
visibility of
10 miles or
more
No National
Standard
Reduces visibility, reduced
airport safety, lower real estate
value, discourages tourism.

See PM

2.5. ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

SOURCES: CARB, 2016b. CARB, 2001.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-9 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
The CCAA requires all local air districts in the state to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that local air districts shall focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

Among CARB’s other responsibilities are overseeing compliance by local air districts with California and federal laws; approving local air quality plans; submitting SIPs to USEPA; monitoring air quality; determining and updating area designations and maps; and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.
b. CARB On-Road and Off-Road Vehicle Rules
In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel PM and other TACs. The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure does not allow diesel-fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than 5 minutes at any given time.
c. CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook), which provides guidance concerning land use compatibility with TAC sources.

Although it is not a law or adopted policy, the Handbook offers advisory recommendations for the siting of sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and industrial facilities, to help keep children and other sensitive populations out of harm’s way.

The Handbook recommends that lead agencies avoid citing new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway and within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. If within 1 mile of a rail yard, it recommends possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches. d. California Green Building Standard Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 Calif ornia Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represen ts a more stringent building code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renova tions in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including hotels and motels) and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings.

In early 2013, the California Bu ilding Standards Commission ado pted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALG reen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-10 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2) , became effective on July 1, 2014.
(3) Local
a. SCAQMD
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, including the Project area. The SCAQMD adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in December 2012 for determination of the significance of a project's contribution to local or regional pollutant concentrations. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin into compliance with the Federal 24-hour PM

2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an
update to the Basin’s commitments towards meeting federal 8-hour ozone standards (AQMP, 2013).

The SCAQMD published a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (the Handbook) in November 1993 to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in EIRs and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. However, the SCAQMD is currently in the process of replacing the Handbook with the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. While this process is underway, the SCAQMD recommends that the lead agency avoid using the screening tables in the Handbook’s Chapter 6, because the tables were derived using an obsolete version of CARB’s mobile source emission factor inventory, and the trip generation characteristic of the land uses identified in these screening tables were based on an older edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, instead of the most current ninth edition.

Additionally, the lead agency should avoid using the on-road mobile source emission factors in Table A9-5-J1 through A9-5-L in the Handbook. The SCAQMD instead recommends using other approved models to calculate emissions from land use projects, such as the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) model.

In addition, the SCAQMD has published a document called Localized Significance Threshold Methodology that is intended to provide voluntary guidance for lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts from projects. In October 2006, the SCAQMD adopted additional guidance regarding PM2.5 in a document called Final – Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD, 2006). The Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology was revised in July 2008 to include the PM2.5 significant threshold methodology and update the LST Mass Rate Look-up Tables for the 1-hour NO2 AAQS from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm (SCAQMD, 2008). These documents were also used in the preparation of this analysis.

The SCAQMD has also adopted land use planning guidelines in the May 2005 Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning which, like the CARB Handbook, also considers impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TACs.

SCAQMD’s distance recommendations are the same as those provided by CARB (e.g., the same siting criteria for distribution centers and dry cleaning facilities). The SCAQMD’s document introduces land use-related policies that rely on design and distance parameters to manage

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-11 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
potential health risk (SCAQMD, 2005). These guidelines are voluntary initiatives recommended for consideration by local planning agencies.
b. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The Pepper Avenue Specific Plan Project could be subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations including, but not limited to:

Rule 401 – Visible Emissions: This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from an emissions source that results in visible emissions. Specifically, the rule prohibits the discharge of any air contaminant into the atmosphere by a person from any single source of emission for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade than that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.

Rule 402 – Nuisance: This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from an emissions source that results in a public nuisance. Specifically, this rule prohibits any person from discharging quantities of air contaminants or other material from any source such that it would result in an injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public. Additionally, the discharge of air contaminants would also be prohibited where it would endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any number of persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust, and requires best available control measures to be applied to earthmoving and grading activities.

Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings: This rule limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. c. Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Ventura Counties. SCAG is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the majority of the Southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which address regional development and growth forecasts and form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP and are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-12 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
AQMP. The RTP, RTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within local jurisdictions.

Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality–related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCP is a framework for decision-making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and state mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes through the year 2015, and beyond. Policies within the RCP include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government.

On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP provides a vision for transportation throughout the region for the next 20 years. The RTP considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The SCS is a newly required element of the RTP, which integrates land use and transportation strategies to achieve CARB emissions reduction targets. The inclusion of the SCS is required by Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. The RTP/SCS successfully achieves and exceeds the greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets set by ARB by achieving a 9% reduction by 2020 and 16% reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level on a per capita basis. This RTP/SCS also meets criteria pollutant emission budgets set by the EPA.

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the NAAQS as set forth by the federal CAA. Even with ongoing aggressive control strategies, ever more stringent national O 3 standards require further NOx emission reductions in the SCAG region. In the Basin, for example, it is estimated that NOx emissions will need to be reduced by approximately two-thirds in 2023 and three-quarters in 2030. Most sources of NOx emissions, cars and factories, are already controlled by over 90 percent. The level of emission reduction required is so significant that 2030 emissions forecasted from just three sources—ships, trains, and aircraft—would lead to O3 levels near the federal standard. To accomplish the reduction required to meet O3 standards, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS contains a regional commitment for the broad deployment of zero- and near-zero emission transportation technologies in the 2023–2035 timeframe and clear steps to move toward this objective.
d. San Bernardino Associated Governments
The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), a subregional organization under SCAG, was created in large part to organize all of the local municipalities within the San Bernardino County to maintain its circulation system. SANBAG effectively acts as the transportation planning agency of the County and is responsible for the coordination of roadway

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-13 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
improvements, public transportation, and congestion management. Under Proposition 111, urban regions with populations of more than 50,000 are required to adopt a congestion management program (CMP). As the designated Congestion Management Agency, SANBAG adopted the County’s CMP in June 1990. Under the CMP, all managed segments are required to operate at a level of service (LOS) of E or better, with the exception of roadway segments that have been designated LOS F in the 2001 CMP.
e. City of Rialto General Plan
Adopted in December 2010, the General Plan provides a vision and blueprint for the City’s long- term physical development. Air quality is discussed in the Open Space and Conservation chapter, which outlines sources of air pollution, as well as goals and policies related to the regulation of air quality. Goals and policies relevant to the Project include, but are not limited to:

Goal 2-35: Reduce air pollution emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the City.

Policy 2-35.2: Require that new development projects incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

Policy 2-35.4: Require new development and significant redevelopment proposals to incorporate sufficient design and operational controls to prevent release of noxious odors beyond the limits of the development site.

Goal 2-36: Reduce the amount of fugitive dust released into the atmosphere.

Policy 2-36.2: Support programs and policies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding restrictions on grading operations at construction projects.

3. Environmental Impacts
a. Methodology
This air quality analysis focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the Project. Air pollutant emissions associated with the Project would result from operations of the future commercial, retail, public facility and potential residential developments at the Project Site and from traffic volumes generated by these new uses. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions at the Project Site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD.

The Project Site is mostly vacant, with the exception of the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, which bisects the Project Site in a north-south direction, and the West Valley Water District facility, which includes three production wells, a pump station, and a reservoir (all to remain as part of the Project). There are no existing buildings or structures on the Project Site that will be demolished as part of the construction phase. Proposed land uses include community

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-14 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
commercial uses with up to approximately 462,000 square feet (SF) of retail shopping center and 125,000 SF of business park uses. In addition, a residential overlay would allow up to 275 multi- family dwelling units, which if developed, would replace 116,000 SF of retail shopping center, leaving a total of 346,000 SF of retail shopping center use.

The proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan consists of two future development scenarios. For the purpose of this analysis, Project impacts will be analyzed based on these two different development scenarios of the Specific Plan.
 Scenario 1 (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.

Operational uses on the Project Site could be opened as early as 2017. For this opening year of operation, 10 percent build was assumed for CalEEMod inputs to account for worst-case of gradual build over 19 years. Residential uses in Scenario 2 were assumed as a full build in the first phase to represent the worst-case scenario of a front-loaded construction. The Project is anticipated to be fully built out and operational in 2035. Therefore, operational emissions are considered for the first year (2017) and buildout year (2035) in the following analyses. (1) Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the Project Site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from grading, soil movement and construction activities.

Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities.

Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance.

Emissions of ozone precursors ROG and NOx are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, and worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy-duty, off- road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction-related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-15 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the Project would reduce regional PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project Site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Site watering would reduce the particulate matter from becoming airborne, while washing of transport vehicle tires and undercarriages would reduce re-entrainment of construction dust onto the local roadway network. Mass daily emissions during construction were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2, which is an emissions estimation/evaluation model developed in conjunction with SCAQMD and other California Air Districts. CalEEMod was used to assist in quantifying emissions from construction activities for the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan for a worst-case year. Construction emissions are associated with construction equipment, construction-related vehicle trips, and off- gas emissions from painting and paving. There are typically four major construction phases for development projects: demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction. The building construction phase can be broken down into three sub-phases: building construction, architectural painting, and asphalt paving. As the majority of the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan site is situated on undeveloped land, there would be no demolition activity.

The Project Site could be developed in one or more phases, with the earliest construction beginning in late 2016. A worst-case construction scenario would occur if various construction phases occur simultaneously during development. For example, grading could begin on an area for residential units while building construction is ongoing for a retail office space. Thus, a conservative analysis of construction emissions is implemented by analyzing two phase overlapping situations for daily maximum regional emissions. Situation A includes building construction, architectural coating, and site preparation or grading (whichever is greater of the two); Situation B includes building construction, architectural coating, site preparation or grading (whichever is greater of the two), and paving. The sum of these daily construction emissions will be compared to significance thresholds to determine if mitigation will be required. See Impact Statement AQ-2 for more detail.

The output values used in this analysis were adjusted to be as Project-specific as possible, based on usage rates of construction equipment, type of fuel, and construction schedule. As a specific plan, the Project lacks project-specific detail, and thus defaults in CalEEMod were used for details that were not provided. For a complete listing of the construction equipment by phase and construction phase duration assumptions used in this analysis is included within the CalEEMod printout sheets that are provided in Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report.

Mobile source emissions, primarily NO
X, would result from the use of construction equipment
such as bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and cranes. During the building construction phase, the application of architectural coatings (i.e., paints) and other building materials would release

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-16 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
emissions of volatile organic compounds. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for fugitive dust, the prevailing weather conditions. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources. The equipment mix and construction duration for each stage is detailed in Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report.

The amount of construction equipment used and the duration of construction activity could have a substantial effect upon the amount of construction emissions, concentrations and the resulting impacts occurring at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction is occurring in a relatively intensive manner.

In addition to regional pollutant emissions, localized impacts on sensitive receptors must also be addressed. The potential for localized effects from on-site daily emissions are evaluated at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Impacts by the Project are evaluated based on the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which utilizes on-site mass emission rate look-up tables and project specific modeling, where appropriate. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NO x,
CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA) and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For PM10 and PM2.5, LSTs were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.

The mass rate look-up tables were developed for each SRA and can be used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts.

For the purpose of analyzing localized air quality impacts, SCAQMD has developed LSTs for 1-acre, 2-acre and 5-acres project sizes. Under conditions where the Project’s on-site construction emissions, with or without mitigation is below the LST threshold, the Project is would result in less than significant impacts. Where emissions, implementing all appropriate mitigation, exceed the LSTs, air dispersion modeling would be required to fully evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on its surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.

A complete listing of the construction equipment by phase, construction phase duration, and emissions estimation model assumptions used in this analysis is included within the emissions calculation worksheets that are provided in Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report. (2) Operational Impacts
Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with the Project, including mobile- and area-source emissions, were also quantified using CalEEMod. Area-source emissions, which are widely distributed and made of many small emissions sources (e.g., building heating and cooling units, landscaping equipment, consumer products, painting operations, etc.), were modeled according to the size and type of land use proposed. Mass mobile-source emissions were modeled based on the daily vehicle trips that would result from the Project. Project trip generation rates were obtained from the Project’s traffic study (Whiteman, 2016).

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-17 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Since the current land uses existing on the parcels are vacant and undeveloped, it is assumed that the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan would not involve demolition and all operational emissions generated represent net new emissions for the Project. The resulting net new operational emissions were then compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for determination of significance. Aside from regional air quality impacts, the Project’s localized air quality impacts during operation is also analyzed by extracting the on-site operational emissions from the CalEEMod model run for the Project and evaluating those emissions against SCAQMD’s applicable operational LSTs.
(3) Toxic Air Contaminants
Potential TAC impacts are evaluated by conducting a qualitative screening-level analysis followed by a more detailed analysis (i.e., dispersion modeling), as necessary. The screening- level analysis applies only to operations of projects and consists of identification of new or modified TAC emissions sources. If it is determined that a Project would introduce a potentially significant new source, or modify an existing TAC emissions source, then downwind sensitive receptor locations are identified and site-specific dispersion modeling is conducted to determine Project impacts.

The CARB screening criteria does not provide methodologies to address construction impacts of TAC emissions, i.e., diesel particulate matter. In order to address such impacts, CARB and SCAQMD guidance for evaluating operations impacts on the potential health risks to nearby residents and students were applied to the Project’s construction activity with modification to address the short-term nature of the Project’s construction to such impacts. The assessment of diesel particulate emissions was conducted to assess this potential risk using the same assumptions that were used for the analysis of localized air quality emissions, as discussed above.

Diesel exhaust particulate matter (DPM) is a TAC of particular concern during construction projects for its potential to cause adverse respiratory and cardiovascular health effects. DPM is emitted by heavy equipment and generators as well as by the trucks that transport large quantities of materials to and from construction sites. As such, this analysis includes all diesel exhaust emissions associated with on-site heavy duty construction equipment and estimates the risk at nearby sensitive receptors.

Based on existing information, no heavy industrial uses are proposed as part of the Specific Plan.

However, it is likely that some residential uses may be placed in proximity of proposed light industrial uses or future commercial/retail uses which may store or use toxic or hazardous materials, posing a potential health hazard to sensitive land uses such as residences. At this stage in the planning process, it is speculative to assume placement of hazardous waste generating uses in relation to residential uses. Therefore, health risk analysis of on-site light industrial/commercial uses is performed in a qualitative manner.
b. Thresholds of Significance
For purposes of this EIR, the City of Rialto has utilized the checklist questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance to determine whether a project would have a significant environmental impact regarding air quality. Based on applicable Project components

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-18 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
and Appendix G questions, the Project would result in a significant impact with regard to air quality if the Project would:

Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement AQ-1).

Threshold 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (refer to Impact Statement AQ-2).

Threshold 3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) (refer to Impact Statement AQ-3).

Threshold 4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact Statement AQ-4).

Threshold 5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantia l number of people (refer to Impact Statement AQ-5).

As guided by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. The SCAQMD has established daily mass emissions thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 4.B-4.

TABLE 4.B-4

SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Construction Operations
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
TACs (including carcinogens and non-
carcinogens
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (Project increment)

Source: SCAQMD, 2015.

Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the Basin are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-19 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 SRAs in the Basin. The localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5 acres in size and are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The applicable construction and operational LSTs for SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Mountains), in which the City of Rialto is located, are shown in Table 4.B-5. The LSTs for a 2- acre and 5-acre site in SRA 34 are presented below.

TABLE 4.B-5

SCAQMD LOCALIZED AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function of receptor distance (feet) from site boundary
82 (ft.) 164 (ft.) 328 (ft.) 656 (ft.) 1,640 (ft.)
2-Acre Site in SRA 34 – Central San Bernardino Mountains Construction Thresholds
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 170 200 263 378 684
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 7 22 42 83 205
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 4 6 12 26 104
Operational Thresholds
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 270 302 378 486 778
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 2 6 10 20 50
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 1 2 3 7 25
5-Acre Site in SRA 34 – Central San Bernardino Mountains Construction Thresholds
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 170 200 263 378 684
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 14 44 65 106 229
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 8 10 17 35 120
Operational Thresholds
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 270 302 378 486 778
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 4 11 16 26 55
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2 3 5 9 29

a The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual conversion of NO to NO2.The analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects.

SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2009.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-20 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
According to the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds from SCAQMD, LSTs for construction emissions can be determined for a project based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. The construction model inputs used for the analysis calculated that a maximum of 2.5 acres and 5.0 acres would be disturbed on a peak day for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.

Therefore, LSTs for a 2-acre site will be implemented for Scenario 1, and LSTs for a 5-acre site will be implemented for Scenario 2. CalEEMod Construction Model Inputs summary and calculation sheet can be found in Appendix A-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report.

It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO2, with the vast majority (95 percent) of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO.

However, because adverse health effects are associated with NO2, not NO, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels. For combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source.
c. Project Design Features
The Specific Plan encourages the implementation of realistic sustainable design strategies into the Project design, which would reduce air pollution emissions. As discussed in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan, sustainable design strategies that may be utilized in the Specific Plan include the following:
(1) Site Planning
Elements of sustainable design and site planning may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Encourage developing a Traffic Demand Management program that supports alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.
 Provide physical linkages throughout the Project Site that promote bicycling and walking.  Concentrate development near local services and amenities.  Encourage shared parking where determined possible.
(2) Energy Efficiency
Most buildings can reach energy efficiency levels that exceed California Title 24 standards, yet many only strive to meet the standard. It is reasonable to strive for energy reduction in excess of that required by Title 24 standards. At a minimum, all projects would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards. Where feasible and appropriate, the following strategies are encouraged, but not required:
 Passive design strategies can dramatically affect building energy performance. These measures include, but are not limited to, building shape and orientation, passive solar design, and the use of natural lighting.
 Incorporate the use of low-E windows or use Energy Star windows.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-21 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
 Use a properly sized and energy-efficient heating/cooling system in conjunction with a thermally efficient building shell.
 Consider utilizing light colors for wall finish materials.  Install high R-value wall and ceiling insulation.
 Installation of solar water heating systems that use rooftop solar technologies to offset natural gas use.
 Encouragement for new commercial businesses to install rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.  Encouragement of new commercial and industrial facilities greater than 100,000 SF to install co-generation facilities that combine heat and power systems for energy output.

Development within the Project is encouraged to implement some of the strategies of the Energy Star program, which is an energy performance rating system developed by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The program certifies products and buildings that meet strict energy-efficiency guidelines. Involvement in the Energy Star program would be completely optional at the discretion of the developer/builder. (3) Materials Efficiency
Select sustainable construction materials and products by evaluating characteristics such as reused and recycled content, zero or low off gassing of harmful air emissions, zero or low toxicity, sustainably harvested materials, high recyclability, durability, longevity, and local production. Such products promote resource conservation and efficiency. Using recycled-content products also helps develop markets for recycled materials that are being diverted from California’s landfills, as mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act.  Encourage the use of low VOC paints and wallpapers.
 Encourage the use of low VOC Green Label carpet.
 Use dimensional planning and other material efficiency strategies. These strategies reduce the amount of building materials needed and cut construction costs.  Design with adequate space to facilitate recycling collection and to incorporate a solid waste management program that prevents waste generation.
 Establish a construction waste recycling program with a local waste management company, with a goal of recycling no less than 50 percent of the construction waste generated by construction of the Project. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris does not contribute to this requirement.
 The waste disposal company shall be responsible for providing recycle bin(s) to facilitate recycling.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-22 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
d. Project Impacts
(1) Conflict with Applicable Air Quality Plan
Threshold AQ-1: A significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact Statement AQ-1: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (including, but not limited to, the AQMP, RTP, general plans, etc.) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact is considered less than significant.

The Project Site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the Project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections.

In the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), SCAG identified population growth in the City of Rialto to increase from 110,000 in 2020 to 125,200 in 2035, an increase of 15,200 people by 2035 (SCAG, 2012). If Scenario 1 is adopted, no residential development would be constructed, and thus no new populations would be added to the Project Site. If Scenario 2 is adopted, the Project would introduce a population of 1,064 people to the Project Site, or 7 percent of the total anticipated increase. Therefore, the increase in population from the Project is accounted for in the SCAG growth assumptions for the City. Additionally, SCAG identifies employment growth for the City as increasing from 26,400 in 2020 to 32,800 in 2035 (SCAG, 2012). This is an increase in 6,400 jobs during this timeframe. The Project would result in an increase in 170 employees within the City, or 3 percent of the total anticipated employment increase (PCR, 2016). Therefore, the employment increase from the Project is accounted for in the SCAG growth projections.

Because the employment and population growth resulting from the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s regional forecast projections, the Project would therefore be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in SCAQMD’s AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant.
(2) Violation of Air Quality Standards
Threshold AQ-2: A significant impact would occur if the Project would violate a ny air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-23 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
Impact Statement AQ-2: Implementation of the Project could violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during Project construction activities. Maximum regional construction emissions resulting from construction of Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for NOX, without mitigation resulting in potentially significant construction impacts. Regional emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD daily significance thresholds, with impacts being less than significant.

Implementation of the prescribed mitigation would reduce the Project’s potentially significant construction-related impacts to a less than significant level. a. Construction
Currently, the Project Site is mostly vacant, with the exception of the recently constructed Pepper Avenue roadway extension, which bisects the site in a north-south direction, and a WVWD facility which includes three production wells, a pump station, and a reservoir (all to remain as part of the Project). Therefore, no demolition of existing structures would occur during the construction period. Under S1, the Project would construct community commercial land uses consisting of approximately 462,000 square feet (SF) of retail shopping areas and 125,000 SF of business park uses. Under S2, the Project would construct similar business park land uses under S1 and a reduce amount of retail uses, as well as 275 units of residential uses.

Construction activities associated with the Project 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.

Table 4.B-6 and Table 4.B-7 summarizes the modeled unmitigated peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the Project’s worst-case construction situations for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. In order to analyze each worst-case construction scenario, the Project’s construction impacts are analyzed with two different overlapping phase situations. Situation A includes building construction, architectural coating, and site preparation or grading (whichever is greater of the two); Situation B includes building construction, architectural coating, site preparation or grading (whichever is greater of the two), and paving. This methodology exemplifies a more accurate representation of the long-range construction schedule of the Project, where it is possible that two or more construction phases could occur simultaneously during the buildout of the Project. The sum of the maximum daily emissions from each construction phase, according to Situation A or Situation B, is compared to significance thresholds to determine if mitigation will be required.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-24 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-6
SCENARIO 1 REGIONAL UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activities
Estimated Maximum Daily On- and Off-site Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X C O S O X P M 10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 5 55 42 <1 10 7
Grading 4 39 27 <1 5 3
Building Construction 4 30 23 <1 3 2
Architectural Coating 28 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Paving 2 20 16 <1 1 1
Situation A – Maximum
Regional Emissions a
37 87 67 <1 14 10
Situation B – Maximum
Regional Emissions
b
39 107 83 <1 15 11
Regional SCAQMD
Significance Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No

NOTE: Construction emissions would be slightly different during the summer and winter seasons. Maximum daily emissions of ROG and NOX would generally be higher during the winter while emissions of CO and SO2 would generally be higher in the summer. The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table.
a Situation A sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) b Situation B sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Paving and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two)

Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling, June 2016

As shown in Table 4.B-6 and Table 4.B-7, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the Project’s worst-case construction situations would exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance threshold for NOx during development of Situation B in Scenario 1 and development of Situations A and B in Scenario 2. Because the emissions of NOx could potentially exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds on certain peak construction days, this impact would be potentially significant and would require mitigation.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-25 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-7
SCENARIO 2 REGIONAL UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activities
Estimated Maximum Daily On- and Off-site Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X C O S O X P M 10 P M 2.5
Site Preparation 5 55 42 <1 10 7
Grading 7 77 54 <1 10 7
Building Construction 8 63 57 <1 7 5
Architectural Coating 50 5 6 <1 1 <1
Paving 4 41 31 <1 3 2
Situation A – Maximum
Regional Emissions a
63 145 117 <1 18 13
Situation B – Maximum
Regional Emissions
b
67 186 148 <1 21 15
Regional SCAQMD
Significance Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No

a Situation A sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two) b Situation B sums maximum daily emissions from the phases: Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Paving and Site Preparation or Grading (which ever has a greater emissions value of the two)

Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling, June 2016

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines in order to reduce NOx emissions. The use of Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines is applied to all equipment in each phase in order to be reduced to below a significant level, as shown in the mitigated outputs below. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the applicant can demonstrate through future study that reductions in the daily NOx and PM

2.5 emissions can be achieved by other technologies/strategies so that emissions from all concurrent construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Alternative measures may include, but would not be limited to: reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Specific Plan area, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously (see Section 4, Mitigation Measure, for full description of mitigation measure). The mitigated maximum daily construction emissions for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 that would result from implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 are shown in Table 4.B-8 and 4.B-9, respectively.

As shown, with implementation of mitigation, the maximum daily NOx emissions generated during Project construction would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impacts associated with these emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-26 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-8
SCENARIO 1 REGIONAL MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activities
Estimated Maximum Daily On- and Off-site Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X C O S O X P M 10 P M 2.5
Site Preparation 1 12 24 0 7 0
Grading 1 12 21 0 3 0
Building Construction 1 13 23 0 1 0
Architectural Coating 28 1 2 0 0 0
Paving 0 10 18 0 0 0
Situation A – Maximum
Regional Emissions a
29 26 50 0 8 0
Situation B – Maximum
Regional Emissions
b
30 36 67 0 8 0
Regional SCAQMD
Significance Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling, June 2016

TABLE 4.B-9
SCENARIO 2 REGIONAL MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activities
Estimated Maximum Daily On- and Off-site Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X C O S O X P M 10 P M 2.5
Site Preparation 1 12 24 0 7 0
Grading 1 23 43 0 5 0
Building Construction 3 27 56 0 3 0
Architectural Coating 46 2 6 0 1 0
Paving 1 20 35 0 0 0
Situation A – Maximum
Regional Emissions a
49 53 105 0 11 0
Situation B – Maximum
Regional Emissions b
50 73 140 0 11 0
Regional SCAQMD
Significance Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Source: ESA-PCR CalEEMod Modeling, June 2016

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-27 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
b. Operation
Currently, land use on the Project Site is of low intensity or vacant and most parcels have no development. Thus, the following analysis assumes that all operational emissions from the Project are net new emissions. In actuality, future employees, residents, and visitors to the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan area may already work and shop within the Basin, so their emissions are already being counted. Thus, the analysis of counting all operational emissions as net new is conservative in nature and represents a worst-case scenario. Operational emissions would likely be less than what is projected.

Regional air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations would be generated by the consumption of electricity and natural gas, and by the operation of on-road vehicles. Pollutant emissions associated with energy demand (i.e., electricity generation and natural gas consumption) are classified by the SCAQMD as regional stationary source emissions. Mandatory provisions of the Title 24 California Green Building Code are incorporated into the emissions calculations, including water use reduction by 20 percent or more and diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the production and consumption of energy were calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model.

Mobile-source emissions for 2017 were calculated using CalEEMod with trip generation data from the Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, 2016). Mobile-source emissions for the full buildout in 2035 were calculated using EMFAC2014, since the use of a newer model would more accurately represent future operational mobile emissions of the Project. As shown in Table 4.B-10 and Table 4.B-11, regional emissions resulting from operation of the proposed Pepper Avenue Specific Plan during the first year and the full buildout are below applicable thresholds for all criteria air pollutants under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Therefore, impacts related to regional emissions from operation of the Project would be less than significant.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-28 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-10
SCENARIO 1 REGIONAL UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day) a
Regional Emissions VOC NO X C O S O 2 PM10
b P M 2.5
b
First Year Operations - 2017
Area 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 7 14 60 <1 9 3
Total Regional (On-Site and Off-Site) Emissions 10 15 60 <1 9 3 SCAQMD Numeric Indicators 55 55 550 150 150 55
Over (Under) (45) (40) (490) (150) (141) (52)
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No No No
Full Buildout - 2035
Area 16 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 5 4 <1 <1 <1
Mobile c 22 46 141 1 86 23
Total Regional (On-Site and Off-Site) Emissions 38 51 145 1 86 23 SCAQMD Numeric Indicators 55 55 550 150 150 55
Over (Under) (17) (4) (405) (150) (64) (32)
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No No No

a Emission quantities are rounded to “whole number” values. As such, the “total” values presented herein may be one unit more or less than actual values. Exact values (i.e., non-rounded) are provided in the CalEEMod model printout sheets and/or calculation worksheets that are provided in Appendix A-1.
b PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimates are based on compliance wit h SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. c Mobile emissions for 2035 were ca lculated separately using EMFAC2014, based on daily vehicle miles traveled and emission factors for each pollutant. See Mobile Emissions Calculations sheet in Appendix A-1 for more details.

Source: ESA-PCR, 2016

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-29 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
TABLE 4.B-11
SCENARIO 2 REGIONAL UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day) a
Regional Emissions VOC NO X C O S O 2 PM10
b P M 2.5
b
First Year Operations - 2017
Area 10 <1 23 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 13 34 135 <1 22 6
Total Regional (On-Site and Off-Site) Emissions 24 35 158 <1 22 6 SCAQMD Numeric Indicators 55 55 550 150 150 55
Over (Under) (31) (20) (392) (150) (128) (49)
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No No No
Full Buildout - 2035
Area 24 <1 23 <1 <1 <1
Energy 1 6 4 <1 <1 <1
Mobile c 20 42 108 1 66 18
Total Regional (On-Site and Off-Site) Emissions 44 48 135 1 66 18 SCAQMD Numeric Indicators 55 55 550 150 150 55
Over (Under) (11) (7) (415) (150) (84) (37)
Exceeds Indicator? No No No No No No

Source: ESA-PCR, 2016

(3) Cumulative Pollutant Increases
Threshold AQ-3: A significant impact would occur if the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which t he Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standa rd (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Impact Statement AQ-3: Implementation of the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). As the Project would have maximum daily construction emissions that exceed the thresholds for NOx, implementation of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan could contribute incrementally to regional ozone and NO2 and would therefore result in potentially significant impacts.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis
B. Air Quality
Pepper Avenue Specific Plan 4.B-30 ESA PCR
Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2017
However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce the Project’s construction-related impacts to a less than significant level, thereby precluding the Project from resulting in cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant increases in this regard during construction activities. Operation of the Project would result in emissions that would not cumulatively contribute to any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment, therefore resulting in less than significant cumulative operational impacts.

The Project Site is located within the Basin, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. As the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Rialto City CouncilApril 25, 2023

Rialto City Council
April 25, 2023