Attachment 2 - Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration.pdf — Rialto City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

INITIAL STUDY

FOR THE

RIALTO BASELINE

STORM DRAIN

PROJECT

Prepared for:

City of Rialto

150 S Palm Avenue

Rialto,
C
A 92376

Prepared by
:

Tom Dodson & Associates

P.O. Box 2307

San Bernardino, C
alifornia
9240
6 (909)
882
-
3612

September
2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
.......................

1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

................................
................................
.......

4 Determination

................................
................................
................................
...................

5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

................................
................................
................

6 I.

Aesthetics

................................
................................
................................
...........

8 II.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

................................
................................
...

10 III.

Air Quality

................................
................................
................................
...........

12 IV.

Biological Resources

................................
................................
..........................

23 V.

Cultural Resources

................................
................................
.............................

28 VI.

Energy

................................
................................
................................
................

30 VII.

Geology and Soils

................................
................................
..............................

31 VIII.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

................................
................................
...............

35 IX.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

................................
................................
......

37 X.

Hydrology an
d Water Quality

................................
................................
..............

40 XI.

Land Use and Planning

................................
................................
......................

43 XII.

Mineral Resources

................................
................................
..............................

44 XIII.

Noise

................................
................................
................................
..................

45 XIV.

Population and Housing

................................
................................
......................

50 XV.

Public Services

................................
................................
................................
...

51 XVI.

Recreation

................................
................................
................................
..........

53 XVII.

Transportation / Traffic

................................
................................
........................

54 XVIII.

Tribal Cultural Resources

................................
................................
...................

56 XIX.

Utilities and Service Systems

................................
................................
..............

58 XX.

Wildfire

................................
................................
................................
...............

61 XXI.

Mandatory Findings of Significance

................................
................................
....

62 Summary of Mitigation Measures

................................
................................
......................

64 References

................................
................................
................................
.......................

69 APPENDICES

Appendix 1
–

Composite Utility Plan

Appendix 2
–

Air Quality / GHG

Appendix 3
–

Bio

Appen
dix 4
–

Cultural

FIGURES

Figure 1

Regional Location

Figure 2

Site Location

Figure 3

Site Plan

Figure II
-
1 Farmland Map

Figure VII
-
1 Alquist
-
Priolo Study Zones

Figure VII
-
2 Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Figure VII
-
3 Geologic Hazard Overlays

Figure IX
-
1 GeoTracker, page 1

Figure IX
-
2 GeoTracker, page 2

Figure IX
-
3 GeoTracker, page 3

Figure IX
-
4 GeoTracker, page 4

Figure IX
-
5 GeoTracker, page 5

Figure IX
-
6 GeoTracker, page 6

Figure IX
-
7 GeoTracker, page 7

Figure IX
-
8 GeoTracker, page 8

Figure I
X
-
9 GeoTracker, page 9

Figure IX
-
10 GeoTracker, page 10

Figure IX
-
11 SBIA Planning Boundaries

Figure IX
-
12 Fire Hazard Areas

Figure X
-
1 Flooding Hazards

Figure XII
-
1 Mineral Resources Zone

Figure XIII
-
1 Noise Contours

TABLES

Table III
-
1 Ambient Air Quality Standards

................................
................................

13 Table III
-
2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants

................................
...............

15 Table III
-
3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2014
-
2017)
................................
..........

16 Table III
-
4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts

................................
...........

17 Table III
-
5 Daily Emissions Thresholds

................................
................................
....

19 Ta
ble III
-
6 CalEEMod Construction Activity Equipment Fleet and Workdays ............

20 Table III
-
7 Construction Activity Emissions, Maximum Daily Emissions

...................

21 Table III
-
8 LST and Project Emissions

................................
................................
.....

22 Table VIII
-
1 Construction Emissions

................................
................................
...........

36 Table XIII
-
1 Noise Levels

of Construction Equipment at 25, 50 and 100 Feet

from the Source
................................
................................
....................

47 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACROYNMS

AAQS

Ambient Air Quality Standards

APE

Area of Potential Effect

AQMP

Air Quality Management Plan

BMPs

Best Management Practices

BUOW

burrowing owl

CAA

Clean Air Act

CAAQS

California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CDFW

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act

CNEL

Community Noise Equivalent Level

CPHI

California Points of Historical Interest

dBA

A
-
weighted decibel

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

FTA

Federal Transit Association

GCC

Global Climate Change

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

ITP

Incidental Take Permit

Jurisdictional Delineation

LAPM

Los Angeles pocket mouse

lineal feet

LST

Localized Signifi
cance Thresholds

LUST

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

MAST

Mountain Area Safety Taskforce

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NOI

Notice of Intent

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

P
-
PF

Public Facilities

RCB

reinforced concre
te box

RCP

reinforced concrete plan

R
-
SF

Single
-
Family Residential

ROW

right
-
of
-
way

RWQCB

Regional Water Quality Control Board

SBKR

San Bernardino kangaroo rat

SBVMWD

San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

SCAB

South Coast Air Basin

SCAG

Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD

South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCAT

Street Crime Attack Team

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SRO

School Resource Officer

SWPPP

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of E
ngineers

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WQMP

Water Quality Management Plant

WQTP

Wastewater Treatment Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title:

Rialto
Baseline
Storm Drain Project

2. Lead Agency Name:

City of Rialto, Public Works/Engineering Division

Address:

335 W. Rialto Ave
nue
, Rialto,

CA 92376

3. Contact Person:

Savat Khamphou
,
Interim City Engineer

Phone Number:

(909) 421
-
7210

4. Project Location:

The proposed project is located at Cactus Basin (just west of Cactus Avenue and Baseline Road) connecting to Baseline Road south of Cactus Basin and traveling west within Baseline Road to just west of Tamarind Avenue within the City of Rialto, CA. The proj
ect is located in Section 34
Township
1 North
, Range
5 West
within the Fontana
USGS Topo 7.5
-
minute series maps with an
approximate Lat/Long of

34.124043
,
-
117.388063

at the eastern
portion of the project and

34.121298
,
-
117.422797

at the western
portion of the project.

Figures 1 and 2 outline the Project alignment
location at a regional and site level.

5. Project Sponsor’s

City of Rialto

Name and Address:

1 50 S Palm Avenue, Rialto, CA 92376

6. General Plan
Designation:

The Pr
oject is mostly located within existing roadways, though Cactus Basin (which the proposed project will connect the new storm drain to) is located on land designated for Open Space Resource Use. Additionally, the segment of the storm drain alignment may run

through an undeveloped property, also
known as Olive Grove property, that is designated for Airport -
Related Development by the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

7. Zoning Classification:

The Project is mostly located within existing roadways, though Cac
tus Basin (which the proposed project will connect the new storm drain to) is located on zoned as Rialto Airport Specific Plan, Cactus Basin (OS
-
CB).

8. Project Description:

Introduction

The City of Rialto desires to upgrade existing drainage

infrastruc
ture conditions within Baseline
Avenue from Cactus Basin west to Tamarind Avenue. The 60% progress plans for the Rialto Basin Storm Drain Project are provided as Appendix 1 to this Initial Study.

As the City of the Rialto
continues to grow, improvements to

the City of Rialto’s drainage system are needed to capture and
fully
protect against 100
-
year flood levels.

The proposed
Rialto
Baseline
Storm

Drain Project
would construct a new
storm drain to capture flows from Area D of the
City of Rialto’s
Renaissance

Master Plan.

Pr
oject Description

The project consists of
installing an approximately
2 -
mile

or 11,000 lineal feet

(LF)
storm drain
system
within Baseline Road that would
captur
e

flows north of Baseline Road. The storm drain
line starts
at the

Tamarind Avenue/Baseline Road intersection and runs along Baseline Road to the outlet at Cactus Basin No. 3. The
Drainage Study to the Renaissance Specific Plan
(
Encompass,
2015)

served as t
he basis for sizing
the storm
drain system to improve drainage
systems In the City of Rialto. The new storm drain will be developed with
a
reinforced concrete
box (RCB) that will vary in size between 6’ x 12’, 7’ x 7’, and 3’ x 10’ depending on the locatio n
within the new storm drain alignment. The majority of the storm drain footprint (located within Baseline Road) will be constructed as a 84” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), though a portion of the easternmost section of the alignment,
which encompasses th
e section
from Baseline Road to
Cactus Basin, will vary in size as either a 72”, 84”, 48”, 36”, or 30” RCP. The specifications of the storm drain sizes are shown in Appendix 1.

The project site corresponds to the proposed storm drain “Line D” as describ ed in
both the
Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan, Project 3
-
3, Rialto Channel Drainage Area (Montgomery,
1988)

and the
Drainage Study to the Renaissance Specific Plan (Encompass, 2015) .

The project
area is located within the Renaissance Development
,

which co
nsist
s

of the redevelopment of the
Rialto
A
irport and the surrounding areas. The Renaissance Specific Plan was used to get additional information for Line D and meet drainage facility requirements. Subarea D is bounded by
Miro Way
on the north, Baseline Ro
ad on the south,
Ayala Drive

on the east, and Palmetto
Avenue on the west.

In addition, Line D may capture runoff from Subarea E of the Renaissance Specific Plan during higher frequency events only.

Overland flow travels in southeastern direction
in the so
uthern portion of the Renaissance site before it is captured by Line D and outlets to Cactus Basin No. 3.

Flows leaving Basin No. 3 continue on to Basin 1 and 2 and Rialto Channel, which ultimately discharges to the Santa Ana River. Outflow from the Ca
ctus Basin System are limited due to the
poor downstream channel capacities.

The proposed project will install the preferred Alignment as shown in Appendix 1. A new outlet structure will be constructed in Cactus Basin No. 3.

Energy dissipation measures

(such as rip rap
pad, baffle) may

be i
nstalled

at the outlet
, to control erosive damage from the higher volume
discharged from the new pipeline.

Construction Scenario

The Project will be constructed

once funding becomes available, which is anticipated
to be
secured in 2021 or 2022. Construction is anticipated to require between 6 months and one year to complete. At any given time during construction a maximum of 30 employees would be required at the site each day, though the number of construction worke rs required will range from 10 to 30
persons per day.

Installation of the Storm Drain within the Baseline Road right -
of
-
way (ROW) is anticipated to
require one or more of the following equipment types: bull dozer, hydro -
hammer, front
-
end loader,
dump

truck, chipper, water truck, and service truck. Major pieces of equipment to be engaged during construction of the Project will include one or more of the following: pavement grinder and saw cut machines, earth excavators, backhoe, boom truck, grader, wate r truck, front
-
end loader,
compaction equipment, and service truck and delivery vehicles for deposit of aggregate base and asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.

The invert of the storm drain will vary between
8 feet and 20
feet
below the surface,

along the alignment, except under the jurisdictional dam where the depth will exceed 40 feet.

Alignment is not under jurisdictional facilities. But will be deep before entering the basin.

The contractor(s) will maintain one lane open in each direction t hroughout the construction
process, as well as access at all times for emergency vehicles and access to all driveways, mailboxes, and bus stop(s).

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)

North of Baseline Road within the project area, the land uses are as follows: Business Park and Specific Plan. North of Baseline the Specific Plan is the Renaissance Specific Plan and the zoning at this located within the Specific Plan are Employment, Empl oyment Commercial Overlay,
General Commercial, and Private Rec. Center Existing Use to Remain.

South of Baseline Road within the project area is located within the City of Fontana

(only west of
Maple. South side of Baseline is Rialto from Maple east and

is developed as residential)
. The
land uses within the project area south of Baseline Road are designated by the City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map: Single Family Residential (R -
SF), and Public
Facilities (P
-
PF).

West of the intersection at Tamar
ind Avenue and Baseline Road, the land uses adjacent to the project are Specific Plan (Renaissance Specific Plan: Employment) within the City of Rialto, and within the City of Fontana, the land use is Single Family Residential (R -
SF).

East of the locatio
n at which the Storm Drain Alternatives enter Baseline Road, the land use adjacent to the project is Open Space
–

Resources within the City of Rialto, and the land use
adjacent to the project is Single Family Residential (R -
SF).

10. Other agencies whose a
pproval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or partici -
pation agreement.)

•

State Water Resources Control Board and
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Water Quality Management Plan);

•

South Coast

A
ir Quality Management District;

•

United State
s

Army Corps of Engineers;

•

California Department of Fish and Wildlife;

•

San Bernardino County Flood Control District; and,

•

A
ny other responsible agency that may have discretionary authority over all or a portio n
of the project.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and cultural affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

Yes. AB
-
52 was initiated o
n
June 4
, 2019

by sending letters to the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
–

Kizh Nation
,
Gabrieleño
-
Tongva

San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleño
-
Tongva Nation (sent to Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson)
.

The
only Tribe to send a response was the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians
–

Kizh Nation
. A letter was received from the Tribe on
June 10, 2019
requesting that
the City contact the Tribe to
discuss consultation.

As such, the City reached out to the Tribe
a phone conference was set up for August
21, 2019, but
the Tribe did not request any
actionable items during this phone call; they expressed interest in the Project, but did not respond in writing
with any specific requests related to consultation. The City was been unable to reach the Tribe for
further instruction, and as such consultation has concluded as of October 7, 2019, with mitigation that the City has drafted to re ach out to the Tribe once
construction commences.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies,
and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review

process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Informa tion System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental facto
rs checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Ai
r Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Energy

Geology / Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology & Water Quality

Land Use / Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population / Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources

Utilities / Service Systems

Wildfire

Mandatory Findin
gs of
Significance

~

~

Rialto
Baseline
Storm
Drain
Project

INITIAL
STUDY

DETERMINATION
(To
be
completed
by
the
Lead
Agency)
On
the
basis
of
this
initial
evaluation,
the
following
finding
is
made:

The
proposed
project
COULD
NOT
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
a

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.

Although
the
proposed
project
could
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
~
there
will
not
be
a
significant
effect
in
this
case
because
revisions
in
the
project
have
been
made
by
or
agreed
to
by
the
project
proponent.

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.

The
proposed
project
MAY
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
an

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required.

The
proposed
project
MAY
have
a
"potentially
significant
impact"
or
"potentially
significant
unless
mitigated"
impact
on
the
environment,
but
at
least
one
effect
1)
has

been
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
document
pursuant
to
applicable
legal
standards,
and
2)
has
been
addressed
by
mitigation
measures
based
on
the
earlier
analysis
as
described
on
attached
sheets.

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required,
but
it
must
analyze
only
the
effects
that
remain
to
be
addressed.

Although
the
proposed
project
could
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
because
all
potentially
significant
effects
(a)
have
been
analyzed
adequately
in
an

earlier
EIR
or

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
pursuant
to
applicable
standards,
and
(b)
have
been
avoided
or
mitigated
pursuant
to
that
earlier
EIR
or

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION,
including
revisions
or
mitigation
measures
that
are
imposed
upon
the
proposed
project,
nothing
further
is
required.

Tom
Dodson
Se
p
tember
2020
Prepared
by
Date
Lead
Agency
~
ure)
Date
TOM
DODSON
&

ASSOCIATES
Pages
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by t
he information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., th
e project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project
-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
spec
ific
screening analysis).

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -
site as well as on
-
site, cumulative as well as project
-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once
the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Im pact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain

how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross -
referenced).

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA proc
ess, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review .

Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation m
easures based on the earlier analysis.

Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site
-
specific conditions for
the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted sho
uld be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects
in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:

the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than signi ficance.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

I. AESTHETICS
:

Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, w
ould the
project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c)
In non
-
urbanized areas, s
ubstantial
ly degrade the
existing visual character or quality
of public views o
f
the site and its surroundings?

(Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict

w
ith applicable zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?

SUBSTANTIAT
ION

Less Than Significant Impact
–

Adverse impacts to scenic vistas can occur in one of two ways. First, an area itself may contain existing scenic vistas that would be altered by proposed project. A

review
of the project area determined that
there are no scenic vistas located internally within the project footprint of the

proposed
storm drain alignment
.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed
Rialto
Baseline

Storm Drain Project
is not

expected to impact any important scenic vistas within the project area. A scenic vista impact can also occur when a scenic vista can be viewed from the project area or immediate vicinity and a proposed project may interfere with the view to a scenic vist a. The City
of

Rialto General Plan indicates that views of the
San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains

to the
north
and
views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains

are
important to

prot
ect as
important scenic resources

within the City.

The proposed project will be located within Baseline Road between Cactus Basin and Tamarind Avenue. Baseline Road is an east/west corridor connecting many of the Cities and communities within the Inland Empire together .

The h
ills and mountains

that
surrou
nd the
City are far removed from the
proposed storm drain alignment

such that
the views are
mostly obscured from the location at which the storm drain alignment will be installed. The project will also be constructed entirely below ground, and will not per manently alter the
above ground
setting
within the storm drain alignment.

Given that the project would not degrade views to nearby scenic vistas and that the visual effects of storm drain improvements would not substantially alter the views in the Project
footprint in the long
-
term, implementation of the proposed modification is not expected to cause any substantial adverse effects on any important scenic vistas. This potential impact is considered a less than significant adverse aesthetic impact. No miti gation is required.

Impact
–

The project footprint does not include a section of road that is located within a scenic highway.

According to Caltrans,
there are no scenic highways within the project alignment.

The
Project will not demolish or substantially damage any of the buildings within the project alignment, as most of the proposed improvements will occur within existing road rights -
of
-
way. Additio
nally, there
are no existing rock
outcroppings or other natural landscape features within the project alignment

that could be considered a scenic resource.

There are no trees that would be removed or interfered
with as part of the proposed project; conseq
uently, no significant adverse impact to a scenic resource will occur. No mitigation is required.

~

~

~

~
c.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed storm drain alignment
within Baseline Road ultimately
terminat
es

at Cactus Basin
. The proposed
project is located in an urbanized area, and would mostly be located within an existing roadway,

which is considered land use independent.

The proposed
project would
install a portion of the storm drain alignment within an area designated for Open Space
Re
source Use
by the Rialto General Plan and by
Cactus Basin (OS
-
CB)

by the City of Rialto Zoning
Code. The proposed development of a storm drain within a n alignment

designated and classified as
such would be consistent with the existing use of the site. Furt hermore, storm water infrastructure
projects such as that which is proposed

project are considered land use independent
Therefore, given
that the proposed project is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations go
verning scenic quality
, impacts under this issue are considered less than
significant.

Impact
–

The
re will not be any new permanent sources of lighting as part of the proposed project.

The proposed project will install a new storm drain within Base
line Road, which will be located below
ground.

Construction of the project will require minimal lighting because it will occur during daytime hours. No reflective materials or coatings are associated with this Project. Due to the Project’s location within

an existing urban setting, and the lack of any new lighting, it is not anticipated that this project will create any substantial new sources of light or glare. No impact associated with lighting or glare can be identified and no mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

II. AGRICULTURE

AND FORESTRY

RESOURCES
:

In determining whether impacts to
agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing
impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
signi
ficant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protec
tion regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
metho
dology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources

Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to
non
-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

d)
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non
-
forest use?

e)
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non
-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use?

SUBSTANTIATION

No Impact
–

The majority of the Project will occur within and adjacent to existing road rights -
of
-
way
within the
Baseline Road

corridor

and adjacent to Cactus Basin
. Neither the Project
footprint nor the
surrounding area is designated for agricultural use; no agricultural activities exist in the project area; and there is no potential for impact to any agricultural uses or values as a result of project implementation. According to the ma
ps prepared pursuant to the farmland mapping and monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of state importance exists within the vicinity of the proposed project (Figure II -
1). No adverse impact

to
any agricultural resources would occur from imple
menting the proposed project. No mitigation is
required.

No Impact
–

There are no agricultural uses currently within the Project footprint or on adjacent properties. A majority of the Project will occur within existing road right -
of
-
way within
Baseline Road

~

~

~

~

~
between
Tamarind Avenue and
Cactus Basin, and also within and adja
cent to Cactus Basin, which
is designated as
Open Space Resource Use
by the Rialto General Plan and by
Cactus Basin (OS
-
CB)

by the City of Rialto Zoning Code. No agricultural uses exist adjacent to the storm drain
alignment. Therefore, n
o
potential exists
for a conflict between the

proposed project and agricultural
zoning or Williamson Act contracts within the project area. No mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

Please refer to issues II(a) and II(b) above. The project site is in an urbanized area and

neither the land use designation, nor zoning classification supports forest land or timberland uses or designations. No potential exists for a conflict between the proposed project and forest/timber land
zoning. No mitigation is required.

No Impact

–

There are no forest lands within the project area, which is because the project area is completely urbanized. No potential for loss of forest land would occur if the project is implemented.

No mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

Because the projec
t
footprint
and surrounding area do not support either agricultural or forestry uses and, furthermore, because the project site and environs are not designated for such uses, implementation of the proposed project would not cause or result in the conversio n of
f
armland
or forest land to alternative use. There is no farmland or forest land located in the vicinity of the project roadway alignment. No adverse impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

III.

AIR QUALITY
:

Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control
district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

b)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?

c)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

d)
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?

SUBSTANTIATION:

The
followin
g information utilized in this s
ection of the Initial Study was obtained from
the

Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis,
HZ
-
116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain Project, City of Rialto,

California

prepared by Giroux and Associates dated April 15, 2019. This document is provided as Appendix

2 to this document.

Background

Climate

The climate of western San Bernardino County, as with all of Southern California, is governed

largely by
the strength and location of the semi
-
permanent high
-
pressure center over the Pacific

Ocean and the
moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic

conditions are characterized by
very warm summers, mild winters, inf
requent rainfall, moderate

daytime on
-
shore breezes, and comfortable
humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic

conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of

the local atmosphere to disperse the large
volumes of air pollution generated
by the population

and industry attracted in part by the climate.

Rialto is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles

basin
undergo photochemical reactions and then move inl
and across the project site during the

daily sea breeze
cycle. The resulting smog at times gives western San Bernardino County some

of the worst air quality in
all of California. Fortunately, significant air quality improvement in

the last decade suggests
that healthful
air quality may someday be attained despite the limited

regional meteorological dispersion potential.

The
combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants

in leading to the degraded air quality in
summer, and the generally good
air quality in winter in

the project area.

Air Quality Standards

Existing air quality is measured at established
S
outh C
oast

Air Quality Management District (
SCAQMD
)

air
quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated and in the context of

ambient air quality
standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Q
uality Standards (CAAQS) currentl
y in effect are shown in Table III
-

1. Because the
State of California had established Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the

restrictive dispersion meteorology,
there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently
~

~

~

~

in effect in California are shown in Table

III
-

1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown i
n Table III
-

2. Table III
-
1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant

Average Time

California Standards
1 National Standards
2 Concentration

3 Method
4 Primary
3,5

Secondary
3,6

Method
7 Ozone (O3)
8 1 Hour

0.09 ppm

(180 µg/m
3 )

Ultraviolet

Photometry

–

Same as

Primary
Standard

Ultraviolet

Photometry

8 Hour

0.070 ppm

(137 µg/m
3 )

0.070

ppm

(1
3 7 µg/m
3 )

Respirable

Particulate

Matter (PM10)
9 24 Hour

50 µg/m
3 Gravimetric or

Beta Attenuation

150 µg/m
3 Same as

Primary

Standard

Inertial
Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis

Annual

Arithmetic

Mean

20 µg/m
3 –

Fine Particulate

Matter (PM2.5)
9 24 Hour

–

35 µg/m
3 Same as
Primary
Standard

Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis

Annual

Arithmetic

Mean

12 µg/m
3 Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation

12.0 µg/m
3 15.0

µg/m
3 Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

1 Hour

2 0 ppm

(
23 mg/m
3 )

Non
-
Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)

35 ppm

(
4 0
m
g/m
3 )

–

Non
-
Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)

8 Hour

9 ppm

(
10 mg/m
3 )

9 ppm

(
1 0
m
g/m
3 )

–

8 Hour

(Lake

Tahoe)

6 ppm

m
g/m
3 )

–

Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
10 1 Hour

0.18 ppm
(
339

µg/m
3 )

Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence

100 ppb
(
1 8
8 µg/m
3 )

–

Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence

Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.030
ppm

(57

µg/m
3 )

0.053 ppm
(100

µg/m
3 )

Same as
Primary
Standard

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
11 1 Hour

0.25 ppm

(655

µg/m
3 )

Ultraviolet

Fluorescence

75 ppb
(196

µg/m
3 )

–

Ultraviolet
Flourescense;
Spectrophotometry

(Paraosaniline

Method)

3 Hour

–

0.5 ppm

(1300

µg/m
3 )

24 Hour

0.04 ppm

(105

µg/m
3 )

0.14 ppm

(
for

certain
areas)
11 –

Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

–

0.030 ppm

(for certain
areas
)
11 –

Lead 8
12,13

30 -
Day

Average

1.5 µg/m
3 Atomic Absorption

–

Calendar

Quarter

–

1.5 µg/m
3 (for certain
areas)
12 Same as
Primary
Standard

High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption

Rolling

3 -
Month Avg

–

0.15 µg/m
3 Visibility
Reducing
Particles
14 8 Hour

See footnote 14

Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape

Federal

Standards

Sulfates

24 Hour

25 µg/m
3 Ion
Chromatography

Hydrogen
Sulfide

1 Hour

0.03 ppm

(42 µg/m
3 )

Ultraviolet
Fluorescence

Vinyl

Chloride
12 24 Hour

0.01 ppm

(26 µg/m
3 )

Gas Chromatography

Footnotes

1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide,
suspended particulate matter
–

PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are li sted in the Table of Standards in Section 70200
of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than o
nce a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 -
hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days per calen
dar year
,

with a 24
-
hour average concentration above 150 μg/m
3 ,

is equal to or less than one.

For PM2.5, the 24
-
hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact
U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.

3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 2
5̊
C and a reference pressure of 760
torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 2
5̊
C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4 Any equivalent procedure which ca
n be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipate d
adverse effects of a pollutant.

7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent
relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA.

8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8
-
hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

9 On Decembe
r 14, 2012, the national PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m
3 to 12.0
μg/m
3 . The existing national
24 -
hour PM2.5 standards (primarily and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m
3 , as was the annual secondary standard of 15
μg/m
3 . The existing 24
-
ho
ur PM10 standards (primarily and secondary) of 150
μg/m
3 also were retained. The form of the annual
primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10 To attain the 1
-
hour national standard, the 3
-
year average of the annual 98
th percentile of the 1
-
hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1 -
hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).

California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1
-
hour standard to the California
standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 pp m.

11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1
-
hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 2
4 -
hour and annual primary standards were
revoked. To attain the 1
-
hour national standard, the 3
-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1
-
hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24 -
h
our and annual) remain in effect
until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain th e 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1
-
hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1
-
hour national standard to the California standard the un its can be converted to ppm. In this
case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12 The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse he alth
effects determined.

These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3 -
month average. The 1978 lead standa
rd (1.5

j.tg/m
3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in ar eas
designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or
maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -
mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30
-
mile visibility standard
to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Table
III
-
2 HEALTH EFFECTS

OF MAJOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

Pollutants

Sources

Primary Effects

Carbon
Monoxide

(CO)

•

Incomplete
combustion of fuels and
other carbon
-
containing substances,
such as motor exhaust.

•

Natural events, such as
decomposition of organic matter.

•

Reduced tolerance for exercise.

•

Impairment of mental function.

•

Impairment of fetal development.

•

Death at high levels

of exposure.

•

Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide

(NO
2 )

•

Motor vehicle exhaust.

•

High temperature stationary
combustion.

•

Atmospheric reactions.

•

Aggravation of respiratory illness.

•

Reduced visibility.

•

Reduced plant growth.

•

Formation of acid rain.

Ozone

(O
3 )

•

Atmospheric reaction of organic
gases with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight.

•

Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.

•

Irritation of eyes.

•

Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.

•

Plant leaf injury.

Lead
(Pb)

•

Contaminated soil.

•

Impairment of blood function and nerve construction.

•

Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Fine Particulate
Matter

(PM
-
10)

•

Stationary combustion of solid fuels.

•

Construction activities.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Atmospheric chemical reactions.

•

Reduced lung function.

•

Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.

•

Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory
diseases.

•

Increased cough and chest discomfort.

•

Soiling.

•

Reduced visibility.

Fine Particulate
Matter

(PM
-

2.5)

•

Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.

•

Residential and agricultural burning.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants,
including NOx, sulfur oxides, and
organics.

•

Increases respiratory disease.

•

Lung damage.

•

Cancer and premature death.

•

Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.

Sulfur Dioxide

(SO
2 )

•

Combustion of sulfur
-
containing
fossil fuels.

•

Smelting of sulfur
-
bearing metal
ores.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Aggr
avation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).

•

Reduced lung function.

•

Irritation of eyes.

•

Reduced visibility.

•

Plant injury.

•

Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes,
coatings, etc.

Source:

California Air Resources Board, 2002.

Baseline Air Quality

Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are

best
documented from measurements made near the project site. The SCAQMD operates a monitoring station in Fontana that monitors the c
omplete spectrum of gaseous and particulate pollutants for which there are clean air standards. From these data resources, one can well infer that baseline air quality levels near the project site are improving, but occasionally unhealthful. Full attainmen t may still be many years away.

Table

III
-
3 summarizes the last four years of published monitoring data from the Fontana station.

1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels frequently exceed standards. The 1 -
hour state standard was
violated 9.2 percent of all days in the last
four

years in Fontana. The 8
-
hour state ozone standard has
been exceeded 1
4 percent of all days in the past four years
. The Federal eight
-
hour ozone standard
has averaged around 10 percent of the time during this period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not like
ly to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during
t
he current decade.

2. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels at the
Fontana

station have
remained level

throughout the last four
years. The 8
-
hour standa
rd has not been exceeded and the maximum 8
-
hour standard has been
steadily declining, with 2016 having the lowest concentration in the time period analyzed. These data suggest that baseline CO levels in the project area are generally healthful and can acco mmodate a
reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected.

3. PM
-
10 levels periodically exceed the state 24
-
hour standard, but no measurements in excess of the
national 24
-
hour particulate standard

has been recorded in the last four years. State PM
-
10 standards
are exceeded an average of 2
2 percent of all days per year.

4. A substantial fraction of PM
-
10 is comprised of ultra
-
small diameter particulates capable of being
inhaled into deep lung tissu
e (PM
-

2.5). Year 2016 showed the fewest violations in recent years.

Less
than

one percent of all days exceeded the current national 24 -
hour standard of 35 μg/m
3 .

5. More localized pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the projec t site
because background levels never exceed allowable levels, and there are only limited sources of such emissions near the project site.

Table

III
-
3 AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
–

201
4 -
2017

(NUMBER OF DAYS STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED, AND

MAXIMUM LEVELS DURING SUCH VIOLATIONS)

Pollutant/Standard

2014

2015

2016

2017

Ozone

1 -
Hour > 0.09 ppm (S)

31 36

34 33

8 -
Hour > 0.07 ppm (S)

52 57

49 49

8 -

Hour > 0.075 ppm (F)

37 39

34 38

Max. 1
-
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.127

0.133

0.139

0.137

Max.
8 -
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.105

0.111

0.105

0.118

Carbon Monoxide

8 -

Hour > 9. ppm (S,F)

0 0

Max 8
-
hour Conc. (ppm)

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.3

Nitrogen Dioxide

1 -
Hour > 0.18 ppm (S)

0 0

Max. 1
-
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.074

0.089

0.071

0.069

Inhalable Particulates (PM
-
10)

24 -
hour > 50

g/m
3 (S)

13/58

13/55

15/61

7/43

24 -
hour > 150

g/m
3 (F)

0/58

0/55

0/61

0/43

Max. 24
-
Hr. Conc. (

g/m
3 )

68. 96.

94. 75.

Ultra
-
Fine Particulates

(PM
-

2.5)

24 -
Hour > 35

g/m
3 (F)

1/58

2/113

0/111

1/120

Max. 24
-
Hr. Conc. (

g/m
3 )

78.9 47.3

30.4 39.2

(Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken)

S=State

Standard
;
F=Federal Standard

Source: South Coast AQMD

Fontana Air Quality Monitoring Station

Air Quality Planning

The
U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O3, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (7). The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and em issions sources outside state waters (Outer
Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB.

Th
e Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achi eving compliance (14). The CAA also mandates
that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -
10 and PM
-

2.5 are
forecast to slightly increase.

The
SC
AQMD adopted an updat
ed clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health
-
based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -
10 ) by 2006. The 2003
AQMP was based upon the federal one
-
hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8
-
hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.

With

re
-
designation of the air basin as non
-
attainment for the 8
-
hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan
was developed. This plan shifted most of the one
-
hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8
-
hour
standard. The attainment date was to “slip” fr
om 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM
-

2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021
required control technologies that did not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump -
up”

from a
“severe non
-
attainment” area to an “extreme non
-
attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme
designation was to allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline wit
hout relying on “black
-
box” measures, EPA would have been
required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump -
up request not been approved. In April 2010, the
EPA approved the change in the non
-
attainment designation from “severe
-
17” to “extreme.” Th
is
reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also required the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.

Table
III
-
4 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN EMISSIONS FORECASTS (EMISSIONS IN TONS/DAY)

Pollutant

2015
a

2020
b

2025
b

2030
b

NOx

357

289

266

257

VOC

400

393

391

PM
-
10 161

165

170

172

PM
-

2.5 67

68 70

71 a
2015 Base Year.

b
With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.

Source:

California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality

AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the California Air Resour ces Board for forwarding to the EPA. The
2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants,

refineries, landfill flares, etc.). The current attainment deadlines for all federal non -
attainment pollutants are now as follows:

8 -
hour ozone (70 ppb)

2032

Annual PM
-

2.5 (12

g/m
3 )

2025

8 -
hour ozone (75 ppb)

2024 (former standard)

1 -
hour ozone (120 ppb)

2023 (rescinded standard)

24 -
hour PM
-

2.5 (35

g/m
3 )

2019

The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to

be met. Unless additional stringent
NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, ozone attainment goals may not be met.

The proposed project does
not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations
gover
ning
storm drain improvement
projects.

Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and
programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined.

The SCAQMD, howeve
r, while acknowledging that the
AQMP is a growth
-
accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less -
than
-
significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact signific
ance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project -
specific basis.

Significance Thre
sholds Used in This Document

Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currentl
y met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impa
ct.

Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following four tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Primary Pollutants

Primary pollutant i
mpacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact . Many particulates, especially fugitive
dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non -
attainment status of the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB) for PM
-
10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during proje
ct construction.

Secondary Pollutants

Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an ind
ividual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emiss ions directly into a corresponding ambient
air quality impact.

Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emission levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact signif icance independent
of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.

Table III
-
5 DAILY

EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS

Pollutant

Construction

Operations

ROG

75 55

NOx

100

55 CO

550

PM
-
10 150

150

PM
-

2.5 55

55 SOx

150

Lead

3 3

Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.

Additional Indicators

In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows:

•

Project could interfere with
the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation

•

Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s build -
out
year.

•

Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.

Impact Analysis

Less Than Significant Impact
‒

Projects such as the proposed

Rial
to
Baseline

Storm
Drain Project
do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development.

Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primar y yardstick by which impact significance
of planned growth is determined.

The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth
-
accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less -
than
-
significant just because the prop
osed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project -
specific
basis.

The City requires compliance with the Municipal Code for project such as th is, and the Project
will meet these standards. The
Rialto
Baseline

Storm
Drain Project will be fully consistent with both
the General Plan designation and Zone classification for the project site, mainly because the project involves storm drain infrastruc
ture, and such projects are considered land use independent.

Thus,
the proposed project is consistent with regional planning forecasts maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional plans. The SCAQMD, however, while ackno
wledging that the AQMP is a growth
-
accommodating document, does not favor designating
regional impacts as less
-
than
-
significant only because of consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has ther efore been analyzed on
a project
-
specific basis. As the analysis of project
-
related emissions provided below indicates, the
proposed project will not cause
exposure
to significant air pollution, and is, therefore, consistent with the applicable air qualit
y plan.

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation Incorporated

‒

For a typical project, a
ir pollution emissions
occur over both a short and long
-
term time

period
. Short
-
term emissions include

fugitive dust from
construct
ion activities (i.e., site prep, d
emolition,
grading, and exhaust emission) at the proposed
Project site.

No l
ong
-
term emissions
would

generated by future operation of the
proposed project

because the objective of the project is to
upgrade existing drainage infrastructure conditions wit hin
Baseline Avenue from Cactus Basin west to Tamarind Avenue ; as such, the new storm drain system
would not require power to operate

because it will gravity flow
.

Construction Emissions

The City of Rialto
proposes

to upgrade
the
existing drainage infrastructure conditions within Baseline Road

from Cactus Basin
(Cactus Avenue)
to Tamarind Avenue.

The project consists of installing
approximately 11,000 lineal feet (LF)
of various diameter
storm drain
s

that would capture flows north
of Baseline Road.

The Project will be constructed once funding becomes available, which is anticipated to be secured in 2021 or 2022. Construction is anticipated to require between 6 months and one year to complete. At any given time during construction a maximum of 30 employees would
be required each day, though the number of construction workers required will range from 10 to 30 persons per day. Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off -
site equipment, the exact
types and numbers of equipment

will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. The CalEEMod
.201
6 .
3 .2 computer model was used to calculate emissions
from the prototype construction equipment fleet and schedule as indicated in Table III
-

6. Ta
ble III
-
6 CalEEMod CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT FLEET AND WORKDAYS :
(30 WORKERS DAILY)

Prep and Concrete Removal

(3 months)

1 Concrete Saw

1 Dozer

1 Loader/Backhoe

2 Skid Steer Loaders

Trench and Install Pipeline

(4 months)

1 Loader/Backhoe

2 Trenchers

1 Forklifts

1 Crane

1 Excavator

Backfill and Paving

(3 months)

1 Paver

1 Roller

1 Loader/Backhoe

4 Mixers

2 Compactors

Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables III
-
6 the following worst
-
case daily construction
emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table III
-

7. Table
III
-
7 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EMISSIONS

MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY
)

Maximal Construction
Emissions per Calendar Year

ROG

NOx

SO
2 PM
-
10 PM
-

2.5 Year 2021

2.4 21.9

19.5 0.0

1.8 1.2

SCAQMD Thresholds

75 100

550

150

55 Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 output in appendix

Peak daily construction activity emissions are below their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds without the need for any additional mitigation.

However, though c
onstruction activities are
not anticipated to cause dust emissions to

exceed SCAQMD C
EQA thresholds,
emissions
minimization through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the PM
non
-
attainment status of the air

basin. As such, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

AIR
-
1 Fugitive Dust Control
.

Th
e following measures shall be incorporated into
Project plans and specifications for implementation:

•

Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.

•

Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the con -
struc
tion site
(typically 2
-
3 times/day).

•

Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.

•

Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.

•

Minimize in
-
out traffic from construction zone.

•

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or
loose material and require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

•

Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construc -
tion site.

Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD

CEQA
thresholds. However, because of the regional non
-
attainment for photochemical smog, the use of
reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended.

As such, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:

AIR
-
2 Exhaust Emi
ssions Control
.

The following measures shall be incorporated into
Project plans and specifi
cations for implementation:

•

Utilize well
-
tuned off
-
road construction equipment.

•

Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equip -
ment.

•

Enforce 5
-
minute idling limits for both on
-
road trucks and off
-
road equip
-
ment.

With the above mitigation measures, any impacts related to construction emissions are considered les
s

than significant.

No further mitigation is required.

Operational Impacts

There are no o
perational air pollution emissions
associated with a gravity fed storm drain
.

Conclusion

With the incorporation of mitigation measures
AIR
-
1 and
AIR
-
2 , the development of the
Rialto Basin
Storm Drain

Project would have a

less than significant potential to result in a cumulatively I I
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Less Than Significant
Imp
act
–

LSTs
were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1 -
4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

For the p
roposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction.

LST screening tables are available
for
various source
-
receptor distances.

For this project the most
stringent thresholds for a 1
-
acre site and a 25
-
meter source
-
recept
or distance was used to compare
to construction emissions as shown in Table III
-

8. Table III
-
8 LST AND PROJECT EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY)

LST
1 acre/25 meters

Central San Bernardino Valley

NOx

PM
-
10 PM
-

2.5 LST Thresholds

667

118

4 3

Max On
-
Site Project Emissions

20 22

2 1

LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen in Table III
-
8, even
without use of
mitigation
, emissions
easily
meet the LST for construction thresholds. LST impacts are less

t
han

significant.

As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations .

Less Than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated

‒

The only new source of odors that would be
generated by this project would be those short
-
term odors from construction equipment and vehicles.

Those odors would be associated with exhaust emissions from consumption of petroleum products (gasoline, diesel
, etc.). Such odors are common in urbanized areas near the project footprint, particularly due to the industrial nature of this corridor. Due to the few pieces of equipment required and the short duration of construction, as well as the ambient odor leve ls in the project area, the
project will not result in the creation of a significant amount of objectionable odors. In the long term, no new sources of odors will result. The storm drain will operate in a similar manner

to the existing
storm drain system

below ground. Mitigation measure
AIR
-
2 will reduce the potential for
objectionable odors posing a health risk to humans on
-

or off
-
site

as a result of exhaust emissions to
a level of less than significant. No further mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
:

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?

d) 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?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

SUBSTANTIATION: The
Biological Resources Ass
essment and Jurisdictional Delineation: Rialto Storm
Drain, Rialto, CA

prepared by Jericho Systems, Inc. dated May 20, 2019 was utilized for the following analysis.

A copy of this document is provided as Appendix
3 to this Initial Study
.

A summary of the

determination outlined in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) and Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) is as follows:

Prior to conducting the field study, species and habitat information was gathered from the reports related to the specific project and relevant databases for the
Fontana
USGS quadrangle to determine which
species and/or habitats would be expected to occur
on site. A field survey was conducted and the outcome
of the survey concluded the following:

The project site is primarily a multi
-
use urban setting, with the Cactus Basin component holding the only vegetation not actively managed
as

landscaping. The ha
bitat adjacent to the north
-
bound fencing in Cactus
Basin is high disturbance new growth, whereas the habitat in the northeast corner of the project site is high disturbance alluvial fan sage scrub.

Several occurrences of
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (
Dipodomys merriami parvus)

[SBKR]
and

Los
Angeles Pocket mouse (
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
) [LAPM]

are documented in the immediate
vicinity of the east end of the Project area. Although the habitat conditions are marginal for these species,
~

~

~

~

~

~
absen
ce of either species cannot be determined without focused survey , and as such, preconstruction
surveys for these species are recommended.

Habitat suitability of
Burrowing owl (
Athene cunicularia
) [BUOW]

is marginal along the alignment where
there is vaca
nt land. This species was not observed during survey and no sign of the presence was found.

Prior to construction a
survey within
30 da
ys of construction

is warranted and recommended.

The vegetation on site does have a potential to support nesting bird s and foraging raptors such as red
-
tailed hawks. Therefore, to reduce the potential impacts to nesting birds, mitigation to address nesting birds

is recommended
.

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation Incorporated
–

As stated in the summary above, im
ple
-
mentation of the proposed Project may have a potential for an adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlif
e Service (USFWS).

Due to the habitat conditions at the east end,
northbound portion of the alignment that approaches Cactus Basin, and due to previous records of SBKR in Cactus Basins, there remains a moderate potential for occurrence of SBKR and LAPM.

F
urther
,

the Project site at Cactus Basin is potentially suitable for BUOW.

T
hese species must be
assumed present (not recommended) within the Project
area of potential effect (
APE
)
, or focused
protocol
-
level surveys (recommended) need to be conducted to d
etermine presence or absence.

It
is assumed that with mitigation, these species ca
n

be protected, particularly given

that the majority
of the project would occur within existing roadways; the areas that would contain these species would generally be locate
d within the area leading to and within Cactus Basin outside of the roadways.

However, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that temporary ground disturbance within
the mostly vacant land leading to and at Cactus Basin may have a potential to a dversely impact
SBKR, LAPM, and/or BUOW. As such, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.

BIO
-
1 Burrowing Owl
. Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturb ing
activity. The burrowing owl survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recom -
mendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the event this species is not identified within the project limits, no further miti
gation is required. If during the preconstruction survey, the burrowing owl if found to occupy the site, Mitigation Measure BIO -
2 shall be
required.

BIO
-
2 If burrowing owls are identified during the survey period, the City shall take the following action
s to offset impacts prior to ground disturbance:

Active nests within the areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, and a minimum of 250 -
foot
buffer shall be provided until fledging has occurred. F ollowing fledging, owls
may be passively relocated by a qualified biologist.

If impacts on occupied burrows in the non
-
nesting period are unavoidable,
onsite passive relocation techniques may be used if approved by the CDFW to encourage owls to move to a
lternative burrows outside of the impact area.

If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by the CDFW shall require the City to hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must inc
lude all of the following:

•

The location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation.

•

The location of the proposed relocation site.

•

The number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place.

•

The name and
credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation.

•

The proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site.

•

A description of site preparation at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creat
ion of artificial burrows, one
-
time or long
-
term
vegetation control).

BIO
-
3 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for

SBKR
shall be conducted
within
45 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. SBKR survey

shall be conducted pursuant to the recom
mendations and guidelines
established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

If no presence
of SBKR
is found during the survey, mitigati
on measure BIO
-
3 need not be
enforced.

BIO
-
4 In the event th
at the preconstruction survey determines the
presence
of SBKR
,
the following actions shall be implemented
:
the
City

shall provide
compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual SBKR

i
n the
following manner: 1)

the
City

shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
from the CDFW; the
City

shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed
habitat by purchase of acceptable
SBKR

habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any
conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance wit
hin potential SBKR habitat
shall occur until an ITP is obtained by the
City
.

Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation package, but the
City

finds that this
compensation package shall at a mini
mum meet the requirements of this
measure.

BIO
-
5 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for

LAPM

shall be conducted
within
30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity.

LAPM

survey

shall be conducted pursuant to the recom
mendations and guidel
ines
established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If no presence of
LAPM

is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO
-
5 need not be
enforced.

BIO
-
6 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of LAPM
,
the

following actions shall be implemented
:
the
City

shall provide
compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual LAPM

in the
following manner: 1)

the
City

shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
from the CDFW; the
City

shall offset the lo
ss of the temporarily disturbed
habitat by purchase of acceptable
LAPM

habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any
conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed by an agency
or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur
within potential LAPM habitat

until an ITP is obtained by the
City
.

Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation pack
age, but the
City

finds that this
compensation package shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this measure.

With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO
-
1 through BIO
-
6 above, impacts under this issue
are considered less than significant.

Less Than Significant
Impact

–

Implementation of the proposed Project will not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or r egional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Project area of potential effect (APE) is not located within or immediately adjacent any USFWS designated Critical Habitat. Though the project footprint contains suitable habitat for severa
l sensitive species, it does not contain any known riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified by any agency.

The project
alignment
is
primarily a multi
-
use urban setting, with the Cactus Basin component holding the only vegetation

not
actively managed by landscaping.

Habitat within or adjacent to the north
-
bound portion on the
easternmost part of the Project alignment at Cactus Basin consists primarily of foxtail ( Hordeum
murinum
)
,

wild oat (
Avena fatua
), stinging nettle (
Urtica ur
ens
), coastal heron’s bill (
Erodium
cicutarium
) and common fiddleneck (
Amsinckia intermedia
). Shrubs become increasingly numerous
the further north into the basin. Those shrubs are primarily California buckwheat ( Eriogonum
fasciculatum
) and California sag
ebrush (
Artemesia californica
). Adjacent to the northernmost portion
of the basin is degraded alluvial fan sage scrub that consists of interspersed California sagebrush, California buckwheat, foxtail, ripgut (
Bromus diandrus
), a single holly
-
leaf cherry (
P
runus ilicifolia
)
shrub, and a single beavertail cactus (
Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris
). Vegetation on or adjacent to
all other aspects of the project are ornamental landscaped shrubs or ruderal vegetation composed of ripgut and foxtail.

The project si
te has been subject to historic human disturbance and ongoing human use. Based on the field survey conducted by
Jericho Systems
, Inc. and the information contained in
Appendix

3 , no significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive communities are

anticipated
to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation Incorporated
–

According to the data gathered by Jericho
Systems in Appendix
3 ,

ar
eas meeting all three parameters (i.e. hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) would be designated as USACE wetlands. There are no areas meeting all three wetland char
acteristics within the Project APE.

However, the data contained in Appendix 3
indicates that
Cactus Basin is a jurisdictional water subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and Section 1600 of the FGC. Modifications within the basin will likely require

permits from the USACE,
RWQCB and CDFW.

As such, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

BIO
-
7 The
City

shall prepare and submit a
1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement
(SAA) to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) , a Secti
on 401
Certification Permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, a Section 404 (Nationwide Permit No. 43) Permit to the USACE.

No ground
disturbance
within jurisdictional waters
shall occur until the
City
obtains the
above permits.

Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit shall be implemented by the
City
. If the permit conditions are different
than the mitigation listed in this Document to protect biological resources, the City

shall implement the mitigation
identified in the permits.

With implementation of mitigation measure BIO
-
7 , the proposed project would have a less than
significant potential to h
ave a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, mar
sh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

Based on the field survey of the project site, the
Project will not
substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites.

Once constructed, the entirety of the project will be located below

ground as a new storm drain.

However, the State does protect all migratory and nesting native birds.

Several bird species were
identified as potentially occurring in the project area.

Thus, the project area may include locations
that function as nesting
locations for native birds. To prevent interfering with native bird nesting, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.

BIO
-
8 The State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests,
any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should
be conducted outside of the the State identified nesting season (Raptor nesting season is February 15 through July 31; and migratory bird nesting season is March 15 through September 1). Alternatively, the sit e shall be
evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbace to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds. Active bird nests MUST be avoided during the nesting season. If an active nest is located in the project con
struction area it will be flagged and a 300
-
foot avoidance buffer placed
around it. No activity shall occur within the 300
-
foot buffer until the young
have fledged the nest.

Thus, with implementation of the above measure, any effects on wildlife movement or the use of
wildlife nursery sites can be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

Development of the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to conflict with any local policies or ordin ances protecting biological resources.

Impacts to biological resources have been addressed above under issues IV(a -
d). Therefore, the
potential for the project to conflict with local policies or ordinances pertaining to biological resources would be consid
ered less than significant.

f
.

Impact
–

Please refer to the discussion under response IV(a) above. The Biological Resources Analysis provided a
s Appendix
3 concluded that the Project, is not located in an area within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natur
al Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan,
and implementation of the project will therefore not
result in a significant
impact to any such plans
. No further mitigation is necessary.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
:

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to

§
15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§
15064.5?

c)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?

SUBSTANTIATION
:

A cultural resources report has been prepared to evaluate the potential for cultural resources to occur within the project area of potential effect

entitled “
Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report:

Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, City of Rialto
, San Bernardino County, California
,”
prepared by CRM TECH dated
May 16, 2019

(Ap
pendix 4). The following summary information has been
abstracted from this report. It provides an overview and findings regarding the cultural resources found within the project area.

Background

The study is part of the environmental review process for the
project
. The City of Rialto, as
the project
sponsor and
the lead agency, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
)
. The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysi s
to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeo
logical resources records search, pursued historical
background research, consulted with the Native American representatives, and carried out a systematic
field survey.

The results of the records search indicate that
five

historical/archaeological sites

were
previously recorded
within or adjacent to the project area
:

36 -
010659 (CA
-
SBR
-
10659H)

sparse refuse scatter

36 -
010908 (CA
-
SBR
-
10908H)

structural foundation, standpipe, and refuse scatter

36 -
015497 (CPHI SBr
-
012)

San Bernardino Baseline (
Baseline Roa
d
)

36 -
021612

three early
20th century

bungalows

36 -
029057 (CA
-
SBR
-
29057H)

multi
-
origin refuse dumping site

The field survey and the historical background research reveal that four of these five sites are no longer extant today, having evidently been removed during subsequent residential and commercial developments at their former locations. The remaining site,

36 -
015497
, represents the
San Bernardino Baseline,
embodied by Baseline Road in the project vicinity
. As a part of the basis for
all land surveys and titles in
southern California since

1853, the
San Bernardino Baseline was
officially
designated a Califo
rnia Point of
Historical Interest (CPHI
-
SBr
-
12) in 1973
.

As such,

Site
36 -
015497 meets the definition of a “historical
resource” under CEQA provisions.

The historic value of
Site
36 -
015497, however, is symbolic in nature and is derived from the concept ual line
across the landscape instead of the existing roadway, a heavily traveled major thoroughfare of entirely modern character and appearance.

Therefore
,

the current configuration and physical features of
Baseline
Road

do not contribute to the historic

significance of the site. Since Site
36 -
015497

exists in the project

~

~

~

area largely on paper only
, this study concludes that the proposed project has no potential to affect the

significance or integrity

of this “historical resource.”

During the course of
the Native American contacts, the State of California Native American Heritage Commission
reported the presence of unspecified Native American cultural resource(s) in the project vicinity

but

referred further inquiries to

the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Ind
ians
–
Kizh Nation.

In subsequent
correspondence, however,
the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
–
Kizh Nation

did not provide any further
information on such resources. A
ccord
ing to

CEQA guidelines, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resource
s” is beyond the scope of this study and needs to be addressed through government -
to
-
government consultations

between the City of Rialto and the pertinent Native American groups pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.

Based on these findings,
it is

recommend
ed that

the City of Rialto
adopt
a preliminary conclusion of
No
Impact

on cultural resources, pending the completion of the City’s government
-
to
-
government

consultation
process with local
Native American tribes
, which is discussed further under the Tribal
Cultural Resources
section below.

No additional cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless construction

plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encoun
tered inadvertently during any earth
-
moving operations associated with the
project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds
.

Impact Analysi
s

a&b.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

CEQA
establishes that "a project that may cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1
(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired."

Per the above discussion and definition, no archaeological sites or isolates were recorded within the Project boundari
es; thus, none of them requires further consideration during this study.

In light of
this information and pursuant to PRC §21084.1, the following conclusions have been reached for the Project:

•

No historical resources within or adjacent to the Project are a have any potential to be disturbed
as they are not within the proposed area in which the facilities will be constructed and developed, and thus, the Project as it is currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical r
esources.

•

No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.

However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -
moving operations associated
with the Project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall assess the find,

determine its signifi
cance, and make recommendations for appro
-
priate mitigation measures within the guide
lines of the California Environ
-
mental Quality Act.

With the above mitigation incorporation,
as well as the mitigation identified under Tribal Cultural Resources below, the
potential for impact
s

to cultural resources will be reduced to a less than
significant level. No additional mitigation is required.

c
.

Less Than Significant
With Mitigation I
ncorporated
–

As noted in the discussion above,
n
o available
information suggests that

human remains may occur within the APE
and the potential for such an
occurrence is considered very low. State
law
(
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code)
as well
as local laws
requires
that the

Police Department, Coun
ty Sheriff and Coroner’s Office

receive
notification
if human remains
are encountered.

However, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to ensure that construction related activities protect such findings:

CUL
-
2 Should

human remains or funerary objects

be encountered during any
activities associated with the
project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a
100
-
foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, any impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No
Impact or

Does Not Apply

V
I
.

ENERGY
: Would the project:

a)
Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operations
?

b) C
onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency
?

SUBSTANTIATION

a&b
.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

As stated in Section III, Air Quality,
the construction of the proposed
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project
would require mitigation measures to minimize
emissions
impacts from construction equipment use. These mitigation measures also apply to energy resources as they require equipment not in use for 5 minutes to be turned off, and for electrical construction equipment to be used where available.

These mea
sures would prevent a significant impact during
construction due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources , and would
also conform to the CARB regulations regarding energy efficiency.

The proposed project would install
a new
storm drain that would not require energy
to function once installed. As such, the practices
during construction
—
such as
turning off equipment during construction
when not in use
—
would
prevent a significant impact to energy resources from occurring as a re sult of project implementation.

Given that the proposed project would not require energy to operate, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficie
ncy.

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

VI
I
. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
:

Would the project:

a)
Directly or indirectly cause

potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(i)

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist
-
Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

(ii)

Strong seismic ground shaking?

(iii)

Seismic
-
related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

(iv)

Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite land -
slide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18 -
1 -
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial
direct or indirect
risks to life or pr
operty?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?

f
)

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleont
ological resource or site or unique geologic
feature
?

SUBSTANTIATION

Ground Rupture

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The Project is located in the City of

Rialto, which is located near
several active fault zones,
including the
San Jacinto, Glen Helen, Cucamonga, and
San
Andreas
Fault
s
. The San
Jacinto
Fault System

is located just east of the project footprint and
is classified as
an Alquist
-
Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zone and traverses the area north of the project footprint
near
Lytle Creek.

According to the California
Geologic Survey Regulatory Maps, the proposed project is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Figure VII
-
1)
.

Furthermore, the

City of
Rialto General Plan’s Seismic and Geologic Hazard Map (Figure VII -
2)
depicts the Alquist
-
Priolo
Fault Zones in relation to the City, and none of these zones overlaps with the Project footprint.

Based
on this information, the risk f
or ground rupture at the Project location is low; furthermore, the Project will not include any human occupancy structures, but will install a new storm drain system within
~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~
Baseline Road ultimately leading to an outlet at Cactus Basin. The design and const ruc
tion/improve
-
ment of
storm drain systems

is controlled by both state and local design construction standards.

Compliance with these standards and requirements of the City is mandatory and considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts associated
with this Project. Therefore, the potential for
this Project to expose people or property to the hazard of earthquake fault rupture considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking

Less Than Significant Impact
–

As stated in the discussion above,
the
San Jacinto, Glen Helen,
Cucamonga, and
San
Andreas Fault
s

are

located in
the area north of the project footprin
t
.

The

City
of Rialto, as with much of southern California,
is

subject to
seismic ground shaking impacts
from
ea
rthquakes
; as such, the proposed storm drain project is anticipated to be subject to seismic ground shaking impacts should any major earthquakes occur in the future.

However, as stated in the
preceding section, no huma
n occupancy structures are proposed as part of the Project, and the design of the
storm drain
improvements must comply with both state and local (City) standards and requirements. This is considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts associated wit h the
Project’s potential to expose people or property to a high potential or risk of loss, injury, or death from strong
ground

shaking

or ground failure.

Therefore, impacts associated with strong ground shaking will be less than significant

without mitigation
.

Seismic
-
R
elated Ground Failure Including Liquefactio
n

No
Impact
–

According to the map prepared for the

County of San Bernardino General Plan showing
Geolog
ic Hazards

(Figure VII
-
3 ), the project footprint is not located
within an ar
ea that is susceptible
to liquefaction. Based on the data contained in Figure VII -
3, the proposed project is not located within
an identified Liquefaction Zone.

Therefore, the Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
li
quefaction hazards
, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving

landslides.

impacts under this issue are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation
is required.

Landslides

No Impact

–

The project area is generally flat becau
se the majority of the project will be installed
within an existing roadway; the pipeline leading from Baseline Road to Cactus Basin is also generally
flat
. No hills or other significant topographic

features exist on the p
roject site
s.

According to the Sa
n
Bernardino
County
General Plan, General Land Use Plan with Geologic Overlays (Figure VI
I
-
3 ),

the
project
is not located in an area that is susceptible to landslides. No potential events can be identified
that would r
esult in adverse effects
from landslides or that would cause landslides

that could expose
people or structures to such an event as a result of p
r
oject implementation. No impacts are
anticipated and no mitigation is
required.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

Much of the project area

has been graded,
compacted, and paved with asphalt and is relatively flat because the majori ty of the APE consists of
an existing road and adjacent sidewalk/structures. The storm drain installation will result in land disturbance in the areas that will require removal of roadway and in some cases adjacent sidewalk to accommodate the new storm dr
ain alignment. Additionally,

the storm drain alignment will also be
installed in areas consisting of compacted dirt, gravel, and asphalt lea d
ing to
Cactus Basin. Adequate
drainage facilities exist or will be developed or relocated by this Project to accomm
odate future
drainage flows.

This Project will result in the disturbance of more than one acre of land and will require filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), securing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), general construction stormwater dis
charge permit, and preparation and implementation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that is reviewed and approved by the City. The SWPPP will include but not be limited to the following measures to mitigate potential impacts associated wit
h erosion and surface water quality degradation during construction:

GEO
-
1 Stored backfill material
shall
be covered with water resistant material during
periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of the
material. If cove
ring is not feasible, then measures such as the use of straw bales or sand bags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup.

GEO
-
2 Excavated areas shall be properly backfilled and compacted. Paved areas distur
bed by this project will be repaved in such a manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned to as near the pre
-
project condition as is
feasible.

GEO
-
3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequently if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site within which the water facilities are being installed.

GEO
-
4 The length of trench which can be left open at any given time will be limi ted to
that n
eeded to reasonably

perform construction activities. This will serve to
reduce the amount of backfill stored onsite at any given time.

With implementation of the above mitigation measures, any erosion
impacts are considered less than
significant. No fur
ther mitigation is necessary.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The Project footprint is generally flat as it is currently developed with existing roadways and a disturbed area leading to Cactus Basin. The proposed project will improve drainage within the Baseline
Road
corridor between
Cactus Basin and Tamarind Avenue.

The
proposed project will involve the installation of a new storm drain.

As discussed under issue VI(a)
above,

landslides are not of concern at this location, nor is liquefaction a concern at this location. No habitable structures are proposed as part of
the project, and the proposed project will be
installed

entirely below ground.

According to the County of San Bernardino General Plan Geologic Hazards Map (Figure VII
-
3 ), the proposed project is not located on
a geologic unit that would become unstable
as
a result of project implementation. Furthermore, should a seismic event occur, the roadway should not collapse, nor cause a hazard along the roadway itself; such events within roadways are considered reparable in the event damage occurs, and therefore can be put back into use quickly.

Compliance
with all state and local (City) standards and requirements for roadway construction

would
ensure

the

project would have a less than significant potential to result in on -

or off
-

site

landslide,

lateral spreading, s
ubsidence, liquefaction or collapse

that would cause permanent damage to the
new storm drain alignment or the roadway within which the alignment will be installed .

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The Project footprint is predominantly flat and its surf ace is primarily
asphalt or concrete covered, though a portion of the development between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin

is undeveloped
.

According to the to the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the majority of the project Area of P
otential Effect (APE) is underlain by Tujunga loamy
sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes, and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent.

Neither of these soil types are classified as being expansive under Table 18 -
1 -
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994)
, particularly as expansive soils are typically in the clay soil family.

These classes of soil are well drained and are not considered expansive. Therefore, the proposed roadway improvements will not create a subst
antial risk to life or property by being placed
on expansive soils because none exist on the site. Any impacts are considered less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

The Project does not propose any septic tanks or alternative w astewater disposal
systems. Therefore, determining if the Project site soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater does not
apply. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required .

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒
The potential for discovering paleontological
resources during development of the Project is considered highly unlikely based on the fact that the site has been previously disturbed and a majority of the project alignment will be developed within a roadway
. No unique geologic features are known or suspected to occur on or beneath the project alignment. However, because the Project has not been surveyed in recent history, and the fact that these resources are located beneath the surface and can only be dis covered as a result of ground
disturbance activities; therefore, the following measure shall be implemented:

onsite inspector. The paleontological
professional sh
all assess the find, determine its signifi
cance, and make
recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

With incorporation of this contingency mitigation, the potential for impact to paleontological resources
will be reduces to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

VII
I
. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
:

Would the
project:

a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

SUBSTANTIATION:

The
followin
g information utilized in this s
ection of the Initial Study was obtained from
the

Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, HZ
-
116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain Project, City of Rialto, California

prepared by Giroux and Associates dated April 15, 2019. This document is provided as Appendix

2 to this document.

a&b.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological
conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evi dence suggests that GCC is the result
of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is
the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to effect a discernible change in glo
bal climate. However, the Project may participate
in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of greenhouse gasses combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential i
nfluences on GCC.

Significance Thresholds

In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title

14 of the
California Code of Regulations in March 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:

•

Generates greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?

•

Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GH G emissions is to be evaluated. The
process is broken down into quantification of project
-
related GHG emissions, deciding significance,
and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these s
teps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it co nsiders most appropriate.”
The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis.

~

~

The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the

selection of a threshold of
significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have suff
icient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where th e SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary
source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO 2 equivalent/year. In
September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,000 MT CO
2 e for all land u
se types. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis.

Project Related GHG Emissions Generated

Construction Activity GHG Emissions

The project is assumed to require
10 months for

construction

estimated to start
in N
ovember of
2021
and continuing

September 202
2 . During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.3.
2 computer
model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO 2 e emissions identified in
Table

VIII
-

1. Table
VIII
-
1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS CO
2 (e))

Year 2021

Total

252.4

Amortized

8.4 Significance Threshold

3,000

*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix

SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30 -
year
lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less

than

significant.

Operational GHG Emissions

There will not be any o
perational air pollution emissions

because the project consists of

a with a
gravity fed storm drain
.

Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies

The City of Rialto has participated in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). This study includes
a
n

inventory compilation of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 21 partnership cities of San Bernardino County.

The proposed project has no associated operational emissions and generates minim al construction
GHG emissions. Project GHG emissions will cease after the 10 -
month construction period. Therefore,
there are no applicable mitigation measures for the proposed project.

Storm water conveyance is a very small component of the total City of Rialto GHG emissions
inventory. Since project construction is below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO
2 e
threshold
it would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.

As such,
impacts under this issue are conside
red less than significant.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

IX
. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
:

Would the project:

a) Create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environ
ment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one
-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise
for
people residing or working i
n the project area?

f
) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g
) Expose people or structures
, either directly or
indirectly,

to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?

SUBSTANTIATION

a&b.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporat
ed

–

D
uring construction of proposed P
roject,
hazardous or potentially hazardous materials will be routinely handled in small quantities on the project site.

These hazardous materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum
-
based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles ;
therefore, there is a potential for accidental release of petrole um products in sufficient quantity to
pose a significant hazard to people or the environment
.

A permitted and licensed service provider
will conduct the removal of such hazardous materials; any handling, transporting, use or disposal of hazardous material
s would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. In order to ensure that no accidental releases of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials occur during construction, the following mitigation measure will be incor porated into the
SWPPP prepared for the Project and it can reduce such a hazard to a less than significant level.

HAZ
-
1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable
state and local regulations
regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The conta -
minated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed
~

~

~

~

~

~

~
disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPP
P prepared for the Project development.

Once the storm drain is installed and the roadway is returned to its original condition, there is a potential for a new source of routine transport or use of substantial volumes of hazardous materials or routine gen
eration of hazardous waste. The road itself acts as a means of transport for vehicles carrying various materials at present and will continue to do so once the improvements have been implemented. There will be no greater risk than that which presently exi
sts within this corridor as a
result of implementation of

the proposed
storm drain improvement project.

Therefore, the Project’s
potential to either create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposa
l of hazardous materials, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ
ment
is

considered less than significant.

No further mitigation is
required.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The project alignment is located within

2,000
feet of
the nearest school
. Alder Middle School is located just south of Baseline Road at 7555 Alder
Avenue, Fontana,

CA 92336.

As
previously stated, all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials use and handling would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations pertaining to the handling and use of hazardous materials. Adherence to these policies and
regulations, as well as the implementation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that the Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
-
quarter mile of

an existing or proposed school during either construction or operations of the Project. Additionally, once in operation, the repaved roadway and new drainage alignment will function much as it does at present; thus, with implementation of mitigation meas ure
HAZ
-
1, adherence to federal, state, and local laws regarding hazardous materials and roadway construction, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed Project is located within existin
g roadways and
within
the area leading to
Cactus Basin

from Baseline Road
within the City of Rialto
.

The project will not be
located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that are currently under remediation. According to the California State Water Board’s GeoTracker website (consistent with Government Code Section 65962.5), w
hich provides information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), there are several closed cases as well as one open case within 2,500 feet of the project alignment. However, none of these sites are within the alignment. The GeoTracker data is
shown in Figures IX
-
1 through IX
-

10. The proximity of these sites to the proposed project will not cause a significant hazard to the public because the majority of these sites located near the proposed project have been remediated. The site that has not be
en remediated
is under remediation for
perchlorate contamination of the groundwater. Since the project is not anticipated to encounter

groundwater, and because the site is about 2,000 feet north of Baseline Road, it is not anticipated that the project woul
d encounter any hazardous materials as a result of this site.

Therefore, due to
the nature of the Project as a developed area that will not require earthwork at great depth, the proposed project has no potential to encounter the contaminated material, or u pset conditions of
contaminated areas that exist as a result of LUST sites. Any impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed project is located within the Cit
y of Rialto, which
no
longer contains any airports
.

The nearest public airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, located about 7
.6 miles
west/southwes
t

of the storm drain alignment.

The Rialto Airport, located just
north of the project, was clos
ed in 2014, and as such is no longer an active airport. According to the map prepared for the
City of
San Bernardino General Plan
, the proposed project is not located within
the planning boundaries for the Airport (Figure IX
-
11).

The proposed storm drain i
mprovements do
not propose any human occupancy structures, new aboveground structures that exceed the height of the existing structures, nor will it place people onsite for any significant periods of time. As such, with no private airstrips and no public a
irports within a close vicinity to the proposed project, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area .

Less Than Significant
With M
itigation Incorporated

–

The proposed storm drain alignment within the
City of Rialto at Baseline Road and Cactus Basin is not located within any identified evacuation route as indicated by the San Bernardino County Mountain Area Safety Taskforce (MAST) 1 .

There are
several east/west roadways and freeways that provide access to the City and surrounding area.

Additionally, the proposed project will not result in road closure, instead it will result in land closure ,
which will maintain access within this road
way during construction.

Refer to the Transportation/Traffic
Section of this document, Section XVI
I
. Mitigation to address any potential traffic disruption and emergency access during construction issues
is

included in this section.

Therefore, the potent
ial for
the development of the Project to physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plans, or evacuation plans is considered a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required.

g
.

No Impact
–

According to the City of

Rialto General Plan Fire Hazard Map (Figure
IX
-
12), the
proposed project footprint is not located in an area considered susceptible to wildland
fire hazards.

Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a potential to expose people or structures to
fire hazards. No impacts are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required.

1 http://www.sbcounty.gov/calmast/sbc/html/emergency_plan_routes.asp

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No
Impact or

Does Not Apply

X
. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
:

Would the
project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements

or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality
?

b) Substantially de
crease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin
?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river

or through
the addition of
impervious
surfaces
, in a manner which would
:

(i)

r
esult in sub
stantial erosion or siltation onsite or
offsite
?

(ii)

substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff
in a manner which would result in
flooding onsite or offsite?

(iii)

create

or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
; or,

(iv)

impede or redirect flood flows?

d
)
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e
)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

SUBSTANTIATION

Less Th
an Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The proposed
storm drain improvements within
Baseline Road leading to Cactus Basin will occur mostly within developed roadways and surrounding properties.

The surface
of the roadway
within which the new storm d
rain will be installed is mostly
flat, containing asphalt or concrete, as well as some compacted dirt and gravel areas. For a developed area, the only three sources of potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are from
generation of municipal wastewater; from stormwater runoff; and potential discharges of pollutants, such as accidental spills.

Within the City of Rialto, the City
maintains a portion of the water distribution system, local sewage collection/treatment, and storm
drain systems.

Municipal wastewater is currently delivered to

the
Rialto Waste Water Treatment Plant

(WWTP), and meets th
e waste discharge requirements imposed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). To address stormwater and accidental spills within this environment, any new project must ensure that site development implements a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control potential sources of water pollution that could violate any standards or discharge requirements during construction and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure that project
-
related surface runoff meets regional d
ischarge requirements over

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

the short
-

and long
-
term. The project area as it presently exists is mostly impervious because it has been previously paved and compacted, with all water discharging into existing storm drains within the existing and adjacent ro
adways. The proposed project will
install
a
new
storm drain

within
Baseline Road leading to Cactus Basin. It is not anticipated that this effort will create greater pervious area than that which exists at present.

The SWPPP would specify the Best Manageme
nt Practices
(BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subjec
t area.

Compliance with the terms and conditions of the
NPDES and the SWPPP is mandatory and is judged adequate mitigation by the regulatory agencies for potential impacts to stormwater during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitig
ation measure is
also
considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to stormwater runoff to a less than significant level.

HYD
-
1 The City

shall require that the construction contractor prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Manage
ment Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from con
tacting stormwater and with the i
ntent of keeping all products of
erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters. The SWPPP shall include a Spill Preven
tion and Cleanup Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or ma terials
released during construction activities that are compatible with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP may include but not be limited to:

•

The use of silt fences;

•

The use of temporary stormwater desilting or rete
ntion basins;

•

The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff;

•

The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site;

•

The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking of si
lt and other pollutants from the site onto public
roads;

•

The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water c
ourses or other areas
subject to the flow of surface water; and

•

Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.

With implementation of the above mitigation
measure, these mandatory Plans and their BMPs, as
well as mitigation measure HAZ
-
1 above which addresses remediation and contamination concerns from any potential leakage or spills of petroleum products onsite, the Project would have a less than significan
t impact under this issue. No further mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The Project does not propose the installation of any water wells that would directly extract groundwater and
the project would maintain a balance of pervious

surface area
comparable to that which exists at present.

The Project is located within the

Rialto
-
Colton
Groundwater Basin.

T
he groundwater depth is substan
tially below the ground surface and will not be
encountered during construction of the
Project

because it is about
100 feet
below ground surface
in
the
parts of
the subbasin
.
2 Because the proposed project would mostly be located within existing roadways that do not provide pervious areas for groundwater recharge, the

storm drain improvement
s
within the project alignment
does not serve as a location for significant groundwater recharge.

This
is because o
nce

the storm drain has been installed, the project will not require any water to function.

Therefore, the

Project will not substantially de
plete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lower ing of
2 https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/8 -

2.04.pdf

the local groundwater table level.

Impacts

under this issue are considered less than significant and

no mitigation is required.

i
-
iv.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

No substantial impact to drainage patterns or structures will result from implementing this projec
t. The
storm drain will be installed belowground mostly within an existing roadway, and, once installed,

will generate essentially the same amount of stormw
ater
. The
proposed
storm

drain alignment
will ultimately provide more efficient drainage, runoff capture, and storm drain capacities than that which exists at present.

The roadways
will be
repaved
to
accommodate existing and anticipated stormwater discharg e utilizing the same drainage patterns.

No substantial change to the existing drainage pattern will result from project implementation.

Project
implementation will direct

flow to the new storm drain located on
Baseline Road
. The new storm drain
will

colle
ct runoff in a more efficient and environmentally responsible manner than that which exists at present.

Adequate drainage facilities exist or will be developed/relocated by this Project to acco mmodate
future drainage flows,
and will therefore result in a less than significant impact.

Based on the data
outlined ab
ove,
this Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area
;
result in sub
stantial erosion or si
ltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainag e systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ; or, impede or redirect flood flows.

Therefore,
i
mpacts
under these issues
are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Impact
–

According to th
e Flooding Hazards map prepared by the City of Rialto General Plan (Figure IX
-
1), the Baseline Road corridor is not located within a special flood hazard area inundated by a 100
-
year flood; it is in an area that is outside of the 500 -
year floodplain.

Impr
ovements to the
storm drain system
will occur within existing road rights
-
of
-
way or on vacant property containing no
structures obtained for drainage use by the City as part of the project . Though the portions of the City
of Rialto are vulnerable to inunda
tion from L
y
tle Creek
,
though the proposed storm drain alignment
is not located in such an area. T
herefore,
the
project is not located within a flood hazard, and a
s

such,
would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation . No impacts are antic
ipated, and no
mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The
purpose of the proposed project is to ensure that the drainage from Baseline Road
is more adequately managed and ultimately is directed for recharge at Cactus Basin.

The storm d
rain
will be
designed with BMP’s
to prevent
litter and some
pollutants
from
dis
charging
into

Cactus Basin and ultimately into the Rialto
-
Colton Groundwater Basin. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan because the project would fac ilitate better management
of storm water runoff recharging into the groundwater basin, and would not require water in order to operate.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

X
I
. LAND USE AND PLANNING
:

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b)
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
c
onflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

SUBSTANTIATION

Less Than Significant

Impact
–

The Project footprint will occur within developed roadways and surrounding property. The majority of the project footprint has no General Plan Land Use Designation because roadways are considered essential City infrastructure. However, the proposed storm
drain
alignment
traverses a section of land between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin, which
is located on
land designated for Open Space Resource Use

and land
designated for Airport
-
Related Development
by the Rialto Airport
Specific Plan
.

Once
constructed
th
e storm drain alignment
—
with the exception
of the outlet
at the basin
basin
—
will be installed below ground
, and as such, will not result in physically
dividing an established community, particularly because the majority of the storm drain improvements will

occur within existing road rights
-
of
-
way
. It is anticipated that the

new storm drain within t
his
portion of Baseline Road
will benefit this corridor
, and will have no potential to physically divide a
community
. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigati
on is required.

No Impact
–

Please refer to the discussion under issue XI(a) above.

The Project will occur mostly
within existing roadways within an area designated
with

several
different
land use
s

within the Cities
of Rialto

and Fontana
. The project will develop
a new storm drain alignment

within the
Baseline Road
corridor

in Rialto
, which is an existing, developed roadway corridor. Thus, the development of the proposed project within the proposed

alignment will be compatible with existing land uses and land use plan, and no conflict or impact to land use can been identified. No mitigation is required.

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

X
I
I
. MINERAL RESOURCES
:

Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the
residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

SUBSTANTIATION:

a&b.

Less Than Significant

Impact
–

The
storm drain
improvement Project is located in an entirely
urbaniz
ed area surrounded by development within the City of Rialto .

T
he entirety of Project footprint
does not contain known mineral deposits, particularly given that the majority of the project will be installed within existing roadways.

According to the City of

Rialto General Plan Mineral Resource
Zones Map (Figure XII
-
1), the project area is located within the MRZ
-
2 mineral land classification
,
which is defined as areas where geologic data indicate that significant PCC -
Grade aggregate
resources are present. The

type of project proposed is
within an
entirely developed
area
and will
improve existing road rights
-
of
-
way and within property between
Baseline Road and Cactus Basin.

Therefore, the development of the Project will not cause any loss of mineral resource va lues to the
region or residents of the state, nor would it result in the loss of any locally important mineral resources identified in the City of Rialto General Plan. No impacts would occur under this issue. No mitigation is required.

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

X
I
I
I
. NOISE
:

Would the project result in:

a)
G
eneration of
a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient
noise levels in
the vicinity of a
project in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies
?

b)
G
eneration of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

c
) For a project located within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

SUBSTANTIATION

Background

Noise is generally described as unwanted sound.

The
proposed storm drain alignment will be developed
within
Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin. The alignment traverses a section of land
between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin,
designated for Open Space Resource Use

and land
designated
for Airport
-
Related Development by the Rialto Airport Specific
Plan.

The surrounding uses include

Business
Park and Specific Plan (Specific Plan are Employment, Employment Commercial Overlay, General Commercial, and Private Rec. Center Existing Use to Remain), Single Family Residential (R -
SF)
(Fontana)
,
Open Space
–

Re
sources, and Public Facilities (P
-
PF)
(Fontana)
.

The unit of sound pressure ratio to the faintest sound detectable to a person with normal hearing is called a decibel (dB). Sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range o f human
hearing. A logarithmic loudness scale, similar to the Richter scale for earthquake magnitude, is therefore used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies
within the entire spectrum. Noise levels at maximum human sensitivity from around 500 to 2,000 cycles per second are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called “A
-
weighting,” written as “dBA.”

Leq is a time
-
averaged sound level; a

single
-
number value that expresses the time
-
varying sound level for
the specified period as though it were a constant sound level with the same total sound energy as the time -
varying level. Its unit is the decibel (dB). The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during more sensitive evening and nighttime hours, state law requires that an artificial dBA increment be added to quiet time noise levels
.

The State of Califo
rnia has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels that are based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) rating scale (a 24 -
hour integrated noise
measurement scale). The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "n ormally acceptable,"
"conditionally acceptable," and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. The State Guidelines, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure, single -
family homes are "normally
acceptable" in exterior noise

environments up to 60

dB CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70

dB
CNEL based on this scale. Multiple family residential uses are "normally acceptable" up to 65

dB CNEL
and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70

CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches
are "normally acceptable"

~

~

~
up to 70

dB CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses

with some
structural noise attenuation
.

The City of Rialto Municipal Code states the following in regards to Construction Noise:

The permit
ted hours for such construction work are as follows:

October 1st through April 30th

Monday
—
Friday

7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Saturday

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday

No permissible hours

State holidays

No permissible hours

May 1st through
September 30th

Monday
—
Friday

6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Saturday

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday

No permissible hours

State holidays

No permissible hours

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The proposed project footprint is
located in
areas with moderate
-
to
-
high background noise given the proximity to the local roadway system at any point within the project area.

The City of Rialto’s General Plan Noise Contour Map
(Figure XIII
-
1)
shows that the roadway noise along Baseline Ro
ad

is about 80 CNEL at the centerline of the
roadway and at about 65 CNEL just outside of the roadway at the adjacent properties. The Noise Contour Map indicates that the
noise levels in the area in which the
storm drain

will be installed from
Baseline Roa
d to Cactus Basin is between 55 and 60 CNEL.

According to the City of Rialto General
Plan, these volumes are projected to increase in the future as development accelerates within the City.

The proposed project would develop a storm drain
below

ground withi
n

Baseline Road, and as
such,
the project is not anticipated to install any permanent sources of noise. The segment of Baseline Road in which the storm drain will be installed
does contain adjacent residential uses
, and, as such,
the exteriors of the neare
st residences, which contain sensitive receptors, are located between 25 and 50
feet
from the pipeline alignments at several points within the project footprint.

Depending on
the
land use adjacent to Baseline Road within the project area, the normally acce ptable CNEL, dB
would range between 60 and 75 dB
A
.

Short Term Noise

As shown in the tables above, the City of Rialto Noise Ordinance prohibits construction activities between 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday
–

Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM

on Saturdays
, with no
construction activities permitted on Sundays or State holidays

from

October to April
,

and between 7
PM and 6 AM Monday
–

Friday
and 5 PM to 8 AM
on Saturdays, with no construction activities
permitted on Sundays or State holidays from May to September.

Construction equipment generates
noise that ranges between approximate
ly 75 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Refer to Table

XIII
-
1 , which shows construction equipment noise levels at 25, 50 and 100 feet from the noise source.

Receptors located adjacent to the roadways in which the proposed pipeline alignment will be installed
may experience increased noise levels during construction, but the proposed project will comply with the City’s restrictions on night
-
time construction activity. Therefore, through compliance with the City’s noise standards
,
con
struction of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a
substantial temporary
or permanent
noise levels in the vicinity of a project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

However, contingency mitigation is provided below to reduce noise levels at residences and/or minimize or address complaints from local sensitive noise receptors.

Table XII
-
1 NOISE LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT

25,

50 AND 100 F
EET (in dB
A L
eq
) FROM THE SOURC
E

Equipment

Noise Levels

at 25 feet

Noise Levels

at 50 feet

Noise Levels

at 100 feet

Earthmoving

Front Loader

85 79

73 Backhoes

86 80

74 Dozers

86 80

74 Tractors

86 80

74 Scrapers

91 85

79 Trucks

91 85

79 Material Handling

Concrete Mixer

91 85

79 Concrete Pump

88 82

76 Crane

89 83

77 Derrick

94 88

82 Stationary Sources

Pumps

82 79

70 Generator

84 78

72 Compressors

87 81

75 Other

Saws

84 78

72 Vibrators

82 76

70 Source: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency “Noise”

The short
-
term noise impacts associated with Project construction activities are forecast to be less than significant through implementing the following measures. As construction activities may be a nuisance to n
earby residents, the following mitigation is recommended:

NOI
-
1 No construction activities s
hall occur during the hours of
5:30 PM and 7 AM
Monday
–

Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM
Monday
–

Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on
Saturdays

from May to September
;

at no time shall construc
tion activities
occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.

NOI
-
2 The City

shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall r
espond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60

dBA
exterior or an Ldn of 45

dBA interior at the receptor,
the City

will implement
adequate measures
(which may include portable sound attenua
tion walls, use
of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.

NOI
-
3 The City

will require that all

construction equipment be operated with
mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accom
plished by random field inspections by
City

personnel during
construc
tion activities.

NOI
-
4 Equipment not in use for five minute
s shall be shut off.

NOI
-
5 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

NOI
-
6 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measur
es, including no unneces
-
sary revving of equipment.

NOI
-
7 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.

Long Term

The long term or permanent change in noise from the proposed Rialto
Baseline

Storm
Drain Project
would be minimal because the
majority of the project will be located below

ground, and once
constructed, would not generate noise beyond that which exists with in the footprint of the project at
present.

Based on the existing noise levels in the area surrounding the project from nearby traffic, and due to the fact that the no new noise generating activities will occur, operation of the proposed project would not
result in the
generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent
noise levels in the
vicinity of a project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
.

Less Than Significan
t
With Mitigation Incorporated

–

Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium
or object. The rumbling sound caused by vibration of room surfaces is called structure borne noises.

Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g. eart hquakes, volcanic eruptions,
sea waves, landslides) or human
-
made causes (e.g. explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous or transient. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches pe
r second), and discussed in decibel (VdB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts related to human development are generally associated with activities such as train operations, construction, and h
eavy truck movements.

The
FTA
a
ssessment

states that in contrast to airborne noise, ground
-
borne vibration is not a
common environmental problem. Although the motion of the ground may be noticeable to people outside structures, without the effects assoc
iated with the shaking of a structure, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction to people outside. Within structures, the effects of ground -
borne vibration include noticeable movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of
items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. FTA a
ssessment further states that it is
unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. However, some common sources of vi
bration are trains, trucks on rough roads, and
construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earth -
moving equipment. The
Federal Transit Association (FTA) guidelines identify a level of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses. This threshold p
rovides a basis for determining the relative significance of potential Project related vibration impacts.

In the short term, the excavation and removal/demolition activities required to implement the drainage improvements have limited potential to create

some vibration at the nearest sensitive receptors
adjacent to the project footprint. The proposed storm drain construction do not include activities that would generate substantial ground vibration. Specifically, no pile driving or major earth moving ac
tivities are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Removal of pavement may require some jackhammer and loader activities, but these activities do not typically generate enough vibration energy to adversely impact adjac ent structures, which are already
exposed to large trucks traveling on the existing road. Based on the type of equipment and construction activities required to install the storm drain outlined in the Project Description, the vibration impacts are forecas
t to be less than significant. However, the following contingency mitigation measure shall be implemented:

NOI
-
8 The construction contractor shall provide signs (2) along the roadway identifying a phone number for adjacent property owners to contact rega rding
excessive vibration. The contractor shall respond within 24 hours to any complaint at this phone number; assess the complaint; and, if reasonable, adjust construction activities (use different construction methods, slow down construction activity, o
r other measures) to reduce vibration at the property
from where the complaint was received.

Implementation of the above measure will ensure that any short -
term impacts to the nearest sensitive
receptor would be considered less than significant.

Impact
‒

The proposed project is located within the City of Rialto, which does not contain any airports. The nearest public airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, located about 7.6 miles west/southwest of the storm drain alignment. The Rialto Airport, located just north of the project, was closed in 2014, and as such is no longer an ac
tive airport.

The

San Bernardino Airport Noise Contours
do not overlap with the project area.

As such t
he proposed storm drain
alignment
is not located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, and as such, would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels .

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

XI
V
. POPULATION AND

HOUSING
:

Would the
project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

SUBSTANTIATION

Less Than Significant Impact
–

Implementation of the Project will not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). The Project is c onsidered a vital
infrastructure project because it proposes to improve storm drain system within the City of Rialto. It
is anticipated that construction will require a temporary work force; however, this is short -
term and
with a maximum of about 30 employ
ees will not induce substantial population growth. It is not anticipated that this project would
require any additional City employees once installed. The City of Rialto

had a population
of 107,330 persons in 2016.
3 The anticipated build
-
out population wi
thin the
City, according to the City of Rialto General Plan, is about 125,256 persons.

It is unknown what
percentage of the temporary workforce required to construct the proposed project would be drawn
from the general area or will bring new residents to t
he project area
; however, given that the
construction work force would be temporary and that the project is not anticipated

require any new
employees
, the proposed
project is not anticipated to induce population growth in the area.

Thus,

based on the type
of project proposed, the proposed project will not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly.

No Impact
–

The proposed project will occur within an existing roadway and a segment of land
between Cactus Basin and Baseline Road
, neither of which contain housing or persons.

No
occupied
residential
hom
es are located within the project footprint
; therefore,
imple
mentation of the proposed
p
roject will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construct ion of
replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.

3 https://www.
scag.ca.gov/Documents/Rialto.pdf

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

XV.

PUBLIC SERVICES
: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered govern
mental
facilities, need for new or physically altered govern
-
mental facilities, the construction of which co
uld cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection?

b) Police protection?

c) Schools?

d) Parks?

e) Other public facilities?

SUBSTANTIAT
ION

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The City of Rialto receives fire protection and emergency medical services from the Rialto Fire Department.

The Rialto Fire Department deploys from four fire stations staffed by 24 hours per day by career firefighters and one administrative office. The Ria lto Fire
Department staffs one battalion chief, three engine companies, one truck company and four paramedic ambulances each day.

The nearest fire station to the proposed project is
Rialto Fire
Station 203 1550 N. Ayala Dr
.
,
which is located
just north of
Baseline Road.

The proposed project
would develop
a new storm drain alignment within Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin.

The demand for fire protection within the project alignment primarily consists of incidental traffic accidents and emer
gencies within the corridor or at adjacent businesses and residences.

Additionally, the provision of adequate drainage systems within the City is viewed as a benefit to fire protection services and to the public in general.

No substantial changes in exis
ting fire protection
facilities are anticipated and potential impacts would be less than significant as a result of the proposed project.

No mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The area surrounding the Project is completely urbanized with varying land uses ranging from open space to commercial to residential in nature.

The City of Rialto
is served
by the
City of Rialto Police Department, located at
128 N Willow Ave, Rialto, CA 92
376
, which is
about
one mile southeast of the project footprint.

T
he Department

employs 142.5 total employees,
103 sworn and

39.5 non
-
sworn and services 28.5 square mile

area.

The Rialto Police Department
offers a variety of services and assignments to inc
lude Patrol, K
-
9, School Resource Officer (SRO),
Street Crime Attack Team

(SCAT), Investigations, Traffic,

Narcotics, Training/Backgrounds,
Community Services, the Re
-
Entry Support Team
, and is
part of a Four
-
City Regional SWAT
team

(Inland Valley SWAT) an
d Air
-
Support Unit.
4 The Project is not expected to result in any unique
or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources.

No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of

the project.

Additionally, the provision of
expanded infrastructure

is viewed as a benefit to police protection
services and to the public in general. Therefore, impacts to police protection resources from implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant; no mitigation measures are required.

4 http://rialtopd.com/index.php/more/department
-
history

~

~

~

~

~
c.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed project is located within the area served by

the Rialto
Unified School Distr
ict

and Fontana Unified

School
D
istrict
.

The
Baseline Road corridor is located
within approximately 2,000 feet of several schools, i
ncluding the following:

Locust Elementary School,
Alder Middle School, Virginia
Primrose Elementary School, Eric Birch High School, North Tamarind Elementary School, and Helen L. Dollahan Elementary School.

The Project would not induce
population growth wi
thin the City, as it will not employ any persons once the storm drain alignment has been installed. Thus, the proposed project will not generate an increase in elementary, middle, or high school population. Therefore, any impacts under this issue are consi dered less than
significant. No mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

As stated in the preceding sections, the proposed Project is not anticipated to create an increase in population because no persons will be employed as a result of the Project once t he
proposed storm drain alignment has been installed. There are no parks in the vicinity of the Project that would be impacted by the proposed roadway improvement project, and with no forecast increase in population, implementation of the proposed project
would not cause a substantial adverse physical
impact to any parks within the City. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

Other public facilities include library and general municipal services. Since the Project will
not directly induce population growth, it is not forecast that the use of such facilities will increase as a result of the proposed project. The improvements to this corridor will be consistent with the standards and requirements of the City and are theref
ore considered adequate to ensure adequate
drainage is provided to prevent flooding during storm events, which are considered beneficial to most public services, including traffic. No impacts under this issue are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

XV
I
. RECREATION
:

a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?

SUBSTANTIATION

No Impact
–

As addressed in the discussion under

Population and Housing, Section XIV and Public
Services
,

Section

XV(d) above, the proposed Project does not include a use that would substantially induce population growth, and will not require a substantial short -
term labor force for construction of
the Project and no long
-
term labor force is required for operations o
f the proposed project. Thus, the
proposed Project will not generate a substantial increase in residents of the City who would increase the use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts under this issue are anticipated. No mitigation is
required.

No Impact
–

The proposed Project consists of
installation of a new storm drain
within
Baseline Road
from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin within the City of Rialto . The project will not include any
recreational facilities, nor will it requir
e the construction of new recreational facilities or expansion of new recreational facilities because the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially induce any population growth. The Project will require a small short -
term labor force during con
struction and no
long
-
term labor force during operation, as the road will function as it does at present, altered by update
d
drainage facilities to accommodate runoff within the proposed alignment. As a result, no recreational facilities
—
existing or new
—
a
re required to serve the Project, thus no impacts are
anticipated under this issue. No mitigation is required.

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not
Apply

XV
I
I
. TRANSPORTATION
:

Would the project:

a)
Conflict with a

program,

plan, ordinance or policy
addressing
the circulation system,
including
transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
?

b)
Conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
?

c)
Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter
-
sec
tions) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equip
ment)?

d)
Result in inadequate emergency access?

BSTANTIATION

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The proposed project is located within the

City
of Rialto. The majority of the proposed project will be installed within Baseline Road between Tamarind Avenue and Cactus Basin, though a portion traverses the area between Baseline Road and the storm drain outlet location at Cactus Basin.

The City o
f Rialto
traffic study guidelines

indicate
that if a project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips to a CMP intersection, a formal traffic study is typically not required as off
-
site improvements are assumed to be nominal for low traffic generating uses
.

As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to violate the C i
ty’s Traffic Study Guidelines
due to the limited number of trips required to implement the proposed project (below the C i
ty’s Traffic
Study Guidelines).

In the short
-
term, the proposed
project will require the installation of a storm drain mostly within existing road rights
-
of
-
way. The roadway
within which the storm drain will be installed
(Baseline
Road) is a major roadway that is important to circulation in the area.

The installation
of the storm
drain will require one lane to be closed
during the construction within Baseline Road. However, the project will require implementation of a traffic management plan in order to comply with the City of Rialto and the County of San Bernardino Ma
ster Plan of Roads and Circulation Plans, which will
ensure adequate circulation within the area. During construction, an estimated
30 roundtrips from
construction workers would occur per day. A maximum of
30 roundtrips per day

will occur to support
constr
uction efforts (i.e. delivery or removal of construction materials, etc.).

Implementation of the
Project has the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pede
strian facilities
.

However, with implementation of
the following mitigation measure requiring a construction traffic management plan, the impacts of implementing the Project would be considered less than significant.

TRAF
-
1 The

construction

contractor

will

provide

adequate

traffic

management

resources,

determined

the

County of San Bernardino
, and

the
City of
Rialto
.

The City
shall

require

construction

traffic

management

plan

for

work

public

roads

that

complies

with

the

Work

Area

Traffic

Control

Handbook,

other

appli
cable

standard,

provide

adequate

traffic

control

and

safety

during

excavation

activities.

The

traffic

management

plan

shall

prepared

and

approved

the

City(s) and
C
ounty

prior

initiation

excavation or

pipeline
construction.

minimum

this

plan

shall

include

how

minimize

the

amount

time

spent

construction

activities;

how

minimize

disruption

vehicle

and

alternative

modes

transport

traffic

all

times,

but

particularly

during

periods

high

traffic

volumes;

how

maintain

safe

traffic

flow

local

streets

affected

construction

all

times,

including

through

the

use

~

~

~

~

adequate

signage,

protective

devices,

flag

persons

police

assistance

ensure

that

traffic

can

flow

adequately

during

con
struction;

the

identification

alternative

routes

that

can

meet

the

traffic

flow

requirements

specific

area,

including

communication

(signs,

webpages,

etc.)

with

drivers

and

neighbor
hoods

where

construction

activities

will

occur;

and

the

end

each

construction

day

roadways

shall

prepared

for

continued

utilization

without

any

significant

roadway

hazards

remaining.

TRAF
-
2 The City
shall require that all disturbances to public roadways be repaired in a
manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable
County of San Bernardino, and
the City of Rialto
standard design requirement
s
.

The
operation
phase
of the proposed project

will not require trips because the project will function as a storm drain; no new employees of the City will be required.

As such, operation of the proposed
project would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the perfor
mance of the circulation system. Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, i
m
plementation of the project has a less than significant

potential to
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy esta blishing measures of effectiveness for the
perfor
mance of the circulation system
.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed project would install a
storm drain alignment within and
adjacent to Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin. The C ity of Rialto has not
developed a threshold for vehicle miles travelled; however, the proposed project will not require any
operational traffic beyond any maintenance
trips to the storm drain alignment or the outlet at Cactus Basin. Construction of the pro
posed project will
require a maximum of about 25 trips to

and from the
site each day as a result of employee and construction related trips. Given that these trips are temporary, and are not
anticipated 100 miles round trip per day during the

6 months to 1

year
period
required to complete construction,

construction related vehicle mil
es traveled impacts are considered
less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would not generate a significant
number of
trips once in operation, and the

City of
Rialto Office location is less than
3 miles from the storm drain
alig
nment.

As such
, development of the Rialto Basin Storm Drain Project is not anticipated to result in significant impact related to vehicle miles travelled, and thus would not conflict or b
e inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
. Impacts under this issue are considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

T
he project will temporarily alter existing
roadways during construction of the proposed storm
drain
alignment
. However, this alteration will
not create any hazards due to design features of incompatible uses.

The project will install a new
storm drain sy
stem within existing
rights
-
of
-
way within
Baseline Road
.

As stated under issue XVII(a)
above, the with the imp
lementation of mitigation measures
TRAF
-
1 and
TRAF
-
2 above, which require
implementation of a construction traffic management plan, any potential increase in hazards due to
design features or incompatible use will be considered less than significant in the short term. In the long term, no impacts to any hazards or incompatible uses in existing roadways are anticipated because once the storm drain al
ignment is installed, the roadway will be returned to its original condition, or better, as will the segment of land between Cactus Basin and Baseline Road. Thus, any impacts are considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation. No addi tional
mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

Please refer to the discussion under issue
XVII(a) above. The proposed project will require closure of one lane within the roadway in which the storm drain alignment i
s installed.

This effort will occur within existing rights
-
of
-
way

within Baseline
Road.

During construction, a potential exists for short
-
term hazards and constraints on both normal
and emergency access within the affected area
, especially due to the const
ruction of the proposed
pipeline alignment, as it
will require partial lane closure within existing right s
-
of
-
way.

There are no
emergency access roadways located within the project footprint. However, adequate emergency access will be provided along these

routes throughout construction. Though closure of one lane will impact traffic, the implementation of mitigation measures TRAF
-
1 and
TRAF
-
2 will ensure that
impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant
Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

XVII
I
.

TRIBAL

CULTURAL
RESOURCES:

Would
the project

cause a substantial change in the
significance of
tribal cultural resources, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape

that is
geographic
ally defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to t
he
California Native American
t
rib
e, and that is
:

a)
Listed or eligible for listing in the
California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
, or

b)
A

resource determined by the
l
ead
a
gency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial
evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in sub
-
division (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the
l
ead
a
gency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American
tribe
.

SUBSTANTIATION

A Tribal Resources is defined in the Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:

•

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American Tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdi
vision (k) of Section 5020.1;

•

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in s
ubdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purpose of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California American tribe;

•

A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resour ce to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape;

•

A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non
-
unique archaeological resource” as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

a&b.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The City of

initiated AB 52 consu
ltation with
five
tribes/t
r
ibal entities

who previously notified the
City:

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
–

Kizh
Nation,
Gabrieleño
-
Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians,
~

~

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,
Gabriel
eño
-
Tongva Nation (sent to Sam Dunlap, Cultural
Resources Director and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson)
. Notification was provided to the tribe
s

via an
AB 52 consultation letter which was initiated on
June 4
, 2019.

The only Tribe to
respond

was the
Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians
–

Kizh Nation. A letter was received from the Tribe on
June 10,
2019 requesting that the City contact the Tribe to discuss consultation.

As such, the City reached out
to the Tribe a phone conference was set up for August 21, 2019, b ut the Tribe did not request any
actionable items during this phone call; they expressed interest in the Project, but did not respond in writing with any specific requests related to consultation. The City was been unable to reach the Tribe for further ins
truction, and as such consultation has concluded as of October 7, 2019 . It should be
noted that the Cultural Resources Report (Appendix
4) concluded that
n
o additional cultural
resources investigation is recommended for the project unless construction

plans undergo such
changes as to include areas not covered by this study
; h
owever, if buried cultural materials are
encountered inadvertently during any earth
-
moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significa
nce of the finds
. As such, given that the Tribe did not
provide any f
urther input
on the treatment of cultural resources, the City has decided to implement the following mitigation measure to ensure that the Tribe is given the opportunity to consult with the City before
commencement of
any
construction

activities requiring
excavation
:

TRC
-
1 The
Contractor shall be required to notify the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission
Indians
-
Kizh Nation

(Tribe) at least 2 weeks
prior to the commencement of any
construction
activities

requiring

excavation related to

the proposed Project
at
(8
44 )

390
-
0787
. The Contractor shall document the date that the Tribe was notified, and give the Tribe two weeks to respond prior to commencement of any excavation
required to develop the proposed Project.

If the Tribe responds, the City shall negotiate with
the
Tribe to arrange any
requests of the Tribe related to the handling of and potential for Tribal Cultural Resources with the understanding that the City has no responsibility to fund any requests of the City from the Tribe.

If the Tribe does not
respond

with any formal requests of the City with
in the
2 -
w
eek period, the Contractor shall proceed with
construction with
the
understanding that the Tribe
does not wish to provide further input on the
proposed Project. This shall conclude the City’s effor
t to enable to the Tribe to
provide input on this Project.

With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation identified under Cultural Resources, any impacts under these issues are considered less than significant.

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitiga
tion
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

XI
X
. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
:

Would the
project:

a)
Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of
new
or expanded
water
,

wastewater treatment
, or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications

facilitie
s,

the construction
or
relocation
of which could cause signifi
cant
environmental effects?

b)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project
and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years
?

c)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treat
-
ment provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

d)
Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals
?

e)
Comply with federal, state, and local
management
and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

SUBSTANTIATION

Water

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed project is located within an area served by the City of Rialto Department of Public Works Water Division (Water Division).

The Water Division services
approximately 8.5 square miles in the central portion of the City, from Baseline Avenue to R ialto
Avenue, with a narrow extension in the south to I
-

10. The City’s primary source of water is City
-
owned
water wells. These wells draw water from four water basins: Lytle Creek Surface Water Basin, Rialto Ground Water Basin, Bunkerhill Ground Water Bas
in, and Chino Hill Ground Water Basin. Though,
according to the General Plan, in 2006, SBVMWD provided 26 percent of City’s total water, and seven percent came from the WVWD.

The proposed project would not require expansion or
construction of new water fac
ilities. However, the project will contribute to groundwater recharge through the creation of an outlet for the stormwater carried by the new storm drain at Cactus Basin.

As such, t
his project is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental e ffects. Impacts are
less than significant.

Wastewater

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed

project would install a new storm drain within an
existing roadway.

This infrastructure is not anticipated to require expansion or development of new wastewater treatment facilities. This project would not require connection to wastewater treatment collection services once in operation
. As such, this project is not anticip
ated to
require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment

facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause signifi
cant environmental effects
. Impacts are less than significant.

~

~

~

~

~

Stormwater

Less Than Significant Impact
–

The proposed project would install a new stormwater collection system within Baseline Road with an outlet at Cactus Basin. The project in and of itself will result in construction of new stormwater facilities, but

as discussed throughout this document, the project is
not anticipated to result in any significant impacts. The roadway within which the storm drain will be installed will be returned to its original condition upon completion of the placement the storm dr ain
alignment. The project will ensure that surface water will be adequately managed within the project footprint. The roadway
will generate essentially the same amount of stormwater

as they do at present
because no expansion of roadway is anticipated. Con
veyance of stormwater to drainage

alignments
and storm drains within these roadways will be improved through the development of the new storm drain alignment, which is considered a benefit to the community. Therefore, development of the Rialto Basin Strom
Drain Project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities. Impacts are less than significant.

Electric Power

Impact
–

The proposed project would install a n
ew storm drain alignment. The new storm drain
alignment will not require any electricity to operate, though during construction some of the equipment used
may be electric. Given that the project will not require connection to electricity during operation, the project would have no potential
to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause signifi cant
environmental effects
. No impacts are anticipated unde
r this issue.

Natural Gas

No Impact
–

Development of the Rialto Basin Strom Drain Project would not demand

natural gas.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or exp
anded natural gas facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Telecommunications

No Impact
–

Development of the Rialto Basin Strom Drain Project would not require
installation of
wireless internet service or phone serve. Therefore, the project would not resu lt in a significant
environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Less Than Significant Impact
–

Please refer to issue X(b),
Hydrology and Water Qualit
y
,
above. The
proposed project will not require any water to operate as it will function as a storm drain alignment carrying stormwater to Cactus Basin. The proposed project will require a maximum of 10,000 gallons of water per day during construction
. This t
emporary increase in water demand
for construction
purposes is considered less than significant because the project will be conducted within

existing
entitlements from the Department of Public Works Water Division.

Based on the limited and short
-
term deman
d for potable water during construction of the proposed pipeline replacement project, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project ;
according to the Rialto Water Services
website,
5 the maximum

daily production
is

13.812 million gallons
, wh
ile the
average daily production
is

9.11 million gallons
, which leaves ample supply available for the Project during construction. As such, i
mpacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

No Impact
–

Please refer to the discussion under XIX(a) above.

The storm drain alignment carrying
stormwater to Cactus Basin will not
require installation of

restroom facilities
; construction will require
portable toilets that will be handled by the provid
er of such facilities
.

As such, given that the storm
drain alignment will not require any new connection to
wastewater treatment services, it is not
anticipated that the project would
result in a determination by the wastewater treat
ment provider
which se
rves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments . No impacts under this issue are
anticipated.

5 https://rialtowater.com/about
-
us/water/

d&e.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

This project will result in construction waste from
the removal of asphalt, concrete, and similar materials. The inert wastes can be disposed of at existing municipal solid waste facilities, which have adequate capacity to accept inert wastes generated b
y this project, or can be recycled onsite. The nearest landfill to the Project area is the

Mid
-
Valley Sanitary Landfill
, which
has a maximum permitted capacity of
7,500

tons per day, and a
remaining capacity of
61,219,377
cubic yards (CY), with a maximum
permitted capacity of
101,300,000
CY according to
CalRecycle.
6 The proposed project will not result in any operational solid waste because it will function as an
improved storm drain alignment
, which will not require any
employees to function excepting any
d
rainage maintenance performed by the City. Additionally, a ny
hazardous materials collected on the project site during either construction of the Project will be transported and disposed of by a permitted and licensed hazardous materials service provider.

Therefore, the Project is expected to comply with all regu lations related to solid waste under federal,
state, and local statutes. To further reduce potential impacts to solid waste facilities due to the large scale of the materials that may require disposal or recycling, the following mitigation measure will be

implemented:

UT
I
L
-
1 The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can feasibly be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not limited to, wood, metals, concrete, ro ad
base, and asphalt. The contractor shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this objective.

Therefore, with the above mitigation measure, the Project is ex pected to comply with all regulations
related to solid waste under federal, state, and local statutes and b e served by a landfill(s) with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. No further mitigation is necess
ary.

6 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36 -
AA
-
0055/

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact or

Does Not Apply

XX
.

WILDFIRE
:

If located in or near state responsi
-
bility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard
severity zones, w
ould the project:

a)
Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan
?

b)
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire
?

c)
Require the installation or
maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post
-
fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

SUBSTANTIATION

a
-
d.

No Impact
–

The proposed project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore the proposed project can have no impacts to any wildfire issues. As stated in previous sections, according to t he
City of Rialto Fire Hazard Map

for the project area, the proposed project is not located within the fire safety severity zone

(Figure
IX
-
12 ). The proposed project area is located in an urban area removed from the high fire hazard areas that are located

adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains

and Lytle Creek Wash to the north
.

As such,
no impacts under these issues are anticipated.

~

~

~

~

Potentially
Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

Impact or

Does Not Apply

X
X
I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
:

a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
-
sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,
substantially
reduce the nu
mber or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?

b
) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively con
siderable? ("Cumulatively
consi
der
able" means that the incremental effects of a
project 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)?

c
) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?

SUBSTANTIATION

The analysis in this Initial Study and the findings reached indicate that the proposed project can be implemented without causing any new project specific or cumulatively considerable unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation is re
quired to control potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant impact level. The following findings are based on the detailed analysis of the Initial Study of all environmental topics and the implementation of the mit igation measures
identified in the previous text and summarized following this section.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The Project has no potential to cause a
significant impact
to
any biological or cultural resources. The
project has been identified as having
no potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminat
e a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
. Based on the historic disturbance of the project footprint, especially given that the
Project will not substantially impact habitat in and ar ound Cactus Basin

and that the
remainder of the project will occur within existing road rights -
of
-
way, the potential for impacting
biological resources is low; however, mitigation has been identified to protect nesting birds.

The
cultural resources evaluat
ion concluded that the Project site contains no historic resources, but given that it will not be altered by the proposed project, no impacts are anticipated. To

ensure that any
accidentally exposed subsurface cultural resources are properly handled, conti ngency mitigation
measures will be implemented. With incorporation of Project mitigation measures all biology and cultural resource impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.

b
.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The Proj
ect has ten (10
) potential impacts that
are individually limited, but may be cumulatively considerable.

These are: Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Nois
e, Transportation, Tribal Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. The Project is not considered growth
-
inducing, as defined by
State CEQA

Guide
lines
.

The
se issues
require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than sig nificant level

~

~

~

and ensure that cumulative effects are not cumulatively considerable. All other environmental issues were found to have no significant impacts without implementation of mitigation. The potential cumulative environmental effects of implemen
ting the proposed project have been determined to be
less than considerable and thus,
would have a less than significant cumulative impact
.

c
.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
–

The Project will achie
ve long
-
term community
goals by provi
ding
a new storm drain alignment

that

would more efficiently manage runoff in the area
surrounding the project footprint
.

The short
-
term impacts associated with the Project, which are
mainly construction
-
related impacts, are less than significant with miti
gation, and the proposed
Project is compatible with long
-
term environmental protection.

The issues of Air Quality, Geology and
Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce human impacts to a
less than significant level. All other environmental issues were found to have no significant impacts on humans without implementation of mitigation. The potential for direct human effects from implementing the proposed project have been determined to be
less than significant.

Conclusion

This document evaluated all CEQA issues contained in the latest Initial Study Checklist form. The evaluation determined that either no impact or less than significant impacts would be associated with the issues of
Aesthetics,
Agric
ultural and Forestry Res
ources
,
Energy,
Gree
nhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use
a
nd Planning, Mineral Resources, Popul
ation/Housing, Public Services,
Recreation
, and Wildfire
. The
issues
of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardou
s Materials
, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Noise,
Transportation
,
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
, and

Utilities

and Service Systems

r
equire the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The required mitigation has

been proposed in this Initial Study to reduce impacts
for these issues to a less than significant impact.

Based on the fin
dings in this Initial Study,
the City of Rialto

proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the
Rialto Basin Storm
Drain Project
.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (NOI) wil
l be issued for this project by
the City
.

The Initial Study and
NOI will be circulated for
30 days of public comment because this project

does

involve
state agencies

as ei
ther a responsible or
trustee agency. At the end
of the 3
0 -
day review period, a final MND package will be prepared

and it will be
reviewed by t
he City
.

The City of Rialto

will hold a future hearing for project adoption at

City Hall
, the date
for which has
not yet been determined.

If you or your agency comments on the MND/NOI for this project, you will be notified about the meeting date in accordance with the requirements in Sec tion 21092.5 of CEQA
(statute).

__________

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v.

County of M
endocino
,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296;
Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors
, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337;
Eureka
Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka

(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357;
Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water
Agency
(2004
) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San
Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco

(2002)
102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Revised 201
9 Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21083.09

Reference: Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Air Quality

AIR
-
1 Fugitive Dust Control
.

The followi
ng measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation:

•

Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.

•

Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the con struc
tion site
(typically 2
-
3 times/day).

•

Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.

•

Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.

•

Minimize in
-
out traffic from construction zone.

•

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material
and require all trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard.

•

Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construc tion site.

AIR
-
2 Exhaust Emissions Control
.

The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and
specifi
cations for implementation:

•

Utilize well
-
tuned off
-
road construction equipment.

•

Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equip ment.

•

Enforce 5
-
minute idling limits for both on
-
road trucks and off
-
road equip
me
nt.

Biological Resources

BIO
-
1 Burrowing Owl
. Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. The burrowing owl survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recom
m
endations and guidelines established by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the event this species is not identified within the project limits, no further mitigation is required. If during the preconstruction survey, the burrowing owl if f ound
to occupy the site, Mitigation Measure BIO
-
2 shall be required.

BIO
-
2 If burrowing owls are identified during the survey period, the City shall take the following actions to offset impacts prior to ground disturbance:

Active nests within the areas
scheduled for disturbance or degradation shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, and a minimum of 250
-
foot buffer shall be provided until fledging
has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated by a qualified biologist.

impacts on occupied burrows in the non
-
nesting period are unavoidable, onsite passive
relocation techniques may be used if approved by the CDFW to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area.

If relocation of the owls is app
roved for the site by the CDFW shall require the City to hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include all of the following:

•

The location of the nest and owls proposed for
relocation.

•

The location of the proposed relocation site.

•

The number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place.

•

The name and credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation.

•

The propos
ed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site.

•

A description of site preparation at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one
-
time or long
-
term vegetation control).

BIO
-
3 Preconstruct
ion presence/absence surveys for SBKR shall be conducted within 45 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. SBKR survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recom -
mendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wild life. If no
presence of SBKR is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO -
3 need not be enforced.

BIO
-
4 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of SBKR, the following actions shall be implemented: the City shall provid
e compensation for temporary loss of habitat
and individual SBKR in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the City shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat by purchase of accepta
ble SBKR habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturb ance
within potential SBKR habitat shall occur until an ITP is obtained by the City. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation package, but the City finds that this compensation package shall a t a minimum meet the
requirements of this measure.

BIO
-
5 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for LAPM shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. LAPM survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recom -
mendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If no presence of LAPM is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO -
5 need not be enforced.

BIO
-
6 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of LAPM, the following
actions shall be implemented: the City shall provide compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual LAPM in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the Cit
y shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat by purchase of acceptable LAPM habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be
managed by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur within potential LAPM habitat until an ITP is obtained by the City. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the ab ove compensation
package, but the City finds that this compensation package shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this measure.

BIO
-
7 The City shall prepare and submit a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) to the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW), a Section 401 Certification Permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, a Section 404 (Nationwide Permit No. 43) Permit to the USACE. No ground disturbance within jurisdictional waters shall occur until the City obtains the above permits. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit shall be implemented by the City. If the permit conditions are different than the mitigation listed in this Document to protect biological resources, the City sha ll implement the mitigation identified
in the permits.

BIO
-
8 The State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests, any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the the State
identified nesting season (Raptor nesting season is February 15 through July 31; and migratory bird nesting season is March 15 through September 1). Alternatively, the site shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of groun d disturbace to determine the presence or
absence of nesting birds. Active bird nests MUST be avoided during the nesting season. If an active nest is located in the project construction area it will be flagged and a 300 -
foot avoidance
buffer placed aroun
d it. No activity shall occur within the 300
-
foot buffer until the young have
fledged the nest.

Cultural Resources

CUL
-
1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immedi
ate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeo
logist. Responsibility for making this
determination shall be with the City’s onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall ass
ess the find, determine its signifi
cance, and make recommendations for appro
priate mitigation
measures within the guide
lines of the California Environ
mental Quality Act.

CUL
-
2 Should

human remains or funerary objects

be encountered during any activiti
es associated with
the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -
foot buffer of the find) shall cease and
the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the proj
ect.

Geology and Soils

GEO
-
1 Stored backfill material shall be covered with water resistant material during periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of the material. If covering is not feasible, then measures such as t
he use of straw bales or sand bags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup.

GEO
-
2 Excavated areas shall be properly backfilled and compacted. Paved areas disturbed by this project will be repaved in such a

manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned to as near the pre
-
project condition as is feasible.

GEO
-
3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequentl
y if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site within which the water facilities are being installed.

GEO
-
4 The length of trench which can be left open at any given time will be limited to that needed to reasonably perform construction activities
. This will serve to reduce the amount of backfill stored onsite at any given time.

GEO
-
5 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construc tion of these facilities,
earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite
inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleonto logist. Responsibility for
making this determination shall be with the City onsite inspector. The paleontological professional shall assess the find, d
etermine its signifi
cance, and make recommendations for
appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Hazards and Hazardous Waste

HAZ
-
1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in
compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The conta
minated waste will be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatmen
t facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.

Hydrology and Water Quality

HYD
-
1 The City shall require that the construction contractor prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Manage
ment Practices (BMPs) that will
prevent all construction pollutants from con
tacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all
products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters. The SWPPP

shall include a Spill
Preven
tion and Cleanup Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during construction activities that are compatible with applicable laws and r
egulations. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP
may include but not be limited to:

•

The use of silt fences;

•

The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins;

•

The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff;

•

The use
of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site;

•

The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the site onto public roads;

•

The storage of excavated material s
hall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently
perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and

•

Where feasible, stockpiled m
aterial shall be covered with waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.

Noise

NOI
-
1 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday –

Friday,
and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Sat
urdays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM Monday
–

Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays from May to September; at no time shall construc
tion activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.

NOI
-
2 The City shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60

dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45

d
BA interior at the receptor, the
City will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenua tion walls, use
of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels

to the greatest extent feasible.

NOI
-
3 The City will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accom plished by random field inspections
by City personnel durin
g construc
tion activities.

NOI
-
4 Equipment not in use for five minutes shall be shut off.

NOI
-
5 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

NOI
-
6 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper

operation and use of equipment consistent
with these mitigation measures, including no unneces
sary revving of equipment.

NOI
-
7 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.

NOI
-
8 The construction contractor shall provide signs (2) along the roadway identifying a phone number for adjacent property owners to contact regarding excessive vibration. The contractor shall respond within 24 hours to any complaint at this phone number; a ssess the complaint; and, if
reasonable, adjust construction activities (use different construction methods, slow down construction activity, or other measures) to reduce vibration at the property from where the complaint was received.

Transportation

TR
AF
-
1 The

construction

contractor

will

provide

adequate

traffic

management

resources,

determined

the

County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rialto.

The City
shall

require

construction

traffic

management

plan

for

work

public

roads

that

complies

with

the

Work

Area

Traffic

Control

Handbook,

other

appli
cable

standard,

provide

adequate

traffic

control

and

safety

during

excavation

activities.

The

traffic

management

plan

shall

prepared

and

approved

the

City(s)
and
County

prior

initiation

excavation or pipeline construction.

minimum

this

plan

shall

include

how

minimize

the

amount

time

spent

construction

activities;

how

minimize

disruption

vehicle

and

alternative

modes

transport

traffic

all

t
imes,

but

particularly

during

periods

high

traffic

volumes;

how

maintain

safe

traffic

flow

local

streets

affected

construction

all

times,

including

through

the

use

adequate

signage,

protective

devices,

flag

persons

police

assistance

ensure

that

traffic

can

flow

adequately

during

con
struction;

the

identification

alternative

routes

that

can

meet

the

traffic

flow

requirements

specific

area,

including

communication

(signs,

webpages,

etc.)

with

drivers

and

neighbor
hoods

where

construction

activities

will

occur;

and

the

end

each

construction

day

roadways

shall

prepared

for

continued

utilization

without

any

significant

roadway

hazards

remaining.

TRAF
-
2 The City shall require that all
disturbances to public roadways be repaired in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rialto standard design requirements.

Tribal Cul
tural Resources

TRC
-
1 The Contractor shall be required to notify the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
(Tribe) at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of any construction activities requiring excavation related to the proposed Project at (
844) 390
-
0787. The Contractor shall document the
date that the Tribe was notified, and give the Tribe two weeks to respond prior to commencement of any excavation required to develop the proposed Project.

If the Tribe responds, the City shall negotiate w
ith the Tribe to arrange any requests of the Tribe
related to the handling of and potential for Tribal Cultural Resources with the understanding that the City has no responsibility to fund any requests of the City from the Tribe.

If the Tribe does not re
spond with any formal requests of the City within the 2 -
week period, the
Contractor shall proceed with construction with the understanding that the Tribe does not wish to provide further input on the proposed Project. This shall conclude the City’s effort to enable to
the Tribe to provide input on this Project.

Utilities and Service Systems

UTIL
-
1 The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can feasibly be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not
limited to, wood, metals, concrete, road base, and asphalt. The contractor shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this o
bjective.

REFERENCES

CRM TECH, “
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report:

Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project,
City of Rialto
, San Bernardino County, California
” dated May 16, 2019

Giroux and Associates,
“Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, HZ
-
116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain
Project, City of Rialto”
dated April 15, 2019

Jericho Systems,
“The

Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation: Rialto Storm Drain, Rialto, CA”
dated May 20, 2019

California State Water Board’s GeoTracker website

Drainage Study to the Renaissance Specific Plan (
Encompass,
2015)

Rialto Airport Specific
Plan

City of Rialto General Plan

City of Rialto Renaissance Master Plan

County of San Bernardino General Plan

http://www.sbcounty.gov/calmast/sbc/html/emergency_plan_routes.asp

https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/8 -

2.04.pdf

https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Rialto.pdf

http://rialtopd.com/index.php/more/department
-
history

https://rialtowater.com/about
-
us/water/

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36 -
AA
-
0055

FIGURES

FIGURE 1

Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Regional Location Map

Rialto
Baseline
Storm
Drain
Project
Feature
1 Proposed
Stonn
Drain
Alignment

FIGURE 2

Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Site Map

Rialto
Baseline
Storm
Drain
Project
~
Altemative3
•
Feature
1 •
posed
Storm
Drain
AHgnment
._.

Pro
.
from
Cactus
Basin
West
to
Tamarind
Avenue
S
t
oon
Dra
i
n
In
B
a
seline
Road
.......
-
~-
.....,.,ni

FIGURE 3

Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Site Plan

BASE
LI
NE
ROA
D
U
T
I
LITY
PROV
I
DERS

ELECTRIC
I
TY
S
OIJff~
CAl..lrORN
"-EDI
SQ
N
795
1 ltl:D\\0011
A
\OlE
FONTAN.'\,
C,-,
lt2J.J6
[
91l9
)
J5
7 -
&
20J
W
A
TER
FONTPl'I
A
WATE
R
CC
.
1'\
l
O
S
ARRCM'
R
~
Tt
fllM
lAPIA,
CUJflJl!:Mlli
9 :U3S
(CO(j)
8 2!!
-22<l1
TELE
P
HONE
AT
.tT
J
IJ
!il
E
COR[7j
ADQ
SlREET
MHEM.

CA
11 2&07
(7
1-4
)
237
-
61!>5
SE
W
ER
crrror~
1 00S.PAI.NI\',£.

RIALTC
,CJ.
923
78 (
1100
)

8.1:
0 -Zl!S

TELEPHONE
FRON
lE
R
1 50S.

JUAN
IU,
te1E
T
.

C,-,
92M
3 (!HlCI)
&55-7.3tl6
GAS
SOU
THERN
C
AI.JF"ORMll'I
tAS
C:O.
1 ~
81 91.

L
U
C
ONJ.

A
'-0«..C
flEDLMOS
.

C
,o.
tU7
4 (
500)
4 27
-
2200
©@
TM[l]'@~I["jf
l]:l
WJ'"jf
Ill1Jil"jf
"if
l]'l1i£~
£~l])
wm
@
w@~mll])
IIDMrnl~l!~ml
m@£l])
~"1£'@mM
l])~£l1~
£~l1®~Ml]l~"1£'
C,>JlLE
1 51Xl
MJTQ
CE
Nl
(R
ORM:

ONTAAIO.

CA
9 1
7'
1 (
800)
992-
2253
!Wltll_SlREIT!i£C1
CII

A

B.ltra:

ROAD
I
11\

VICINITY
MAP
a
W'
BASE
LINE
ROA
D
N
OT
E

CONCEPTUAL
i
L

OCATION
o
r
DJ
Slll
rH
O
UTUTY
LINES
1 5
B
ASED
OH
RECORD
D
RA'MNC.S
AND
,a.TL/\SES
PR
0\'10ED
B
Y
ff
IJTY
ANO
UTI.I
TY
CO
M
P
M
IE
S.

L
OCATlO
IJS
TO
8E
~AED
8Y
C
IJ1TRACTOR
DE
FORE
CONSfflJCTION.

N
OT
FO
R C
ON
STR
U
CTION
HUITT-n.JARS
HtJt
t-
Zola
r
a,
I
nc.

Oitano
,__,
C
D
N"'1RI
,
f
D
D
E
<ll<l-"""'
,
--
...
,
,.
,
•
(
1 <>1)
l
•
l-71S
•
DRA't\N
B~
11 .

Z.STAFF
PRELI
M
INAR
Y
-
S
U
B
JECT
TO
CHA.NOE
CITY
0ll'

RIALTO,
0ALI11'0RNIA
BA.SELINE
STORM
DA.A.IN
T
I
T
L
E
SHEE
T
&
I
N
D
EX
MAP
"""'
'
11 5
SH
OWtJ
DATE
;
...,.
..

ID
"""'
'
-
•
•-
or
,
.ICHNNY
htlJR
,l,
D
H
.Z
,
ST
AFT
OC
T
20 1
11 1c
"'~
"
"
'
""'"-c'c-"
-+---------------+
,
.,
~
.
""~
'
~
,---1
•
-------
~
I;!2
tl-~_;
1 9
~
J
.

M
.
/R
.

C
./M
.

H
.

I
,

FIGURE
II
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Farmland Map

t;a
California
Important
Farmland
Finder
Ca.

Dept
of
Conservation
?
:
3 ::

O
O
[
,...

I
Find
address
or
place
=
=
<
8<~1IA
::::::
:;:::
==foe-I
Ill
fwy
u
44 I.I
<
A
<
=
;
"'
<
,<
.;
=
.,
<
<
<
<
u
<
<
~
.::
0 .§
<
<
g,
z
=
~
Foolhl
I
Blvd
Foolh,11
Blvd
Fontana
kf,;
tJ
A
LI
----=
=
=--
=
-_;;,
'
J
;,r,
lµn
I
II
.,.
<
-:::
=
<
-;;
7 4
<
<
'
B1
LIi>'!
Rd
1,
>
r
I
d
A
.,
<
.:i
=
,r
w
Foolhll
B
vd
2r,J"'
R11
A
e
ll
aim
IA
<
~
Ri
Legend
~
x
County
Bounda
r
ies
County
Boundaries

Californ
i
a
Important
F
ar
ml
and:

Mo
st
Recent
Most
Recent
Prime
Farmland
Fannland
of
Statewide
I
mportance
Unique
Farm
l
and
G
r
azing
L
and
Fannland
of
Local
Importance
F
annland
of
Local
Potential
Other
Land
Confined
Animal
Agric
u
lture
Nonagricultura
l
or
Natural
Vegetation
Vacant
or
Disturbed
Land
Rural
Residential
Land
Semi
-
agricultural
and
Rural
Comme
r
cial
Land
Urban
a
n
d
Bu
i
lt-Up
Land
Water
Area
I
rrigated
Fannland
Nonirrigated
Farmland
'and
Mapping
and
Monitoring
Prog
:...
r
.:.
ar
______________________
_.,
1 FIGURE
VI
I
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Alquist
-
Priolo Map

#...
•
...
..

Regulatory
Maps
Mineral
Lands
Classification
--·
Borehole
Database
~
CGS
Information
Warehouse:

Regulatory
Maps
ArcGIS
World
Geocoding
Servic
r-;
f
I
I
I
I
r
2 i
On
r>
Int
f
Arport
e
.
,.,,.
1Ss
10 '1
·
81,,,(J
Cucamonga
Peak
Ran
c
ho
Cu
c
amonga
;
I
-117.259
34 .
088
Deg
r
ees
✓.'''
'J
SAN

BEKNARD
I
N
O

RIVERSIDL
Devore
Fontana
66 .
..
p
E
O
~
i
!Y
of
f?
,
n!a~~
,
County
of
R
ive
rside
,
San
B
ern,
Legend
~
x
Regulatory
Maps
(Labeled)
Faul
t
Zones
,
Landslide
and
Li
qu
efaction
Zones
b
Earthq
ua
ke
F
au
l
t
Zo
nes
b
L
a
nd
s
l
i
de
a
nd
L
ique
factio
n
Zone
s

SOURCE:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
VII
-
2 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Seismic and Geologic H
azards

·•
..
··
.
.
...
·
..

Wli"luht
•
·•
...
..
.
.
.

City
of
Fontana
Marygold
Av•>-
--+--
----<
Union
Pacifi
c
Ra/frood
S
lo
_,
Av•
'
Seismic
and
Geologic
Hazards
(Faults
:

Solid
where
location
is
known,
dashed
where
approximate,
dotted
where
I
nferred
.)
Fau
l
t
(Morton
and
Miller,
2003)
Alquist-Pri
o
lo
Earthquake
Fault
(CGS,
2002)
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault
Zone
(CGS,
2002)
Lineaments
id
entified
in
aerial
photos
••••••••
Groundwate
r
barrier
(Dutcher
and
Garrett
,
1 963)
by
F
.

Jordan
(personal
co
mmunication
,
2002)
1//
~
Moderate
liquefaction
suscep
tib
i
lity.

Sediment
are
young
(less
than
10 ,000
years
old),
u
nconso
li
dated,
with
fine-g
ra
ined
layers,
a
n
d
there
has
been
artesian
well
activity
historically.

Approx
i
mate
bog,
swap,
or
marsh
l
a
nd
area
in
t
he
ear
l
y
1900s
Base
Map
Features
Notes
:

Rialto
I
ncorpo
r
ated
Area
Rialto
Sp
he
re
of
I
nflu
ence
County
Boundary
F
r
eeway/Highway
Local
Road
Railroad
Hydrological
Feature
T
his
map
is
intended
for
general
land
u
se
p
l
anning
o
n
ly.

I
nformation
o
n
this
map
is
not
sufficent
to
serve
as
a
subst
i
t
ut
e
for
detai
led
ge
ologic
inv
estigatio
n
s
of
i
ndividua
l
sites,
nor
does
i
t
satisfy
the
evaluation
requi
re
me
nts
set
forth
i
n
geo
l
ogic
hazar
d
regulati
o
ns.

So
ur
ces
:

Eart
h
Consu
l
ta
nt
s
Int
ernational
(EC
I
)
;
M
orto
n
and
Miller
(2003);
A
l
quist-Prio
l
o
Earthquake
Fault
Zones
in
San
Bernardino
South
(1977),
San
B
e
rna
rd
in
o
N
orth
(
1 974)
,
and
Devore
(
1 995)
Quads.
[rep
rod
u
ced
with
p
erm
i
ssio
n
CGS
CD-ROM
2001
-
05 (2002));
Jenning
s
(1994)
[r
epro
du
ced
with
permission
CDMG
,
CD-ROM
(2000)];
Dut
cher
and
Garrett
(1963);
Jordan,
F.
(persona
l
communications
(2002);
U
SGS

7.5-minute
Digita
l
Elevation
M
ode
l
and
W.C
.

Mend
e
nhall
(1904)
•
o~~o~
.
5-~~1
.
5-~2
Mil
es
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Ì
Ì
Ì
Ì
Ì
Ì
PINE
DA
L
E C
T
DO
RS
EY S
T
U
P
LA
N
D

A
V
E
T
r
a
c
k
KE
MP
ST
ER

A
V
E
GR
AC
E S
T
AS
H S
T
E
D
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
O
LD
L
I
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
MA
LA
GA DR
C
A
R
Y
N
C
I
R
S
P
A
R
T
A
N
L
N
YE
W CT
MA
RC
ON
A

A
V
E
G
A
L
A
A
V
E
MY
RTL
E

P
L
MA
GN
OL
I
A ST
I
R
IS
A
V
E
A
L
M
O
N
D
D
R
HE
ML
OC
K
A
V
E
CO
RA
L
C
T
N BR
IER
WOO
D
A
V
E
L
A
R
K
S
P
U
R
D
R
LO
CU
ST

AVE
OL
I
V
E

S
T
CA
CT
US

A
VE
P
I
N
E
A
V
E
M
CGUIRE
A
V
E
N BE
E
CH
WOO
D
AVE
K
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
M
D
R
YU
CC
A

A
V
E
RE
DWO
OD

A
V
E
OA
K TR
EE
PL
OR
CH
I
D
ST
N
S
U
N
S
E
T C
I
R
TR
OT
TE
R L
N
LA
RC
H
A
V
E
WEE
P
I
N
G W
I
L
L
OW

L
N
CA
NY
ON

C
R
ES
T DR
RU
ST
IC PL
BA
NA
NA
A
V
E
MA
NG
O DR
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
S
T
V
O
L
A
N
T
E
D
R
AP
P
AL
O
OS
A
L
N
CA
RAWA
Y C
T
R
E
S
E
D
A
A
V
E
S L
AR
CH

AVE
BA
NA
NA
A
V
E
M
A
N
G
O
L
N
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
P
K
W
Y
LIME

A
V
E
CY
PR
ES
S
A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
DA
T
E S
T
N
D
R
I
F
T
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CE
DA
R
A
V
E
N MA
PL
E

AVE
P
L
U
M
A
R
I
A
D
R
S
P
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
C
R
D
SU
L
T
A
NA
A
V
E
BE
EC
H
A
V
E
EM
PIRE
CE
NT
E
R BLVD
N
AR
MS
TR
ON
G R
D
H
IL
T
O
N
D
R
W
SP R
AIL
R
O
AD
CA
RO
B
A
V
E
H
E
A
L
T
H
C
A
R
E
P
K
W
Y
I
1 0 O
FR
P W
S PE
R
I
M
ET
ER
R
D
LA
UR
EL
A
V
E

E
NIAG
AR
A
AVE
EN
TRY

R
D
MA

NILA ST
AL
ISO

D
R
I
1 0 O
FR
P E
I
1 0 O
FR
P E
MC C
AU
L
EY S
T
CO
U
N
T
R
Y

L
N
F
A
IRVIE
W RD
SE
QU
OIA
AVE
RA
MO
NA
AVE
GR
EV
I
L
L
EA ST
MOU
NTAIN

V
IEW

A
VE
W
T
OU
CH
E D
R
OR
AN
GE

S
T
RE
SE
DA
A
V
E
MA
LA
GA ST
I
R
IS D
R
MA
Y
WO
OD

S
T
P
AL
M L
N
LO
MB
AR
DY
AVE
HIBIS
CU
S
AVE
EL
AIN
E DR
MA
DR
ON
A

A
V
E
W W
A
B
AS
H S
T
RO
SE
MA
RY DR
B
L
A
C
K
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
AC
CE
SS
R
D
BA
RB
EE
ST
CITR
ON

A
V
E
W
R
A
M
O
N
A DR
I
1 0 O
NR
P E
N BR
AM
PT
ON

A
VE
RA
NC
HO

V
ISTA
D
R
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
C
T
CH
AN
TRY

A
VE
N FIL
L
MOR
E

AVE
I
1 0 O
NR
P E
TE
CH
NO
LO
GY

S
T
CA
RM
EL ST
BE
NN
ET
T DR
N SM
OK
E T
RE
E
A
V
E
TOY
ON

A
V
E
RO
SE
CR
ES
T
A
V
E
NIAG
AR
A
D
R
CA

TAWBA DR
W MA
SO
N S
T
S
ALTH
E
A

A
V
E
S SA
N

D
IMA
S
A
V
E
KA
T
HE
R
I
N
E S
T
SE
WE
LL
A
V
E
UP
LA
ND

A
V
E
BL
AN
CH
AR
D
AVE
TR
EL
AN
EY
RD
ST
A
L
LIO
N LN
S VIN
E
A
V
E
GR
OV
E PL
C
H
E
R
I
M
O
Y
A
C
T
WIND
Y CT
T
Y
R
O
L
D
R
NU
EV
O
A
V
E
BA
R
B
EE
CT
V
AL
L
EY
V
A
LE
DR
Y
O
R
K
T
O
W
N
C
T
4T
H
S
T
FR
EM
ON
TIA
AVE
CIT
A
DE
L
A
VE
M
A
R
B
E
L
L
A
S
T
H
A
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
A
V
E
S
A
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
A
D
R
CE
RE
S
A
V
E
L
O
N
G
V
I
E
W
D
R
A
V
E
I
R
O
R
D
W HU
FF
ST
DIAN
T
H
U
S
A
V
E
OWE
N S
T
FIL
BE
RT S
T
W WE
DG
EW
OO
D CT
PINE
DA
L
E
A
V
E
N
AR
RO
WH
EA
D

AVE
CH
AS
E R
D
PE
PP
ER

A
V
E
F
A
IR
H
A
VE
N
D
R
B
R
E
E
Z
Y
S
T
O
C
O
T
I
L
LO
D
R
MCE
L
RO
Y ST
L
I
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
E
W
A
LN
UT
ST
AC
AC
I
A
A
V
E
AL
AM
ED
A

AVE
FIDD
L
EL
EA
F R
D
B
R
I
A
R
C
L
I
F
F
A
V
E
AS
H
DR
M
A
C
A
D
A
M
I
A
C
T
N QU
INC
E
A
V
E
LIME

A
V
E
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
W
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
A
P
P
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SY
CA
MO
RE
LN
W

AL
R
U
ST
RO

BINIA ST
AL
ISO

D
R
L
A
V
I
D
A
C
T
CR
I
S
S
AVE
FO
N
T
LE
E L
N
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
LIL
AC

S
T
MA
DR
ON
E ST
LA
RC
HW
OO
D DR
AN
SE
LM
DR
MA
DR
ON
A
DR
S
AS
P
EN

A
VE
S WIS
TE
RIA
A
VE
WHE
E
LE
R
A
V
E
C
A
R
R
E
R
A
D
R
VINE
ST
HO
RS
ES
HO
E D
R
EL
W
OO
D
A
V
E
TOY
ON

A
V
E
DE
PO
T RD
G
O
L
D
E
N
R
A
I
N
D
R
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
NE
WP
ORT
AVE
MA
LA
GA DR
ST
EE
RH
EA
D D
R
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
M
A
R
T
O
S
R
D
A
N
D
E
L
D
R
FE
RN
DA
LE

A
V
E
BU
CK
EY
E D
R
S FIL
L
MOR
E

AVE
B
L
U
E
M
I
S
T
C
T
GOL
D

H
ILL
AVE
LE
MO
N S
T
W DU
RS
T DR
R
E
D
B
L
U
F
F
L
N
PU
RP
LE
SA
GE
PL
N
AS
H
FO
RD

AVE
N
I
L
E
L
I
L
Y
W
A
Y
WHIT
TR
AM
CT
PO
RTO
LA
A
VE
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
A
V
E
MUS
C
A
T
A
V
E
DE
L
M
ES
A
D
R
M
c
W
E
T
H
Y
S
T
D
O
R
S
E
Y
A
V
E
SH
AM
RO
CK

A
VE
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
S
T
S HA
L
L
AVE
PO
PL
AR

A
V
E
BO
XWO
OD

A
V
E
UN
NA
ME
D RD
W 3R
D S
T
N CL
IFF
OR
D

S
T
LE
MO
N S
T
RA
MO
NA
D
R
LO
S N
I
E
TO
S C
T
MCW
ET
H
Y DR
MA
LL
ORY
DR
HIBIS
CU
S S
T
DU
RIAN

A
V
E
AL
MO
ND

A
VE
MA
RTIN

AVE
V
AL
E
N
C
I
A
A
V
E
W
A
LM
AC

A
V
E
EN
CINA
A
V
E
N CH
UR
CH

A
V
E
KR
AF
T LN
VIA
D
E
A
NZ
A
MA
NZ
AN
IT
A
D
R
J
O
SH
UA CT
BO
NN
I
E
LN
A
T
H
O
L S
T
S
A
N
J
A
C
I
N
T
O
C
T
OR
CH
AR
D S
T
EM
AN
UE
LL
I CT
P
AIN
E S
T
CO
URT

S
T
W SH
AM
RO
CK
ST
FO
RE
ST
AVE
AL
DE
R
A
V
E
RO
SE

AVE
CE
DA
R
A
V
E
MA
RIPO
SA DR
AS
PE
N S
T
W RIA
L
TO

A
VE
O
R
AN
G
E

S
T
AS
PE
N
A
V
E
L
A
V
E
S
U
R
D
E
M
P
I
R
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
B
L
V
D
S
RE
ED

S
T
L
A
C
A
N
A
D
A
O
T
I
L
L
A
S
T
DU
MON
D

D
R
SIL
K ST
SE
VIL
LE
CT
W
J
U
N
E
ST
KA
I
S
E
R
A
V
E
P
APA
Y
A PL
F
A
RM
ER
'S

C
T
TU
CS
ON
LN
BU
EN
A
V
I
S
T
A DR
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
T
LIL
AC

A
VE
RO
SE
NA
A
VE
CA
RO
B S
T
BE
NN
ET
T
A
V
E
V
I
A
R
I
A
T
A
WHATL
EY

A
VE
S QU
INC
E
A
V
E
GUAV
A
C
T
C
R
I
C
K
E
T
D
R
I
1 0
O
N
R
P
W
NE
WB
ER
RY L
N
EM
ER
AL
D C
T
OR
AN
GE

C
T
GR
AN
AD
A

A
V
E
MA
NZ
AN
IT
A
D
R
AC
AC
I
A ST
PO
PP
Y LN
W MA
RIP
OS
A
D
R
S P
A
RK

A
VE
BE
EC
H
A
V
E
VE
RD
UG
O P
L
M
A
N
H
A
T
T
AN
LN
AL
MO
ND

A
VE
N
H
E
R
T
I
A
G
E
C
I
R
M
E
N
D
O
C
I
NO
C
T
N P
A
RK

A
VE
N
ALTH
EA
A
V
E
N VIS
T
A
A
VE
N VE
RD
E

AVE
N MIL
LA
RD

A
V
E
CH
ES
EB
RO
CT
EM
ER
AL
D
A
V
E
N CL
IFF
OR
D

AVE
9T
H S
T
14 TH
ST
10 TH
ST
7T
H S
T
P
AL
E
RM
O ST
RE
ED

C
T
NE
LS
ON

A
VE
Q
U
A
I
L
C
T
S YU
CC
A
S
T
N
E
V
AD
A
C
T
BO
YL
E
A
V
E
DAWN
W
AY
L
A
T
I
E
R
R
A
C
I
R
L
YN
WO
OD
ST
A
N
A
C
A
P
A
C
T
J
O
LIE
T CT
C
O
L
B
Y
P
L
MA
RG
AR
I
TA
D
R
P
E
C
A
N
L
N
RU
SS
O S
T
MA

NILA ST
P
AL
M D
R
GA
RF
I
E
L
D D
R
PINY
ON

A
V
E
ES
TE
RO
W
AY
MON
E
T LN
LE
MO
N CT
O
R
C
H
I
D
S
T
RO
AN
OK
E R
D
CH
AR
LE
S S
T
W HO
LL
A
DA
Y

P
L
I
V
Y
S
T
MA
LA
GA CT
EM
ER
AL
D
A
V
E
R
I
V
I
E
R
A
L
N
AB
I
G
AIL P
L
SU
L
T
A
NA
A
V
E
AL
ME
RIA
C
T
BU
NN
Y LN
PR
I
M
R
O
SE
CT
OR
CH
I
D
DR
O
A
S
I
S
S
T
M
IM
O
SA CT
QU
AIL LN
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
A
V
E
WHE
E
LE
R C
T
CO
PP
ER
LN
HO
LG
UIN C
T
LO
MA
V
ISTA
D
R
W
G
R
A
N
T
S
T
PE
PP
ER
DR
SE
WE
LL D
R
J
E
FF
RE
Y C
T
MY
LE
S C
T
HIBIS
CU
S C
T
CR
OC
E DR
LIME
CT
EB
ON
Y PL
TOK
A
Y D
R
S YU
CC
A

A
V
E
SP
R
IN
G
ST
AC
OR
N
A
V
E
ME
YE
R CA
N
YO
N DR
SP
OH
N CT
WILL
IAM
S C
T
J
A
ME
S S
T
OL
EA
ND
ER

A
V
E
RA
FF
IA
L
N
L
A
N
T
E
R
N
L
N
J
A
S
M
I
N
E
P
L
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
C
T
T
AM
AR
IND
CT
M
I
L
L
W
O
O
D
P
L
J
O
SH
UA CT
W
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
S
T
KN
OX

D
R
C
R
I
C
K
E
T
C
T
GR
EG
ORY S
T
W HO
LLY ST
RA
Y
MO
ND

A
V
E
DO
VE

L
N
FR
AN
KF
OR
T
A
V
E
L
A
U
R
E
L
A
V
E
W
W
C
O
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
AC
KE
RM
AN
DR
AL
T
U
RA
S
T
LIV
E OA
K

AVE
HO
LL
IS S
T
R
O
B
I
N
D
R
SU
MA
C CT
TE
RR
AC
E L
N
SA
N JAC
INTO

A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
2N
D S
T
3R
D S
T
GR
AC
E S
T
P
A
L
M
L
N
AS
TOR
LN
FO
NT
LE
E L
N
R
E
D
O
N
D
O
C
T
S MIL
LA
RD

A
V
E
SH
AD
OW

D
R
T
A
Y
LO
R
A
V
E
W
A
K
E
C
T
L
A
R
K
I
N
C
T
BO
YL
E
A
V
E
WILL
IAM
S R
D
YE
LL
OW
I
R
IS C
T
S IRIS

S
T
NU
EV
O CT
CO
L
T
A
V
E
FE
RN

A
VE
MIAM
I
S
T
EU
GE
NIA
AVE
T
E
N
N
ES
SE
E

C
T
G
E
O
R
G
IA
C
T
AL
AB
AM
A
C
T
Y
AN
KT
ON
DR
VISTA

A
V
E
SA
GE

A
VE
TOK
A
Y C
T
V
I
S
T
A
C
I
E
L
O
OR
CH
I
D
CT
BU
CK
EY
E C
T
AM
BE
R CT
W ME
SA DR
BIRC
H S
T
PINE
CT
AP
RICO
T
A
V
E
G
L
E
N
O
A
K
P
L
AN
AS
T
A
SIA
AVE
W SL
OV
ER

A
V
E
W MA
NZ
AN
IT
A
S
T
BE
RM
UD
A
C
T
DA
T
E C
T
TE
AK
LN
EL
M S
T
MA
I
Z
E C
T
TU
LL
OC
K S
T
CO
URT
NE
Y CT
CU
MMIN
GS
ST
T
U
O
L
U
M
N
E
C
T
DU
M
O
N
D
A
V
E
HU
NT
ER
ST
S L
I
L
A
C
A
V
E
W CO
RN
EL
L DR
HO
LL
Y

A
VE
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
BU
TAN
O
P
L
V
AL
E
N
C
I
A CT
PE
AR
ST
AL
Y
S
SU
M
CT
M
ICA
LL
E
F C
T
FR
EE
PO
RT C
I
R
G
U
I
L
IAN
O
P
L
K
E
M
P
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
SP
RING
ST
RU
SS
O CT
W
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
CA
MB
RIA
S
T
P
AIS
LE
Y L
N
CE
RE
S
A
V
E
VINE
CT
HAWT
HO
RN
E

AVE
TU
LIP C
T
W CA
RT
ER

S
T
DIAN
T
HU
S
A
V
E
F
U
C
H
S
I
A
C
T
VIN
E
ST
BL
AN
CH
AR
D
AVE
F
A
I
R
F
A
X
D
R
F
A
IRVIE
W DR
PE
RA CT
G
O
L
D
E
N
T
R
E
E
A
V
E
LIND
E
N
A
V
E
CU
PID WA
Y
VIL
LA
GE
LN
H
I
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
W
F
O
L
K
E
A
V
E
YU
CC
A

A
V
E
A
N
G
E
L
S
C
T
PINE

A
V
E
CITR
ON

A
V
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
DA
Y
LIL
L
Y

S
T
RE
ED

D
R
GING
KO
CT
TU
MB
LE
WE
ED
DR
ME
SA
R
D
L
I
L
Y
C
T
BA
LS
AM

A
V
E
MON
T
GO
ME
RY
A
V
E
EU
CA
L
Y
PT
US
ST
BA
CK
ST
RA
IGH
T RD
T
A
N
G
E
L
O
A
V
E
VINE
ST
I
V
Y
A
V
E
A
Z
A
L
E
A
C
T
H
U
FF
CT
N WIS
TE
RIA
A
VE
W SA
N B
ER
NA
RD
INO

A
VE
H
I
B
I
S
C
U
S
S
T
CO
NC
OR
D
A
V
E
N IDY
LLWIL
D
A
V
E
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
C
T
W BL
OO
MIN
GTO
N
AVE
TE
RRY

S
T
V
AL
E
NC
I
A ST
N VIN
E
A
V
E
N GL
E
NWO
OD

A
V
E
W WO
OD
CR
ES
T ST
MA

NILA CT
SH
EL
L
Y C
T
BR
I
A
RW
OO
D
A
V
E
ME
SA
D
R
W J
A
ME
S S
T
KA
T
YD
ID
A
V
E
F
A
IRFAX
ST
MA
LL
ORY
DR
RO
SE
MA
RY DR
W
L
O
R
R
A
I
N
E
P
L
P
AS
O F
INO

S
T
T
U
L
L
O
C
K
S
T
PIN
E
DA
L
E
A
V
E
N
AS
P
EN

A
VE
OR
AN
GE

WA
Y
V
AL
E
NC
I
A
A
V
E
WHIT
TR
AM

A
V
E
N TE
AK
WO
OD

A
VE
S SP
R
UC
E
A
V
E
W
M
C

K
IN
L
E
Y ST
A
TH
OL S
T
SE
VIL
LE

A
V
E
F
O
N
T
L
E
E
L
N
DR
EA
M ST
LU
SIT
A
NO
DR
I
R
IS D
R
NE
EL
AN
S L
N
S
A
R
A
H
C
T
A
Q
U
A
C
T
A
VIO
N
L
N
BU
CK
SK
IN DR
F
A
IRVIE
W CT
M
E
S
A
S
T
PE
RM
AN
EN
TE
DR
SA
NT
A
AN
A
AVE
OL
I
V
E

S
T
SP
RU
CE

A
VE
K
I
W
I
A
V
E
W HAWT
H
OR
NE
ST
U
N
D
E
R
W
O
O
D
D
R
1 1T
H

S
T
OWE
N C
T
R
A
N
C
H
E
R
O
D
R
N SP
RU
C
E
A
V
E
W
P
I
N
E
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
EV
ER
GR
EE
N L
N
I
N
DIA
N D
R
M
O
N
T
E
C
A
C
T
HO
LL
Y
DR
N
F
I
T
Z
G
E
R
A
L
D
A
V
E
W
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
A
A
V
E
A
Z
U
R
E C
T
UP
A
S C
T
J
U
NIP
ER

A
VE
HE
ML
OC
K
A
V
E
S MA
PL
E

A
VE
N LIN
DE
N
AVE
OL
EA
ND
ER

A
V
E
V
I
O
L
A
C
T
MINT

L
N
WILL
IAM
S
A
V
E
CITR
ON
CT
T
E
X
A
S
W
A
Y
VIA
S
OM
BR
A
F
A
IRFAX
CT
W WO
OD
CR
ES
T
A
V
E
DE
OD
AR

C
T
V
I
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
P
I
N
Y
O
N
C
T
MA
NZ
AN
IT
A
C
T
VE
RO
NA DR
EL RIV
INO

R
D
MILL
E
R
A
V
E
EL MO
LIN
O S
T
LIV
E OA
K

AVE
BE
AR
T
R
EE

S
T
P
AR
K S
T
S CE
DA
R

AVE
S CA
CT
U
S
A
V
E
C
H
A
P
S
L
N
C
Y
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
E
RE
D SO
X

C
IR
FO
NT
LE
E C
T
C
O
L
E
E
N
S
T
DA
V
IDS
ON
CT
12 TH
ST
13 TH
ST
W WE
DG
EW
OO
D ST
N CE
DA
R

AVE
J
A
CK
SO
N D
R
MIND
AN
AO
ST
HA
LL
A
V
E
V
I
A
L
A
R
G
A
D
R
DO
RS
EY C
T
MUM
S S
T
CL
Y
DE
S
DA
LE
CT
PO
PL
AR

A
V
E
C
A
M
E
L
L
I
A
D
R
LA
UR
EL
A
V
E
UT
A
H C
T
BO
BWH
ITE
CT
B
U
R
L
D
R
HE
A
TH
E
R
A
V
E
DA
T
E
AVE
LA
UR
EL D
R
EL
SA CT
TOK
A
Y
A
V
E
LO
YO
LA CT
PIGE
ON
CT
VE
NU
S L
N
CH
UR
CH

S
T
MICA
LL
E
F
A
V
E
WIND
CR
ES
T DR
RIVE
RS
IDE
RD
W
I
L
L
O
W
D
R
EL
M
A
V
E
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
H
I
G
H
D
R
W ME
RR
ILL
A
V
E
SWAN
RD
ME
LO
N
A
V
E
OH
I
O
LN
RA
ND
AL
L
A
V
E
AL
ISO
GR
EG
ORY
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
S
D
R
I
F
T
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
W
R
A
N
D
A
L
L
A
V
E
S SP
R
UC
E
A
V
E
S L
I
L
A
C
A
V
E
F
A
R
N
EY

AVE
LA
RK
CT
M
A
R
D
EL L
N
8T
H S
T
6T
H
S
T
C
A
T
A
W
B
A
P
L
AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
W 2N
D S
T
SP
OH
N DR
M
O
N
ICA CT
AR
RO
W BLVD
CA
R
O
B L
N
S L
I
N
DE
N
AVE
CA
ME
O DR
AL
DE
R
A
V
E
A
L
M
E
R
I
A
A
V
E
N CA
CT
U
S
A
V
E
BA
M
B
O
O

C
T
PE
T
AL
U
MA DR
S CA
CT
U
S
A
V
E
W
M
IR
O
W
AY
VE
NICE
CT
W MIRA
MO
NT
ST
W GR
AN
AD
A
S
T
N LA
R
CH

AVE
I
V
Y
A
V
E
W ET
IW
A
ND
A
AVE
CA
TAWBA
A
V
E
SL
OV
ER

A
V
E
LIND
E
N ST
RO
SE

AVE
TU
SC
AN
NY

S
T
L
I
G
H
T
H
O
U
S
E
C
T
W BA
SE
L
I
N
E R
D
CA
SA W
AY
W FO
OT
HIL
L BLVD
V
AL
L
EY B
L
V
D
E
L
I
B
E
R
T
Y
P
K
W
Y
5T
H S
T
MILL
E
R
A
V
E
W
A
SH
ING
TON
DR
J
U
NIP
ER

A
VE
SIER
RA
A
V
E
J
U
RU
P
A
AVE
MA
RYG
OL
D
AVE
LO
CU
ST

AVE
EV
ER
GR
EE
N L
N
LA
UR
EL
A
V
E
T
AN
GE
L
O
A
V
E
SH
AM
RO
CK

S
T
CY
PR
ES
S
A
V
E
ME
RR
I
L
L
A
V
E
P
AL
ME
T
TO
A
V
E
MA
NG
O
A
V
E
AL
ME
RIA
A
VE
CITR
US

A
V
E
CH
ER
RY
A
V
E
SA
N B
ER
NA
RD
INO

AVE
N LIL
AC

A
V
E
T
AM
AR
IND

A
VE
LA
UR
EL
A
V
E
J
U
RU
P
A
AVE
SA
NT
A
AN
A
AVE
P
E
R
S
I
M
M
O
N
L
N

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Green Acres
Lake
J u r u p a
M o u n t a i n s
Green Acres
Memorial Gardens
Kaiser
Hospital
Crestmore
Bloomington

FONTANA
RIALTO
RIALTO

FONTANA
T1S
T2S
T1S
R5W
R6W
T2S
T1S
T1S
T2S
T1N
T1S
T1S
T1N
R6W
R5W
R5W
R6W
T1N
T1S
§
¨
¦
10 §
¨
¦
15 ARROW RTE
1 6
1 5
1 4
3 4
3 5
3 1
3 2
2 7
2 6
2 5
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 3
2 2
2 4
1 9
2 0
2 1
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 8
1 7
1 0
1 1
1 2
7 8
3 2
1 6
5 3
5 3
4 3
6 3
1 9
1 0
1 1
2 4
3 2
3 5
3 4
3 3
2 7
2 6
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
2 2
2 3
µ
Z:\ProjectWorkFiles\GenPlan\GeoMaps\Geo_Detail2.mxd
Plot Date: 05/30/2007, 11:44 AM

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

MAP LOCATION
Generalized Liquefaction Susceptibility
Low
Medium
High
Map data originally compiled on 1:48,000 scale mosaicked maps photo-reduced from 7-1/2 minute USGS quads by J.E. Matti and S.E. Carson, 1986.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet. |
}
58 |
}
127
|
}
62 |
}
38 |
}
18 |
}
330
|
}
173
|
}
2 |
}
71 |
}
178
|
}
18 £
¤
95 £
¤
95 §
¨
¦
40 §
¨
¦
15 §
¨
¦
10 FH29 C
Fontana
(Forest Falls Only)
Map data originally compiled on 1:48,000 scale mosaicked maps photo-reduced from 7-1/2 minute USGS quads by D.M. Morton, U.S.

Geological Survey, 1974 and by S.S. Tan, State Division of Mines and Geology, 1989.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet.

Generalized Landslide Susceptibility
Low to moderate
Moderate to high
Mapped, Existing Landslide
!
! !
!
! !
Rockfall/Debris-Flow Hazard Area
San Bernardino County Land Use Plan

GENERAL PLAN
Geologic Hazard Overlays
SCALE 1:14,400
1,250
0 1,250
2,500
3,750
5,000
625
Feet

0.5 0

0.5 1

0.25 Miles
Earthquake Fault Zones
Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary
County Designated Fault Zones
Cities
Map data compiled on 7-1/2 and 15-minute USGS quadrangle maps by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, 1987.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet.

NOTICE:

Effective January 1, 1994, the name "Special Studies Zones" has been changed to "Earthquake Fault Zones" and Chap. 7.5, Div. 2, of the Public Resources Code has been renamed the "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act."
See FH21 C
See FH30 C
FIGURE VII-3

SOURCE:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
IX
-
12 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Fire Hazards

~
.
=
~
:

C
ity
of
Fon
ta
n
a
BNSF
R:o
i
lwa
~
i
.
..
~
'
F
oo
th
ill
Bfvd
Rl
olto
Av
r
.
.
...
,
.
~
::...i~
~.4.~
--+-----l
-l
•
-¥-
--1--+--
r
t-""'
•
•
H
_
i
..
~
.g
IAI
~
City
of
Col
t
on
.

S
l
ove
r A
v
Legend
Rialto
Incorporated
Area
Rialto
Sphere
of
Influence
Cou
n
ty
B
oundary
Freeway/Highway
Local
Road
Railroad
Hydrological
Feature
Fire
Hazards
Sever
i
ty
Zones
State
Responsibility
Areas
(SRA)
Moderate
High
Very
High
Local
Responsibility
Areas
(
L
RA)
Very
High
Fire
Protec
t
ion
Respons
i
b
i
lity
KXXXJ
l
::
=
::
=
:
:=
I
I
I
F
ede
r
al
Respo
n
sibility
A
r
ea
State
Responsibility
Area
Local
Responsibility
Area
-
Incorpo
r
ated
~
Local
R
esponsibility
Area
-
Uni
n
corporated
Emergency
Response
Fac
i
l
i
t
i
es
(~)
Police
Station
<I>
Fire
Station
Sources:

F
ire
and
R
esources
Assesment
P
rogram,
California
Department
of
Forestry
and
Fire
Protection
(2007
and
2008).
~
0 LI
...

I
.J......IL
0 .L~
5 __
.J.....
__
1 _.__
5 _
__,
2 Miles

SOURCE:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
X
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Flooding Hazards

Terra
Vbt
Cosa
Grand
··1
:
('
../
.
.L
l
~
l
I
'
Ccumall
Ave
Walnut
St
.
·
-1
BaHllne
Rd~'---"-i_l;.,__c.;.:-!""
l
:
.
~
~
.
.i
a
3 j
i:

City
of
Fontana
l
I
Foothill
Blvd
i
RJalto
Av
e
M
e
rri
II
Ave
Randall
Av
e
Marygold
Ave
valley
Blvd
U
nion
lb
ci
f
ic
Ro
llr
oad
Santa
Ana
Ave
Jurupa
Av
e
L-..1.:__,......,,--,'-
C
~
"
:

C
C
.
]
City
of
San
Bernardino
.
~
.
3 FEMA
Flood
Zones
-
Areas
of
100-year
floodplain
;
no
base
flood
elvation
determined
Areas
outside
500-year
floodplain
Area
where
flood
hazards
are
undetermined
Base
Map
Features
Notes
:

Rialto
Incorporated
Area
Rialto
Sphere
of
Influence
County
Boundary
Fr
e
eway
/
Highway
Lo
c
al
Road
Railroad
Hydrologi
c
al
Feature
This
map
is
intended
for
general
land
use
planning
only
.

Information
on
this
map
is
not
suffi
ce
nt
to
serve
as
a
substitute
for
detailed
geologic
in
v
estigations
of
indi
v
idual
sites,
nor
does
it
satisfy the
evaluation
requirements
set
forth
in
g
e
ologi
c
hazard
regulations.

Sour
ce
s
:

Earth
Consultants
International
(
ECI
);
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(1996
)
,
Flood
Insurance
Rate
Map
(
Panel
Numbers
:
7920F
,
7940F
,
8676F
,
8677F
,
8678F
,
8686F
,
8688F
)
•
0 ~1
~I
~1
0 ~1
5 _~--
1 ~_
5 -~
2 Miles

SOURCE:

Rialto
General Plan

FIGURE
XII
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Mineral Resource Zones

Casa
Gran
i:alnuf
St
1--
-+-+------<f---<
Bmeli
n
eRd
11 I
1 .
.
l
J
..

J
J
:
l
i
~
;
.!!
I
..
.!
3 I
:

E
{!
Ci
ty
o
f
Foo
t
h
tl
l
B
l
v
d
F
o
n
t
ana
Rialto
A
ve
SNSF
Ro
i
l
wo
Merrill
A
ve
Jurupa
Ave
.__
:
.,_
-+
__.
n--
-t
-~
,--Jf-'ll<
--'----r'lo
-+-+-
~,-
1 ..
~
;;
City
of
San
Bernardino
Minera
l
Land
Classification
MRZ-1
Areas
where
available
geologic
info
rmation
indicates
that
little
likelihood
exists
f
or
the
presence
of
significant
m
ineral
resources
MRZ-2
Areas
where
geologic
data
ind
icate
that
significant
PCC-Grade
aggregate
resources
are
present
MRZ-2
(PCC-1)
N
ew
MRZ
-2
areas.

MRZ-2
(
PCC
-
1 )
notation
in
parenthesis
identi
fies
specific
areas
-
see
source
text
for
description
~-~I
MRZ-3
Areas
containing
known
or
i
nferred
mine
r
al
occurances
of
undetermined
mineral
re
so
u
rce
significance
Base
Map
Features
Rialto
Incorporated
Area
Rialto
Sphere
of
Influence
County
Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local
Road
Railroad
Hydrological
Feature
Sou
r
ce:

Busch
,
L.L
,
&
Mille
r
,
R.V.

Updated
Mineral
Land
Classification
Map
for
Portland
Cement
Concrete-grade
Aggregate
in
the
San
Bernardino
Production-consumption
(P-C)
Region
,
San
Bernardino
and
Riverside
Counties
,
California
-
Special
Report
206,
Plate
1 .

California
Department
of
Conservation
,
California
Geological
Survey
,
2008
.

SOURCE:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
XIII
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Noise Contours

_,
i
I
'Jen
a
Vi.sta
Dr
:
.

Ca.Sa
Gra
n
d'~
D
r
~---~~-~
a
L.:
;
I
City
o
f
Fo
n
ta
n
a
SN
SF
R:
oUwo
Foothil
l
Blvd
Ilalio
Av
e
Merri
ll
Av•
M
arygo
l
d
Ave
•····
,
1--
---'---:
-
•
Va
ll
•l'
Blv
d
Urion
f"acff
1e.

Jailrood
San
t
a
Ana
A
v
e
..
···•··
·
·
···
L
••
_
JuNpa
Ave
.__
:
_
_,.....,;,,,;.--;
..
~
..

C
.
.,,
C
::,
.
;;
C
i
ty
o
f
Sa
n B
e
rn
a
rd
ino
.
..
!
ti
,
Baseline
Noise
Contours
80 CNEL
Contour
75 CNE
L
Contour
70 CNE
L
Contour
65 CNE
L
Contour
60 CNE
L
Contou
r
55 CNEL
Contour
Base
Map
Features
Rialto
I
ncorporated
Area
Rialto
Sphere
of
Influence
County
Boundary
F
r
eeway
/
Highway
Local
Road
Railroad
Hydrologica
l
Feature
Source:

Wieland
Associates
,
Inc
(2009)
•
~
I
~l~~'-'
~-~
~
--
~
-~I
M
i
les
0 0
.
5 1 1
.
5 2

FIGURE
IX
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker
, page 1

GEO

TRACKER
=
Sites
and
Faclllties
-
~
•
El
Cleanup
Sites
D

LUST
Cleanup
Sites
rJ

Cleanup
Program
Sites
D
D
Military
Cleanup
S
i
tes

6. OTSC
Cleanup
Sites
8 Permitted
Facilities
G
CJ
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
(WDR)
Sites

Permitted
USTs
-
lli.EQ
6 OTSC
Hazardous
Waste
Sites
0 Land
Disposal
Sites
PJ
£1
Irrigated
Lands
Regulatory
Program
Sites

Oil
f
Gas
S
i
tes
fJ

Confined
Animal
Sites
E
Other
Sites
D
Project
S
i
tes
D
Non-Case
In
f
ormation
Sites
CJ
Sampling
Points
•
Public
0 Field
Points
~

SIGNIFIES
A C
LO
SED
SITE
C
Tools
C
Map
Coverage
s
T
AKE
A
TOU
R
Y!E
W
ONGAMA
Baseline
Ave
B
a
seline
Ave
Elaine
Or
I
nalto
,
ca
I
MMl+ff
~~~~------------------~
~
f
Bohnert
Ave
V
Hosa·s
Market
&
Liquor
we
Map
Vineyard
Ave
WlewitSI
WlaGlo,i..lDr
W
N
orwQOdSI
Bar
tftti
Bosto
n'
s
Restaurant
...,..
&
Sports
Bar
i
Za
r
aQ
•
Q
ARCO
Q
WEST
COAST
PIPE
Columbia
Steel
9 Sierra
Lakes
Pkwy
•
Wcasmal/aSt
to
l
o
Chevrolet
w
Renaissance
Pkwy
I
DGE
RIALTO

AIRPORT
W
Casmalia
St
Foothill
Fwy
W
Rena
i
ssance
{>~'fl'I
W
bt-tonSI
Renaissance
Marketplace
Q
WCasmalia
St
Rialto
Perchlorate
Investigation
-
EII

EXPLOSIVES

TECHNOLOGIES

INTERNATIONAL
INC.
(SL06071592
x
2900

TAMARIND
AVE

RIALTO,
CA
92376
St
Cleanup
Program
Site
f
~
~
~
~
"
Cleanup
Status:

Open
•
Inactive
Rialto
Anlmal
Hospita
l
Q
Satellite
0 1
.
,
L
J
+
Footh
i
l
!1
.
~
•
I
FemS1
~
garaB~ttl
i
ngQ
•
J
erry
Ea
v
es
P
ark
~
!
M
caUef
SI
Baseline
Ave
W
Baseline
Rd
Elementary
~~~t~
9 San
Jacinto
Av•
Elaine
Dr
M,row,.,

W
Baseline
Rd
Locus
t
Elem;;~~;;;
~
Sh
a
mrock
.,_
Alder
Middle
School
Wabash
Av•
9 M
rowa
y
§
•
!
WBaseline
Rd
w•P,
Mo!'IIQO~Av•
[
"
~
~
~
Ii
•
Able
Storage
Q
Farmer
Boys

W
Baseline
Rd
W
Baseline
Rd
•
z
z
"
!
i
WWabuhSt
0 ~
i
.....
z
(
!j'
l
i
"~
!
....
z
i
!
~··
I
.,
.
1 I
Ran,or,a,t,.ve
Elementary
~~~g~r
q
RamOfl•
Ave
Ra
m
ona
A~
f
,.,
...
~.

Ram<ma
Ave
Fernandez
Park
Virginia
Primrose
E
l
ementary
School
z
Helen
L.

Dollahan
9 ~
Elementary
School
z
z
W
Valencia
St
Milter
Ave
H
arvey-Dr
0 ATE
~
.......
,
G
o
g
l
e
+
j
;,
Fe,rfn:

Dr
!
Bill
Martin
Park
Reed
St
BarbNSt
Culichi's
VIP
Miller
Ave
M•~St
Reed
St
Barbff
s
~
•
Pa,Of'St
Smart
&
Final
Q

Miller
Ave
I
J
'l1
I
J
3 'i
§
F81ri'I
K
SI
i!.
!
f
Fa1rviewRd
!
eo.,,s,
M1l1t91S1
Ele~~~~a~asca~~~1
~
......
s
,
P
.t
ioeSI
Tamari
nd
Park

9 Fa1t
f
ax
St
Terry
SI
L
ltUf•
I
Or
B
al1)f,eSt
Barbee
St
i
w
"k-tona
S
t
z
i
!
Mega
Thrift
Store
McWethySt
A
Food
4 Less
Q
Y
Denny's
W
£1
1 waoda
A
v
e
I
r
J
"
~
Llttle
Caesars
Pizza
Me
data
0 2019
l
e
2 00~
'------I
Term
s
of
U
se
Re
1 WtdQ~ood<
!
z
f
w·
z
z
r
f
[
!
w
I
,.,,,
0 \
a
m
a
p
er
ror

FIGURE IX
-
2 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 2

WEST
VALLEY
WATER

DISTRICT
-
CACTUS
DUMP
{T10000002851)
-
;i_,\
si-)
SIGN
UP
FOR
EMAi
8 5
5 WEST
BASE
LIN
E
ROAD

RIALTO,
CA
9 2
377
SAN

BERNARDINO
CO
UN1Y
C
LEAN
UP

PROGRAM
SITE
.(
I
N
F
O
)
P
RI
N
T
AB
LE
C
A
SE
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
I
CS
M
R
E
PO
R
T
C
LEA
N
U
P
O
VERS
I
GHT
AGEN

SANTAANA
RWO
C
B
(REG
IOtl
SUmmaiy
C
l
eanup
Act
i
on
Report
Regilatory
Activities
Environmental
Ode
~Sf}
Site
Maps
I
Doc
um
ents
Commlllit
y
hv(jvement
ReldtedCdSes
Regulatory
Profile

CLEANUP
STATUS.
o
e
F
It1
moos
COMPLETED.

CASE
CLOSED
AS
OF
712312012

POTENTIAL
CONTAt.11NANTS
OF

CONCERN
LEAD
FILE

LOCATION
R
EG
IONAL
BOAAD
DWR

GROUHOMTER

SUB-BASIN
NAME
Upper
Sant
a
hla
Va
ll
e
y
-
R
i
al
to
-
C
o
lt
o
n
(
8-
0 0
2 .0
4 )
Site
His
t
ory
-
CL
E
A
N
U
P
S1Al1JS
HISlO
R
Y

POTENTIAL
MEDIA
OF

CONCERN
S
O
IL

PRINTABLE
CASE
suMrJ

DESIGNATED

GROUNDWATER

BENEFICIAL
USE(~
,
-
D
EFI
NITION
S
MUN,
AGR,
I
ND,
PROC

CALMTER

WATERSHED
NAME
S
a
nt
a
Ana
R
iv
e
r
-
Mid
dl
e
Sant
a
A
n
a
River
-
C
h
ino
(
S
p
lit
)
(801
.
21)
The
sit
e
i
s
l
ocated
i,
a
r
es
i
d
e
nti
a
l
a
re
a
of
Ria
lt
o,
imm
e
di
at
e
l
y
to
t
h
e
e
a
st
a
n
d
n
o
rt
h
o
f
C
a
ctus
Dr
a
in
a
g
e
Basin
.

E
x
i
st
i
ng
onsi
e
structures
inclu
de
th
e
Oisl
r
ict
H
e
a
d
quar
te
r
s
,
a
war
e
h
o
u
se
/Ma
i
nt
e
n
a
nc
e
buil
d
in
g
,
W
e
ll
N
o.
33 a
n
d
a
s
s
ociat
e
d
pumpi
n
g
e
q
u
ipment
,
a
c
o
nc
r
e
te
r
e
s
e
rv
o
ir
,
two
a
b
o
ve
gr
o
u
n
d
f
ue
l
sto
r
a
g
e
t
a
nk
s
,
a
n
d
a
w
as
t
e
o
il
sto
r
a
g
e
a
rea.

The
sit
e
ws
p
r
evio
u
sl
y
own
e
d
by
t
h
e
County
o
f
S
a
n
Bernar
d
in
o
.

It
was
o
nce
a
r
oc
k
quarry
and
w
a
s
o
p
e
ra
t
ed
a
s
a
refuse
d
i
spos
a
l
a
n
d
b
u
rn
d
u
m
p
t
h
at
ce
a
s
e
d
o
p
e
r
ation
i
n
1 9
5 6
.

Vertica
lly
,
fi
ll
w
a
s
te
app
e
a
r
s
to
extend
fr
o
m 8
t
o
13 f
ee
t
b
e
low
g
ro
und
s
u
rf
a
c
e
.

T
he
fi
rst
e
n
c
ount
e
re
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
at
e
r
is
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
100
f
e
e
t
deep
in
t
h
e
v
i
cin
i
ty
of
t
h
e
s
~
e.

The
d
ist
r
ic
t
a
n
d
t
he
C
it
y
o
f
R
i
alto
ex
t
r
a
b
o
u
t
t
wo
th
i
rd
s
o
f
the
d
ema
n
d
from
g
ro
u
n
d
w
a
t
er
.

In
r
e
c
e
n
t
year
s,
p
e
r
c
hl
o
ra
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
t
ec
t
e
d
in
s
ev
e
ra
l
o
f
t
he
w
e
ll
s.

As
a
r
esult
,
th
e
di
st
r
ict
h
a
s
p
la
n
s
t
o
c
o
n
st
r
uc
t
a
w
e
llh
e
a
d
trea
tr
sys
te
m
that
wi
l
rem
o
ve
p
er
c
h
lo
r
at
e
and
ni
tr
at
e
from
t
he
g
roun
d
w
a
t
er
.

T
h
e
R
e
g
i
on
a
l
B
o
a
rd
h
a
s
r
ev
i
ewed
th
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
nd
h
a
s
g
iv
e
n
co
n
c
u
rr
a
n
ce
wit
h
t
he
p
la
n
s.

T
h
e
d
i
str
ic
t
w
i
ll
e
xcav
a
te
,
r
e
m
o
v
e
t
he
fi
ll
ma
t
er
i
al
below
th
e
pl
a
n
n
e
d
s
ite
to
re
medi
at
e
t
h
e
l
ead
cont
a
m
i
na
t
ed
s
oi
ls
at
t
h
e
s
~
e
p
ri
o
r
to
cons
tr
u
ct
i
ng
th
e
well
h
e
ad
tr
e
a
t
ment
s
y
st
em.

FIGURE IX
-
3 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 3

GEO

TRACKER
C
Sites
and
Fac1llt1es
-
EJ
Cleanup
Sites
f2

LUST
Cl
e
a
nup
Sites
D

Cleanup
Program
Sites
D
D
Military
Cleanup
Sites
6,
OTSC
Cleanup
Srtes
,.
a
Permitted
Facilities
ti
C
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
(WDR)
Sites

Pennitted
USTs
-
lliEQ

6. OTSC
Haza
rdous
Waste
Sites

Land
Disposal
Sites
D

Irriga
ted
Lands
Regu
lat
ory
Program
Sites

Oil
J
Gas
Sites
D

Confined
Animal
Sites
El
Other
Site
s
0 Projoct
S
i
los
D
Non-Case
lnformaUOn
S
it
es

S
a
mpl
i
ng
Points
•
Pu~ic
0 Field
Points
(8J

SIGNIFIES
A
CLOSED
SITE
0 Tools
0 Map
Coverages
-
TAK
E
A
TOUR
VIEW
ON
GAMA
Baseline
Ave
Baseline
Ave
Eta1neDr
B
o
hnert
Ave
41 Rosa
'
s
Market
&
Liquor
I
rtalt
o,
ca
I
MMM
~-
,,
~------------------~
1 f
f
ZaraQ
~
WC
Map
•
r
Wlrw
,
sSt
Vineyard
Ave
W
La
Glor-ia
Ik
WNorwoodS1
Satellite
0 l
WNotwoodSt
Bar
r..

Boston
'
s
Restaurant
T
&Sports
Bar
'
•
QAR
CO
Q
WEST
COAST
P
I
PE
Col
u
mb
i
a
Steel
9 z
WChes.hlfeSt
~
•
Sierra
Lakes
Pkwy
otolo
Chevro
l
et
FafV<e-n
St
Under
A
r
mour
Q
f
Lu·elane
S1
!
l
Wakw\
V
!\"-Qe
Pkwy
w
....
c,
;
cemtosS
t
f
hrnSt
F~t'SI
i
ll
M
1 cattets
1 ~
Mount.
o
n
V-
Awe
Russo
SI
!
•t...ionAwi,
Baseline
Ave
W
Ba
se
line
Rd
E
lementary
~i~9al
9 San
Jacinto
Ave
•
•
Wca
s
maliaSt
w
Renaissan
c
e
Pkwy
RIALTO

AIRPORT
9 Amazon
SNA4
WWalnutA¥e
>
f
!
Niaga
r
a
Bottling
Q
M
i
ro
W
ay
W B
a
seline
Rd
f
M
~sa
Rd
•
!
L
ocust
E
l
ems;~~2';
9 Sharnrodt-4"
Alder
M
i
ddle
School
W.abathA
v
e
9 !
+
W
Casmalia
St
W
C
a
smali
a
St
Foothill
Fwy
W
Renaiuance
p~'if'f
WEnlonSI
R
enaissance
Marketplace
Q
Rialto
Munlclp~lmlY.
(T10000002oss)
14 5
1 Linden
A
ve
n
ue
R
i
a
l
to,
CA
92 37
6 Cleanup
Program
Site
Cleanup
Status
:

Completed•
Case
Closed
RB
Case
II':
2080086
MroWay
X
Able
S
t
ora
ge
9 Farmer
Boys
W
Baseline
Rd

WBas
e
lin
e
Rd
Foothil
Jerry
Eaves
Pa
r
k
W
Ba
seli
n
e
Rd
•
z
1 t
•..

I
••
if
Elementary
JS~~6~1
9 Ramona
A¥e
RamonaA..-c
Virg
in
ia
P
r
im
ro
se
E
l
eme
n
tary
Scho
o
l
z
H
e
l
en
L.

Ool
i
ah
a
n
9 f
E
l
eme
n
t
ary
S
cho
ol
z
z
WVa
l
e11C1•
St
Miller
Ave
H
an,eyOr
!,?
ATE
•
"
Barbee
St
G
o
g
l
e
+
Bil
l
Martin
Park
......

Culichi'c;
VIP
Mill
e
r
Ave
Malagil
6t
RH
d
St
Barbee
s
'f
•
Pa
,w
51 Smart
&
Final
Q
•
Miller
Ave
i
~
FawfaxSt
Terry
S
I
t
FairviewRd
lau,el
Dr
M11.
>9aSt
tsarbee
St
P
ct
ineSI
Tamarind
Pa
r
k
•
•
F
ernandez
Park
laurel
Of
~
'
i
~
Iii
BarbffSt
!
W
E1<wanc:1.a
Ave
W\llctonaSt
z
i
i
Mega
Thrift
Store
r.1cwemrs1
A
Food
4 L
ess
q
Y
Little
Caesars
Pizza
Denny's
M
e
da
t
a
C201
9 l
e
200
m
L----J
Te,ms
o
f
Use
R
e
!
Wedgewood
1 z
l
~
f
w
z
z
!
l
!
w
I
1'"1.
110\
rta
m
a
er
r
or
J

FIGURE IX
-
4 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 4

=
·.·-
-.
_--:,
~-

TRACKER
RIALTO

MUNICIPAL

AIRPORT

PROPERTY
(T10000002088)
-
,
~'-'I;~
:_
0 •
1 SIGN
UP
FOR
EMAi
14 51
LINDEN
AV
EN
LE
R
I
A
L
T
O
, C
A
923
7 6
S
AN
BE
RNA
R
D
INO
C
O
UNTY
C
LEA
NU
P
PR
OGRAM
S
fTE
LINFO).

PR
I
NTAB
LE
CA
SE
SUt>..ttvtARY
I
CSM
R
EP
OR
T
CLE
A
NUP
OVERS
I
GHT
AG
E
NCIES

SANTAANA
RWQCB
(REGION
8 )
~D)
-
CAS
E,
summary
Cleanup
Act
i
on
Report
Re!J!latory
Activities
Em!ironmmtal
IJdti)
,=
Sf)
Site
Maps
I
Ooc
u
nents
Comm
unity
-,v~ve
ment
Related
Cases
Regulatory
Profile

CLEANUP
STATUS
-
D
EF
I
NI
T
I
ONS

COMPLETED
-
CASE
CLOSED
AS
OF3ll/2018

POTENTIAL

CONTAMINANTS
OF

CONCERN
A'vlATI
O
N,
DI
ESE
L
,
GAS
O
LINE
FILE

LOCATION

REGIONAL
B
OARD
DWR
GROUNDl/11!1.TER

SUB-BAS
I
N
NAME
Upper
Santa
Ana
Valley
-
R
i
alto
-
Co
l
t
on
(8-002
_
04)
Site
History
-
CL
EA
NUP
S
lAlU
S
H
I
STORY

POTENTIAL
MEDIA
OF

CONCERN
SO
I
L

PRINTABLE
CASE
SUMM

DESIGNATED

GROUNDWATER

BENEFICIAL
USE(~
.
-
D
EF

INITION
S
MUN
,
AGR,
IND,
P
RO
C
CALW\TER

WATERSHED
NAME
Santa
Ana
Rive
r
-M
i
dd
l
e
Santa
Ana
Rille
r-
Ch
i
no
(Spl
i
t
) (
80 1
.
21)
The
S
i
t
e
co
v
ers
480.6
acres
i
ncluding
and
su
r
round
i
ng
t
he
RMA
,
l
oca
t
ed
at
145
1 North
li
nden
A>,,enue
,
Rialto
,
Californ
i
a
.

The
Site
i
s
generall
y
bounded
b
y
Sta
t
e
H
i
ghwa
y
210
to
t
h
e
n
c
M
i
r
o
Road
and
Base
l
ine
Road
to
the
sou
t
h
,
Lau
r
el
Avenue
t
o
t
h
e
wesl
,
and
Ayala
Avenue
and
t
he
flood
con
t
rol
channelto
t
he
e
ast
The
Sit
e
was
orig
i
na
ll
y
di
vi
ded
into
four
p
r
opert
i
es
i
dentified
as
P
r
operties
A
,
B
,
C
and
D.

The
S
il
e
i
s
cu
r
r
ently
o
w
ned
by
the
C
i
t
y o
f
R
i
a
lt
o
.

The
Si
t
e
has
been
de
t
erm
i
ned,
t
h
r
ough
p
r
i
or
environmen
t
a
l
assessmen
t
s
,
to
have
so
i
l
impacted
To
t
a
l
P
e
t
r
o
l
eum
H
y
drocarbons
i
n
gasoline
range
(
TP
Hg
)
,
To
t
a
l
Recoverable
Pe
t
r
o
l
eum
H
ydrocarbons
(TR
PH
)
,
Po
l
ych
l
or
i
na
t
ed
Bi
phen
y
l
s
(
P
CBs)
,
and
Pol
y
nuclear
A
r
om
a
t
i
c
H
ydroca
r
bc
(
PSAHs)
.

Excava
t
ion
ac
t
illi
t
i
es
t
o
r
emove
the
i
mpacted
so
i
l
we
r
e
conducted
a
t t
he
Site
between
J
a
nua
r
y
1 2
and
Feb
r
uar
y
5 ,
20 1
6 b
y
Weslech.

E
ach
of
the
i
den
t
ified
areas
o
f
concern
(AOCs)
wer
e
exca
v
al
e
d
,
as
p
r
opo
s
ed
i
n t
he
C
l
eanup
Plan
(
Conve
r
se
,
2015
)
.A
tota
l
of
5,3
1 5
CY
of
so
i
l
were
exca
v
a
t
ed
and
stockp
i
l
ed
a
t t
he
designa
t
ed
l
oca
t
i
ons
on
s
i
te.

A
t
o
t
a
l
370
C
(
535
t
ons)
o
f
soil
fro
m t
he
Sand
D
r
ag
area
was
e
x
cava
t
ed
and
transported
offs
i
t
e
to
t
he
P
hi
l
ad
e
l
phia
Rec
y
cl
i
ng
M
i
ne
i
n M
i
r
a
Loma
,
Ca
li
fornia
fo
r
disposa
l
.

FIGURE IX
-
5 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 5

GEO

TRACKER
=
Sites
and
Fecllltles
-
El
Cleanup
Si
t
es
'31

LUST
Cleanup
Sites
fJ

Cleanup
Program
Sites
fJ
D
Mllitary
Cleanup
Sites
6,
DTSC
Cleanup
Sites
B
Permitted
Facllltles
D
a
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
I
rialt
~,
ca
,.

J
U,MHiJ
~--------------9---------~
§
•
l,
..
~
(
ZaraQ

Q
ARCO
Q
WEST
COAST
PIPE
Bohnert
A
v
e
V
Rosa
·
s
Market
&
Liquor
Viney.rd
Ave
!
•
Co
l
umb
i
a
Steel
Q
WCraigSI
WLew
t
sst
WLaGlonaDf
W
N
orwoodSI
W
Ches.hire
St
rra
Lakes
Pkwy

W
Casma
l
ia
St
WCasmalia
St
W
Casmalia
St
Foothill
Fwy
f
Kolb
Midd
l
e
School
9 C
Z
f
!
........

WCheshireS
l
TlbbotSt
Map
Satell
i
te
WArbelhSt
J.v
WGa
lwa
ySI
~
:S-tnalla
St
a,
...,.
t:
1ement
'I.
•
,
L
J
Chesh••"'
~,
-
,
..
(WDR)Sites
Ave
Foothill
Fwy
•
Pennitted
USTs
•
llifQ

6. DTSC
Hazardous
Waste
Sites

Land
Disposal
Sites
fJ

Irrigated
lands
Regulatory
Program
S
i
tes

Oil
I
Gas
Sites
9
Confined
Animal
Sites
El
Other
Sites
D
Project
Sites
D
Non.Case
lnfonnation
Sites
II
Sampling
Points
•
PubltC
G
Field
Points
r8l

SIGNIFIES
A
CLOSED
SITE
C
Tools
C
Map
Coverages

TAKEATOUR

YIEWQNGAMA
Baseline
Ave
Elementary
~h~9c,I
~
San
J
a
cin
t
o
A
v
•
ll.a•neet
£Ja,oe
Avenue
r
~
R
amona
A
v
e
Miller
Ave
Vl
il.tg.

L.n
Reed
St
~
.......
,
i
BarbffS
~

Paine
St
Smart
&
Final
q
G
o
g
l
e

+
derArmour
9
W
Baseline
Rd
w
Re
n
aissance
Pkwy
RIALTO

AIRPORT
Q
Amazon
SNA4
z
i
W
W
aln!JtA.,.e
..
f
~
Niagara
Bottling
Q
M
1t0Way
W
Basel
i
ne
Rd
i-
M
naRd
•
Locust
Elem;;~~2i
~
M
rowa.,
W
Base
l
ine
Rd

M
ontgomef"j
Ave
Renaissance
Marketplace
Q
TahoeSt
W
lah
oe
St
q.

Eas'-0<'.'-
Ji..
~
~anatS1
WE,
E'
i
An•cood•
St
Pre
:
;.
..

Elementary
Sci
~
!
Lutel
,1
ne
S
I
W
H
Httie<St
z
WM~lanaSt
~
W
W.tloutAve
Ill
~
Woodh,
I
St
~

W
Mariana
St~
WWa
l
nut
Rialto
Animal
Hospital
Q
~
•
•
Ab
l
e
Storage
Q
W
Baseline
Rd
West
ValltY
Water
District
-
Cactus
Dum11
(Tl0000002851)
855
West
Base
Line
Road
Rialto,
CA
92377
Cleanup
Program
Site
Cleanup
Status:

Completed
-
Case
Closed
---v-
w
Baseline
Rd

W
Basel
i
ne
Rd
z
X
ws
T
WSha,n
Sham,ock,cv•
Alder
Middle
School
w,basl'IAve
O
W
W
abash
St
I
~-·
Ela,ne
o,
Ramon,Av•
Miller
Ave
':I
3 g
fa1rfa
x
St
t
fe
,
rv,.w
Rd
Malaga
St
""'""
Ele~~~~a~~c
8 h~~1
0 ..,....,
T
ama
rind
Pa
rk

M•ll
et"Ave
F
1tlaxSl
i
TerrySt
!
Laurel
Dr
Ba,be•
St
F
r
ryAvt
R»nOOa
Ava
Fernand
ez
Park
Laurel
Or
Virginia
Primrose
Elementary
School
9 f•ln,-[)r
i
"
..
.,..
..
i
r
I
z
Helen
L.

Dollahan
0 i
E
lementary
School
i
W
Et
,waoda
Ave
z
r
Mega
Thrift
Store
I
j
~
4'?
Little
Caesars
Pizza
McWelll)"St
A
Food
4 Less
q
Y
Denny
'
s
I
.,..
l
l
z z
WValeoc,aSt
Dunn
E
l
ementary
School
0 I
Wedgewood
Ct
j
f
z
z
r
I
W
V1c
1 ooaS1
r
w
Rosewood
St
W
M
HooSI
WGfo11eSt
Ar
rowh
ead
Cr
edit
Un
i
on
0 Ci)
Chevron
Ma
data
02 019
l
e
•
200
m
'------'
T
e1
ms
of
U
se
R
e
WComel!Dt
W
G
r
ove
St
I
,.
n
am
a
e
rror

FIGURE IX
-
6 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 6

WEST
SAN

BERNARDINO
COUNTY
WATER

DISTRICT
(T0607185912)
-
(1',:l
f,,Pj
SIGN
UP
FOR
EMAi
855
B
A
SELI
N
E
WEST

RIALTO,
CA
92377
S
AN
BER
NA
RD
IN
O
COU
N
TY
LU
S
T
C
LEANUP
S
IT
E
(!NEQ),

PRIIHABLE
CASE

SUMMARY
I
CSM
REPORT
C
L
E
ANU
P
OVE
R
S
I
G
H
T
AGE
N
C
I
ES
SA
N
BER
N
ARD
INO
C
OUN
TY
(LEAD)
.

CASE
t
SA
NT
AA
N
A
RW
OCB
(
R
EG
I
O
N
8)-CA5e
#
:0!
C
A
SEWORKER:

Ken
Wi/Nams
~
nary
Cleanup
Action
Report
Re!JJlatory
Activities
E1rv,ro111»entd/lJdli1
f.Sf)
Ste
Maps/
OoCllnents
Coo101111ity
~uoluement
ReliltedCdses
Regulatory
Profile
CLEAN
UP
STATUS
•

DEFINITION
s
COMPLETED.

CASE
CLOSED
AS
OF
8/20/2003
•
CLrnNUP
Sll\TUS
HISlORY

POTENTIAL
C
ON
T

AMINANTS
OF
C
ON
CE
RN
GASOLI
N
E,
M
TBE
/
TBA
I
OT
H
ER
FUEL
OX
VG
E
N
ATES
FILE

LOCATION
LO
C
AL
A
GE
N
CY
DWR
G
ROUNDJ/)f\
T
ER
S
UB
-
BA
S
IN
NAM
E
U
p p
e
r
Sa
nt
a
An
a
V
a
ll
e
y
•
R
i
a
ll
o-C
o
ll
o
n (
8-002
.
04 )
I
Site
"'"'"
N
o s
il
e
hi
s
l
o
ry
a
v
a
il
ab
l
e

POTENTIAL
MEDIA
OF

CONCERN
SO
I
L

PRINTABLE
CASE
SUM

DESIGNATED

GROUNDWATER

BENEFICIAL
USE(}),
·

DEFINITIONS
MUN,
AG
R
,
IND,
PROC
CALJ/\f\
T
ER
WA
T
ERSH
E
D
NAM
E
Sa
nt
a A
n
a R
iv
e
r
•
Mi
d
dl
e
Sa
nt
a A
n
a
R
iv
e
r
- C
hin
o
(
Sp
Iii)
(
80 1
.
2 1
)

FIGURE IX
-
7 Tom
Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 7

GEO

TRACKER
C
Sites
end
Fac1lltles
-
~
Cleanup
Sites
D

LUST
Cl
e
anup
Si
t
es
D
[]
Cleanup
Program
S
i
t
es
D
D
Military
Cl
e
anup
S
i
te
s
/:l.

OTSC
Cleanup
S
i
te
s
9 Pe
r
mi
tt
ed
F
a
cllitles
D

Waste
Di
s
char
ge
Requ
i
rements
(WDR
)
S
i
tes

Permitted
USTs
-
lli.EQ
~
DTSC
Hazardous
Waste
S
i
t
es
[]
Land
D
i
sposal
Sites
D
Cl
Irrigated
Land
s
Regu
l
atory
Program
Sites

O
i
l
/
Ga
s
Sites
D

Con
fin
ed
An
i
mal
S
i
te
s
[3
O
t
her
Sites
D
Project
Site
s
D
N
on-C
a
se
Information
Site
s
EJ
Sampl
i
ng
Po
i
nts
-
Publ
ic
0 F
ield
P
oi
nts
@

SIGNIFIES
A
CLOSED
SITE
C
Tools
0 Map
Coverages
T
AKE
A
TOUR
Basellne
Ave
Elaine
Dr
Miller
Ave
f
it
F
a,
rf
a
x
St
f
HanreyDt
~
ATE
;
Barbff
St
Y
I

EWONGAMA
B
aseline
Ave
Bill
Martin
Park
RffdS
t
Bart>eeS1
G
o
g
l
e
Cul,chi's
VIP
mm.t-i!th1idf
.

JL'F1Ml
:
lii.H

.'.d
-
ltfhd
lC
?
II
A
II
I
aodt/11
..

I
ria
l
to
,
ca
I
Mfaii+fJ
~~
,.,
~
------------------
~
;
Bohnert
Av
e
q
Rosa's
Market
&
Liquor
f
WC
Map
Satellit
e
01 Bar
4?
~
Boston's
Restaurant
T
&Sports
Bar
otolo
Chevrolet
"'
~
iii.
bv
;
':_..'b("
ID
GE
I
g'f\\c;l~
Sierra
Lakes
Pkwy
F•n,,•H
51 Under
Armou
r
Q
St
Walnut
VI\~
Pkwy
w.inutet
I
FemS1
i
M
oc:allefSI
B
aseline
Ave
Elemen
t
ary
~ct~il
4;)
Mi
ller
Av
e
,
..
.,
....
,,,l
;
Cem
t
osSt
Russo
St
WBasell
n
e
Rd
Ela,ne
Or
M
i
ll
er
Av
e
'JI
3 g
F"airfaxSt
f
Fa
i
rvlt'WRd
M
al111aSt
i
I
Zara
Q
•
~eS
~~"'Y
Q
ARCO
s\e
113
\_a

kr
Ces
m
a
lia
S
t
Q
WEST
COAS
T
PIPE
WCasmalia
St
Vl!w1ard
Ave
!
WLrw
,
sSt
WlaGloru!Or
W
N
orwood
St
Co
l
um
b
ia
Steel
Q
z
WCheshoreS
t
l
•
!
W
Casmalia
S1
+
nt
Foothill
Fwy
Foothil
v,1
Renaissanc
e
Pkwy
W
Rena
i
ssance
f''ll~
W~
s
ton$t
Renaissance
Marketplace
Q
•
QAmazonr--
·
·
W
Wa'1kl1A
RIAL
TO

AIRPORT

WESTERN
HELICOPTER,_!!,!!;
(SLT8R2674084)
1 670
MIR
O
WA
Y W
RIA
L
T
O,
CA
92376
Cleanup
Program
Site
Cleanup
Status:

Completed
•
Case
Closed
RB
Case#:

SLTBR267
X
N
iagaro
"
"'""''Y~
MroWay
W
B
a
se
li
ne
Rd
I
MenRd

z
f
..
!
Locust
E
l
em;~~~
9 Sh.am,ock
.,_
Mrowa
y
W
Baseline
Rd

b
-•
•
A
l
der
M
i
ddle
School
wa
a..-,
ve
~
[
F
aorfax
S1
i
Laurel
Dr
')'Av•
Ramona
Av•
Fernandez
Park
L
al.H'el
Ot
Virginia
Primrose
Elemen
t
ary
School
~
I
z
i
Si'
R
i
alto
Animal
Hospital
Q

"
Able
S
t
orage
Q
W
Base
l
in
e
Rd
z
f
>
i
z
WV.1c-
1 ori.1S1
z
;
•
Jer
ry
E
a
ve
s
Park
Farmer
Boys
W
Bas
e
l
in
e
Rd
•
z
§'
i
I
z
Helen
L
Dollahan
9 i
Elementary
School
~
W
Etowandl
A~•
z
I
i
~··
I
.,..

I
I
z z
wv

1e-nc,1St
Wedgewood
!
'§
z
!
!
w
z
i
!
i
RffdSI
Ele~~~~a~a~c~~~14;)
I
[
i
~
!1
,:,
!
Mega
Thrift
Store
i
w
Baffitt
s
'f'

Pa.nest
Smart
&
Final
4;>
•
Barbee
St
Paine
S
t

Tamar
ind
Park
2 BarbHSI
I
ii
I
,:,
Barbee
SI
~
!
;;;;;
·
1 ii
Mc
W
ethySI
A
Food
4 Less
Q
Y
Denny's
200
m
.____,.

T
erm
s
of
U
s
e
L
i
ttle
Caesars
Pizza
•
~,,o·
R
e
z
rt
a
mo
p
error

FIGURE IX
-
8 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 8

-
..
=
'
11 -
-
~
:,
•
,.
i
,:
',
' . • '
•
'
• •
-
~

WESTERN

HELICOPTER,
INC
(SLT8R2674084)
-
lt,if,1
_
_-!
SIGN
UP
FOR
EMAi
1670

MIROWAYW

RIALTO,
CA
92 376
S
AN
BE
RNAR
D
IN
O
COU
N
TY

CLEANUP

PROGRAM
SITE
11NFOJ.

PRINTABLE
CASE

SUMMARY
/
CSM
REPORT
C
L
EA
NU
P
OVERS
I
G
H
T
AGE
N
C
I
ES
SA
NT
AA
N
A
RW
QCB
(
R
EG
I
O
N
8)
(j.EAD)
•
CASE#:

SUmmary
Cleanup
Action
Report
Re!PJlatory
Activities
£1ll!ironme11tdl
/Jd/,/
f.

SI)
Site
Maps
I
Oocrnients
Coo1m111hy
ttuoluement
Relilled
Cdses
Regulatory
Profile

PRINTABLE
CASE
SUM~
C
LEAN
UP
S
T
ATU
s
-
DEFIN
I
TION
s

COMPLETED
.

CASE
CLOSED
AS
OF
4ll/1992
-

CLEANUP
SlAlUSHISTORY

POTENTIAL

CONTAMINANTS
OF

CONCERN
NON
E
SPE
CI
F
I
E
D
FILE

LOCATION
DWR

GROUNDMTER
SUB
.

BASIN
NAME
Up
p
er
San
t
a
/lri
a
Va
ll
ey
•
Ri
a
lt
o
-
Colt
on
(
8 -
002.04)
I
.,
..
""'"'
N
o
si
t
e
h
is
t
o
ry
a
v
a
il
ab
l
e

POTENTIAL
MEDIA
OF

CONCERN
NON
E
SPE
CI
F
I
E
D

DESIGNATED

GROUNDWATER

BENEFICIAL
USE(fil
.
-
DEF
I

NITIONS
M
U
N
,
A
GR,
IN
D,
PROC

CALMTER

WATERSHED
NAME
San
t
a
A
n
a R
i
ver
•
Middl
e
Sa
nt
a
A
n
a
R
iv
er
•
Chino
(
S
plit)
(
8 01.21)

FIGURE IX
-
9 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 9

GEO

TRACKER
1:1
Sites
and
Facllltles
-
a
Cl
eanup
Si
t
es
II

LUST
C
l
eanup
Si
t
es
D

Cleanup
P
rog
ram
Si
t
es
D
D
M
i
li
t
ary
Cleanup
Sit
e
s

6. OTSC
Cleanup
Sites
13 P
er
mi
tt
ed
F
a
cilities
D
C
Waste
Discharge
Requ
i
rements
(WDR)
Sites

Perm
i
tted
USTs
•
llifQ
b..

OTSC
Hazardous
Waste
Sites

Land
Disposal
Sites
D
D
I
rrigated
Land
s
Regulatory
Program
Sites

O
i
l
I
Gas
S
i
tes
D

Confined
An
l
mal
S
i
tes
Ot
her
Sites
D
Project
Siles
D
Non•Case
Inform
a
tion
S
i
tes
[I
Sampting
Poinls
•
Public
0 Field
Points
18)
SIGNIF
I
ES
A C
LO
SE
D
SITE
C
Tool
s
C
Map
Cov
e
rag
es
TAKEAT
QU
R
Bas
e
line
Ave
Elll!neOr
Miller
Ave
~
t
FalrfaiSt
I
H
..-ve
y
Or
ATE
f
..

B.atbe
e
St
j
!
VIEW
Q
N
G
AMA
Baseline
Av
e
...
-~
Feirlu;
Or
Bill
Martin
Park
RHCI
St
......
.,
~
l
!
G
o
g
l
e
Culich,'s
VIP
1 •
11,
,4J§lldd$!,;ceMl
:
14i•i!I
fri
~
I
ria
lt
o
,
ca
I
HHiMJ
~~
..
~-----------------~
~
ltlid
lf?IIOU'
aodt,n
..

Bohnert
A
v
e
',J
Rosa's
M
arket
&
Liqu
o
r
i
we
Map
Satellite
0 1
Bar
4)
l!li
Boston
'
s
Restaurant
T
&
Sports
Bar
S
i
erra
lakes
Pkwy
oto
l
o
Chevrolet
"'
,
e
~
b..-
;i
~"ii-(<
ID
GE
!
s\-lld"
l
[
I
CambriaA:e
t
Farwen
st
Under
Armour
Q
f
l.welaon,tSt
:
i
':I
•
3 St
W•lnutV~Pkwy
~
WW
.inutAv.
i
w-c,
•
[
Cnntos
St
!
t
i
f
!i'
I
Fem
SI
f~f\St
,
~
!
i
Moc•lle
t
St
Moun1a1
v-
"~•
AuasoS
t
i
M•lot,,t.w•
Baseline
Ave
W
Baseline
Rd
•
•
.
i
f
ZaraCj>
•
•
Q
ARCO
WcasmaliaSt
Q
WEST
COAST
PIP
E
WCasmalia
St
f
Wlew
l
S1
V
1 ney;U
d
Ave
W
la
Gloria

0.-
W
N
OfWOOdSt
Co
l
u
m
bia
Steel
Cj>
z
WCMsh
l
reSI
a
"'
~
W
Casmali
a
S
t
Foo
t
h
i
ll
Fwy
w
Renai
s
sance
Pkwy
W
Renaissance
fl\1.-,,rJ
W
Uston
Sl
Renaissance
Ma
r
ket
p
lace
Q
RIALTO

AIRPORT
9 Amazon
SNA4
~
WWalnutA
v
e
i
!
i.
!
WEST
SAN

BERNARDINO
COUNTY
WATER

DISTRICT
(T0607185912)
8 5
5 B
AS
E
LIN
E
W
ES
T
RI
A
LTO
,
C
A
92 3
7 7
x
Hospita
l
Q
Niagara
Bott
li
ng
Q
J
e
rry
Ea
ves
Par
k
M•ro
Wa
y
W
Basel
i
ne
Rd
LUST
Cleanup
S
i
te
Cleanup
Status:

Completed
•
Case
Closed
RB
Case
#:
083603976T
Loe
Case#:
2003012
W
Baseline
Rd

-
---
-
r1:1rmer
Boys
W
Baselin
e
Rd
W
Baseline
Rd
.
,
L
~
"'"'he
+
r
,
o
Footh
ll

Jec
k
son
Dr
&,
Locust
Elemsc~~ci(
9 Elementary
~h~9c,j
~
S.n
J1c
i
nto
Ave
Miller
Ave
J
M
al8gaS1
v
~Ln
AeedS1
Barbee
s
'f

Pa.ne
St
Smart
&
Final
Q

E
l
a
i
ne
o,
Ramona
Av
•
Miller
Ave
':I
3 ~
Fall'f
a
xSt
f
Fawview
Rd
Malag
a
St
r
stwmrock

i,e
Alder
Middle
Schoo
l
Wabash
Ave
~
farf111S1
f
T
erry
St
!
Laurel
Of
Ele~~~~a~rchb~~
~
......
8 lftl.

St
Ta
marind
Pa
r
k
•

2 Fernand
ez
Park
Laurel
Or
WWaba5ti
St
Virgi
ni
a
Pr
i
mrose
E
l
e
m
entary
Scho
o
l
0 Fa
l
t"l~O,
z
1 j
z
H
ele
n
L.

Dollah
an
q
§.

Elementary
School
i
WEt,wanda
A
v
e
z
[
"'
t
~
i
M
e
ga
Thr
ift
Sto
re
J
"'
......
.,
McWelhySt
Q
Food
4 L
e
s
s
Q
Little
Caesars
Pizza
Denny°s
...
.t
••
fl
z
z
WValenc1aS
1 ,.
<
We-doewood
l
l
z
-:I
f
~
~
w
z
z
!
f
(
!
w
I
Ml
!O
I
?
I
200
m
~
T
erm
s
of
Use
R
e
g
rt
a
m
a
;
er
ro
r
I

FIGURE IX
-
10 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

GeoTracker, page 10

ETI

EXPLOSIVES

TECHNOLOGIES

INTERNATIONAL
INC.
(SL0607159245}
-
:~'-'(~f:
'
i
SIGN
UP
FOR
EMAi
29 00
T
A
M
ARIND
A
V
E
RI
AL
T
O,
CA
92 3
76 SAN
BE
RNA
RDINO
C
OUN1Y
CLEAN
U
P P
ROG
RAM
SfTE
1 1
NF0
1 P
R
I
N
T
A
B
L
E C
A
SE
S
U
M
MA
R
Y
/
C
S
M
R
EPO
R
T
C
LEA
NUP
O
VER
S
I
G
H
T
A
G
E
N
S
ANT
AANA
RWQ
C
B
(R
E
GIOtl
CAS
EW
OR
KER
:
~
summary
Cleanup
Act
i
on
Report
Regulatory
Activities
Emlironnienta/0.ta
f-SI)
Site
Maps/Doct.11
1 ents
Cmimunit
y
'1vdvement
ReliJtedCdses
Regulatory
Profile

COMPLEX
srrE

CLEANUP

PROGRAM

FACILITY
R
I
A
LTO
P
E
R
C
HLO
R
A
TE
IN
VE
S
T
I
G
AT
I
ON

CLEANUP
STATUS
-
D
E
F
I
N
ITIO
N
S
OPEN
-

INACTIVE
AS
OF
5/18
.12
015
-
C
LE
ANU
P
S
lATIJS
H
IS
lO
R
Y

POTENTIAL

CONTAMINANTS
OF
C
ONCERN
PER
C
HLO
R
A
TE
FILE

LOCATION
REG
I
ONAL
BO
AR
D
OWR
GROU
NDWl!t.TER
SUB
-
BASIN
NAME
Up
p
er
S
ant
a
Ana
Valley
-
R
i
a
lt
o-C
o
l
ton
(
8 -
002
.
0 4
)
Site
History

PRINTABLE
CASE
SUMN

POTENTIAL
MEDIA
OF

CONCERN
AQUIF
E
R U
S
ED
F
OR
ORIN
kl
NG
WATER
SUP
PL
Y
DES
I
GNATED

GROUNDWATER

BENEFIOAL
USE(~.
-
D
EFI
N
I
T
I
ONS
MU
N,
A
GR,
IND,
PRO
C
CALWl!t.TER

WATERSHED
NAME
San
t
a
Ana
R
i
v
e
r
-
Mi
d
d
l
e
San
t
a
Ana
R
w
e
r
-
Ch
i
n
o
(Split
)
(801
.
21 )
Pe
r
c
h
lora
t
e
c
o
n
t
amina
t
ion
w
a
s
fi
r
st
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
grou
n
dwate
r
in
t
h
e R
i
a
lt
o
,
C
o
lt
o
n a
n
d
Chi
n
o
Sub
b
a
s
i
n
s
i
n
1997
.

Al
t
h
a
t
t
ime
,
the
C
a
liforni
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t o
f H
e
al
t
h
S
e
r
v
ice
s
(OHS
)
.Ac
t
ion
Le
v
e
l
(Al
)
for
p
e
r
c
h
l
or
a
t
e
in
d
r
i
nk
i
ng
wa
t
e
r
was
1 8
p
a
rts
p
er
b
ill
i
o
n (
ppb
)
.

T
wo
w
e
ll
s
ha
d
pe
r
chlo
r
a
t
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
x
c
e
edi
n
g 1
8 p
p
b a
n
d
we
r
e s
h
u
t
down.

In
J
anuary
2 002,
t
he
OHS
l
owered
t
r
Al
to
4 p
p
b
.

I
n
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d A
L
fo
r
perch
l
o
r
a
t
e,
the
l
o
c
a
l
wa
t
er
p
u
rveyo
r
s
in
the
R
i
al
t
o
,
Col
t
o
n a
n
d C
h
i
n
o G
roundwat
e
r
S
u
b
b
asi
n
s
r
e
s
tr
ic
t
ed
or
e
li
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
the
u
se
o
f
a
d
d
it
ior
prod
u
c
ti
on
wells
wit
h
pe
r
chlo
r
a
t
e
con
c
e
n
t
r
a
ti
o
n
s
tha
t
e
x
c
e
ed
e
d
4 ppb.

Betw
e
e
n
1 9
9 7
and
t
h
e
p
r
ese
n
t,
v
a
ri
o
us
suspe
ct
ed
perchl
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
b
een
i
d
e
n
ti
f
ied.

Fo
r
mor
e u
p
to
c
i
n
forma
t
ion
on
enforcem
e
n
t a
c
ti
ons
,
se
e
ou
r
we
b
s
it
e a
t
www.wa
t
e
r
boards
.
ca
.
gov

SOURCE:

City of San Bernardino General Plan

FIGURE
IX
-
11 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

S
an Bernardino
International Airport

Planning Boundaries

--✓
---')
)
.:
-·---,
/'
-.
~
:
'-.:
.
\
·.
·
.
~
,
__
...
..
r
\
-
------
\
·-'>
-.
)
\
:
,,
'-.
•.
\
/
\
,,
I
--
-
--\
i-
··,
,
i..:
_,
The
City
of
SAN

BERNARDINO
General
P
l
an
·-
-
-
---,
·,
··7
.
.

J;··
-,
~--..(
/
·
-
t.:>
San
Bernardino
International
Ai
rport
Pl
a
nnin
g
Boun
daries
D
Airport
I
n
fluence
Arc
a
r·
j
City
Boundary
T
o
be
included
u
po
n a
doption
of
the
Compre
h
ensive
Land
Use
Plan
for
ch
e
S
B
I
A
,
as
m
ay
be
appropriate
:

LJ
Ru
nway
P
ro
t
ection
Zone
LJ
In
ner
Turnin
g
Zone
LJ
In
ne
r
Safety
Zone
LJ
Outer
Safety
Zone
LJ
Traffic
Pa
ttern
Zone
LJ
CNEL
No~c
Contours
NOl'.c:

As
of
the
adoption
of
this
Gener11I
Plan,
the
A
irpon
M
:
mer
Plan
and
rh,e
Comprchttuiw-
und
Use
Plan
(UUP)
foe
the
San
~mar
dino
lnternario~
Airport
(S
BIA
)
..
'ffe
in
the
pr.X:($
1 ofl,eing
p~p
ared.

A5
a
consequentt,
[he
prt'cise
noise
contours
and
safety
DJnt'S
w~,:
not
11\·,1.i\ab~
ro
i
n
d
ude
in
this
P
l
an.

Upoo
adop:ion
of
the
Ai
rport
Master
Plan
aod
O..UP
for
die'
SBIA,
rhc
new
noise
and
,akry
r.one5
..
-rn
~
ini;:orpor.ued
inc
o
1hi:$
Figure
and,
if
n«e,,wy,
the
A
irport
l
nflunw:c
Area
;1djustcd.

F
igure
LU
-
4 SOURCE:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
IX
-
12 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Fire Hazards

~
.
=
~
:

C
ity
of
Fon
ta
n
a
BNSF
R:o
i
lwa
~
i
.
..
~
'
F
oo
th
ill
Bfvd
Rl
olto
Av
r
.
.
...
,
.
~
::...i~
~.4.~
--+-----l
-l
•
-¥-
--1--+--
r
t-""'
•
•
H
_
i
..
~
.g
IAI
~
City
of
Col
t
on
.

F
ire
and
R
esources
Assesment
P
rogram,
California
Department
of
Forestry
and
Fire
Protection
(2007
and
2008).
~
0 LI
...

I
.J......IL
0 .L~
5 __
.J.....
__
1 _.__
5 _
__,
2 Miles

SOURCE
:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
X
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Flooding Hazards

Terra
Vbt
Cosa
Grand
··1
:
('
../
.
.L
l
~
l
I
'
Ccumall
Ave
Walnut
St
.
·
-1
BaHllne
Rd~'---"-i_l;.,__c.;.:-!""
l
:
.
~
~
.
.i
a
3 j
i:

City
of
Fontana
l
I
Foothill
Blvd
i
RJalto
Av
e
M
e
rri
II
Ave
Randall
Av
e
Marygold
Ave
valley
Blvd
U
nion
lb
ci
f
ic
Ro
llr
oad
Santa
Ana
Ave
Jurupa
Av
e
L-..1.:__,......,,--,'-
C
~
"
:

Rialto
Incorporated
Area
Rialto
Sphere
of
Influence
County
Boundary
Fr
e
eway
/
Highway
Lo
c
al
Road
Railroad
Hydrologi
c
al
Feature
This
map
is
intended
for
general
land
use
planning
only
.

Information
on
this
map
is
not
suffi
ce
nt
to
serve
as
a
substitute
for
detailed
geologic
in
v
estigations
of
indi
v
idual
sites,
nor
does
it
satisfy the
evaluation
requirements
set
forth
in
g
e
ologi
c
hazard
regulations.

Sour
ce
s
:

SOURCE:

Rialto

General Plan

FIGURE
XII
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Mineral Resource Zones

Casa
Gran
i:alnuf
St
1--
-+-+------<f---<
Bmeli
n
eRd
11 I
1 .
.
l
J
..

J
J
:
l
i
~
;
.!!
I
..
.!
3 I
:

Busch
,
L.L
,
&
Mille
r
,
R.V.

California
Department
of
Conservation
,
California
Geological
Survey
,
2008
.

SOURCE
:

Rialto General Plan

FIGURE
XIII
-
1 Tom Dodson & Associates

Environmental Consultants

Noise Contours

_,
i
I
'Jen
a
Vi.sta
Dr
:
.

Ca.Sa
Gra
n
d'~
D
r
~---~~-~
a
L.:
;
I
City
o
f
Fo
n
ta
n
a
SN
SF
R:
oUwo
Foothil
l
Blvd
Ilalio
Av
e
Merri
ll
Av•
M
arygo
l
d
Ave
•····
,
1--
---'---:
-
•
Va
ll
•l'
Blv
d
Urion
f"acff
1e.

Jailrood
San
t
a
Ana
A
v
e
..
···•··
·
·
···
L
••
_
JuNpa
Ave
.__
:
_
_,.....,;,,,;.--;
..
~
..

Wieland
Associates
,
Inc
(2009)
•
~
I
~l~~'-'
~-~
~
--
~
-~I
M
i
les
0 0
.
5 1 1
.
5 2

APPENDIX 1

TITLE SHEET & INDEX MAP

UTILITY PROVIDERS
NOTE:

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE

SEE BELOW LEFT

MATCHLINE

SEE ABOVE RIGHT

MATCHLINE

BASELINE ROAD

TAMARIND AVE

ALDER AVE

LAUREL AVE

LINDEN AVE

CEDAR AVE

CACTUS AVE

MAPLE AVE

LOCUST AVE
CACTUS BASIN 3A
CACTUS BASIN 3

AYALA AVE
,
~I
~
-
.r'\
.
.

J
-
!SHEET
4 ELECTRICITY

TELEPHONE

TELEPHONE
SOUlHERN

CALIFORNIA
EDISON
AT&T

FRONTIER
7951

REDWOOD
AVENUE
3939
E

CORONADO
STREET
150
S.

JUANITA

FONTANA,
CA
92336

ANAHEIM,
CA
92807
HEMET,
CA
92543
(909)
357-6203
(714)
237-6155
(909)
658-7305
WATER
SEWER
GAS

FONTANA
WATER
CO.

CITY
OF
RIALRO

SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA
GAS
CO.
15966
ARROW
ROUTE
150
S.

PALM
AVE
1981
W.

LUGONIA
AVENUE

FONTANA,

CALIFORNIA
92335
RIAL
TO,
CA
92376

REDLANDS,
CA
92374
(909)
822-2201
(909)
820-2689
(BOO)
427-2200
©@
M~@~
rtriftl~
l11Jriftlrt1LrtriftlW
~1L£~
£~ID)
~IB©~©~lmW
w
:::,
z
~
<
w
:::,
z
~
<
IB£~1m1LIT~lm
IB©£W
~~©IBM
WIB£IT~
£1LIT®~Mlm~~

BASELINE
!SHEET
5 .
~>
SOUTH
NORTH
rnn
rnn
rnn
R/W
CL
R/W
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
R/W
VARIES
l--"13"".0""''±=-+~-----'3"-'6"-'.0'--''±=----~-i------'3=6=.0-='±'-----~+-'-13=.-=-0'=±-i R/W
VARIES
EX.

AC/AB
-
'(_EX.

SIDEWALK,
WHERE
SHOWN
-
-
5'
EX.
8"
C&G
WHERE
SHOWN
)
EX.4"
GAS
EX.12"
-27"SEWER
1\
EX.

C&G
WHERE
SHOWN
l----'15~'±c..-o,-=-8'~±-il
\___EX.14"
GAS
--
-
PROP.

SD
(60",
72"RCP
OR
7'X7'RCB)-10]

TYPICAL
STREET

SECTION

BASELINE
ROAD
N.T.S
SD
STA
68+81
TO
135+00

UTILITY

LOCATIONS
VARY
PER
STREET

SECTION
!SHEET
3 SOUTH
NORTH
EXIST.

EXIST.

R/W
CL
R/W
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
R/W
VARIES
l--"13=.0"-''±=-+~--3=6=.0'--''±=----~-i------'3=6=.0-='±'-----~+-'-1=3.-=-0'=±-i R/W
VARIES
EX.

AC/AB
0 100
200
400
i.:.
-
.,.
·.
-
-
-
-'-lb5,~±
- - -
.
·,
'-EX.

SIDEWALK,
WHERE
SHOWN
"',
EX.

C&G
WHERE
SHOWN
!
!
!
!
SCALE
1"
=
200'
N
600
~
!
g
<
0:
w
0:
"'I
w
in
<
C.

FOORTHILL
~
!SHEET
4 !SHEET
2 LOCATION
OF

EXISTING

UTILITY
LINES
IS
BASED
ON
RECORD

DRAWINGS
AND

ATLASES

PROVIDED
BY
lHE
CITY
AND

UTILITY
COMPANIES.

LOCATIONS
TO
BE

VERIFIED
BY

CONTRACTOR
BEFORE
CONSTRUCTION.
w
:::,
z
w
w
w
w
~
:::,
:::,
:::,
:::,
<
z
z
~
z
~
!!!
~
<
<
<
....
~
,.

C
;;
w
Iii
II)
0:
0:
:::,
w
z
w
~
<
w
z
:::,
:::,
w
:::,
:::,
9 ~
"
~
C
z
~
g
z
!!!
<
<
:::,
"
<
BLVD
-'
w
~
"'
"'
<
:::,
:s
!le
C
w
"'
"

VICINITY
MAP
NOT
TO
SCALE:

EX.
8"
C&G
WHERE
SHOWN
Jl
10'
EX.4"
GAS
14~15'±
15'±
EX.12"
WATIER
\___EX.14"
GAS
EX.12"
-27"SEWER
HUITT-
____
_
CITY
OF

RIALTO,

CALIFORNIA
CABLE

SPECTRUM
1500
AUTO
CENTER
DRIVE

ONTARIO,
CA
91761
(800)
892-2253
PROP.

SD
(60",
72"RCP
OR
7'X7'RCB)--10!

TYPICAL
STREET

SECTION

BASELINE
ROAD
N.T.S
SD
STA
30+00
TO
68+81

UTILITY

LOCATIONS
VARY
PER
STREET

SECTION
Huitt-Zollars,
Inc.
3990

CONCOURS,
#330
•

ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA
91761
•
(909)
941-7799
Ontario
DRAWN
BY:

H.Z.

STAFF

BASELINE
STORM
DRAIN
SCALE:

AS
SHOWN
---------------------------I

DESIGNED
BY:

DATE:

PREPARED
UNDER
THE
SUPER~SION
OF,
JOHNNY
MURAD
H.Z.

STAFF
OCT
2018
67512
6-30-19
R.C.E.

EXPIRES
DAT£

CHECKED
BY:

J.M./R.C./M.H.

DWG.

NO.:
1 E
a.
"'
-
~
a,
a
(\J
r--
0 u
w
"
..,
0 .p
,
0 >,
d
_J
a,
~
..,
>,
±'.
+'
::,
w
+'
-~
0 a.

E
0 u
/
>,
±'.
+'
::,
w
+'
-~
0 a.

E
0 u
/
~
"'
:,,
"
-
iii
0 /
C
OJ
-~
w
"
"'
0 /
C
,:
d
E
d
>-
0 +'
~
,
+'
u
d
u
"
V)
w
C
w
~
d
"'
0 +'
d
ii1
a
0 "'
(\J
a,
0 "'
"'
/
~
0 ~
5 a.
/
i'

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
SEE SHEET 3
MATCHLINE STA. 30+00.00

BASELINE ROAD

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

BASELINE ROAD
-------
-
-
~
I
,9
(
:;;
I
I
I
\
(
i
I
-
"'
'
:;;
·,
-
"'
'
:;;
I
J>
(/)
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
5 I
I
I
I
"
I
I
\
"
\
1,
I
I
I
\
\
o
I
I
"
\
o
I,
~
I
I
"
I
I
j
5 I
I
I
I
I
"
I
.,
I
I
I
I
~
-0
I
"
l
j
,.
0 I
"U
I
"'
I
'!
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
N
I
'-\
I
?5
I
-u
I
I
I
I
~
"
I
I
I
\
8\
~1
I
I
SEALED
MH
±5
V
~
:

DAM

EMBANKMEN
0 CACTUS
BASIN
NO.
3A
0 EXISTING
WATER
LINES

EXISTING
SEWER
LINES

EXISTING
STORM
DRAIN
LINES

EXISTING
ELEC,
COM,
TEL,
&
OH
LINES

EXISTING
GAS
LINES

PROPOSED
STORM
DRAIN

ALIGNMENT

ALTERNATIVE
1 (EASEMENT

REQUIRED)

ALTERNATIVE
2 (EASEMENT

REQUIRED)

ALTERNATIVE
3 I
I
r\
l
-
-
-
0 20
40 80
120
!
1 ___J
1 ____J
1 ____J
1 SCALE
1"
-
40'
......
)a(
El
*
~
-tOt-
0 ~
0 -----
----
(")
0 z
(")
,
-,,
}
IJ
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
POWER
POLE
GUY
WIRE
(ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
SITE
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT
ON
POWER
POLE
STREET
LIGHT
FIRE

HYDRANT

TRAFFIC
SIGN
WATER
VALVE
COVER

MANHOLE
WATER
METER

CENTERLINE
RIGHT
OF
WAY
ASPH
-

ALTERNATIVE
3 I
7 /
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ALTERNATIVE
2 ALTERNATIVE
1 ----
-----
I
/
,,,
1/
/
I
I
/
!
/
1/
I
1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
J>
I
I
(/)
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
A
-
,/
,/
---
---
/
/,.
/
---
(")
0 z
(")
'-
,,..
'-
......._..,,,..
--
/
'
'-
----
--
-
/
✓
::::c:i
/
(")
0 z
(")
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
/~DAM

EMBANKMENT
I
I
I
I
I
CACTUS
BASIN
NO.
3 -------t
~
--
-------------
------
E
Cl.
(')
-
..,
00 -
0 (\J
"
0 u
w
A
"'
(\J
0 -P
J
0 >,
d
...J
Ol
~
.,,
,;.,
+'
~
:p
::,
w
+'
vi
0 Cl.

E
0 u
/
>,
±'.
:p
::,
w
+'
vi
0 Cl.

E
0 u
/
-~
"'
:><
A
-
,rj
0 /
C
Ol
vi
w
A
If)
0 /
C
T
d
E
d
l-
o
+'
~
J
+'
u
d
u
A
(/)
w
£
,;
r--------T'""-----------------------,-----------------------------------1~ "'
CITY
OF

RIALTO,
OA.LIFOBNIA.
1-----------------------------------lo
~©!Mil~©~

li~
(!J]li

lL

liW
~[L~[N]
=a
1--------r---------------------r-------1°'
Huitt-Zollars,
Inc.

Ontario
DRAWN
BY:

SCALE:
3990

CONCOURS,
#330
*

ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA
91761
*
(909)
941-7799
H.Z.

STAFF

BASELINE
STORM
DRAIN
AS
SHOWN
8 1-----------------------IDESIGNED
BY:

BASIN

CONNECTION

ALTERNATIVES
1---D-A_TE_:
----I~
00 PREPAREO
UNDER
THE

SUPERVISION
OF,
JOHNNY
MURAD
H.Z.

STAFF
DCT
2018
~
t---,c,-,--H=E=cKC"CE=D---cB=Y-,---:
-+------------------------1-D-W_G_N_O~-----,I~
.
.:
2 0
J.M./R.C./M.H.
t;.
5 f
67512
R.C,E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES
DATE

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
SEE SHEET 4 BOTTOM RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 43+16.00
MATCHLINE STA. 56+37.00

SEE BELOW LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

CEDAR AVE

AYALA AVE

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 30+00.00
MATCHLINE STA. 43+16.00
SEE SHEET 2

BASELINE ROAD

FITZGERALD AVE

CAMPHOR AVE

JACKSON ST

IDYLLWILD AVE

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND
•
./
'
COMOHP
.P
HP
CO
M
l
OHP
...

OH
..--
_
..

GOU
i
I
-
1 I
I
,
Q.
,
.

T
J/
...,
"
"
..,...
, "
-
vnr
,
"
¥->
T
-
'
/
/
6"
STEEL
'°'
·
5"
STEEL
-
-
-
-
6"
STEEL
=
~
5"
STEEL
~
-
-
-
~
_
.:_::._:._
:::_.t,t-=-~~
G
~=,::
~C
,:j:_:
~
-
i==
=-=-
=
G
G
=
-
-11----
-
-
./
-G
G
------
G'~
,,-----G
--11'
/
_____
G
----
""
--'
,z
-
;._
:_,
.,-,
>f
_
:..._
i>,+
_
---G
_
__,,.
\
__
_
✓
_
G
::::::::-----..

G
/
G----
----
-
=-~
G
------G
I
--------------
Ji'-
"-:.___
-
\
CONG
~
i
G-
~
-
,.__~
-------==
=---G-----G
-==-.....:::c,.__,=~
G
~::::::=
--------
--
-==.:

G
~
--
,
A
~
s
P
P
t
r
,
-l
=::::::;
G
~~~~=-=-=-=-=-
-c---
_
-
_
--
~
c
c
=-===
~~
=
==
~
-
c-=
~
....______
-
~
"f
~
,
ASP
~
;,,
-
")
-
-
-
---:._:
'
-·
-
---::::::::
-----
~
-
~
-=.__
-
f-
l==.aa,
!Mt--
--tt-
--
_
-
+
ft.
f-
_
-
:
,-'-
H
'-'
~
;f;
~
-'
-1
-"'
0 :c.
4 27
_
"s
_
~
_
"_;,
.._
-
_
-tt-
l
-tt-
-
-"-2.
-,
_
~
27"s
1--
-----
27"s
_..;
__
-
~
24"
~
E~R
-
_
-
_
--
-+:_
,
-:_-::_
:
7 ..:::..._g.
_
,
,,_
c.
1 p
_
_
--+
--
_
-_
.
•
_
_
_
_
-
~
---.:::::
2t'',;
~
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
~
'r.,
'n'
?T.._y__
CP
,
SEWER
-
---"'j
~
.
_.:;
:-
.
_
55 II
".:
-
'
--
~
"
v
_S,.----
II
52 -
ci1
-
50 49
----
i>
27"S
ca==---=-
,2
'i'
,
's-
-
"'e:::
~
==-===--2
,7"'.,,
L
~
....._
:
27"
!
=--=--=-
~-
=
-
-
======
~
-9--
-===
=--
U'.S-S
---===...:
2~4
::!
"S
q
48 ~
z
46 ----------
45 -
"4
'4
-
-
12"
/
G
~
43 II
-
OHP
24"S
>
-
12 -
yf'-
SPH
G
I-
,.,
,,,-
l.
12"1
G
/
/
G
l
~
..

J
II
n'-
/
7'X7'
RCB
12"W
G
I
:
:,
,-.
--
---
-
12·w
G..c
-----G
CONG
\
--
,
ERED

BRUS'-'
'
I
<
I
i
i
0 OHP
·u
·
U
~
·~
-
G
G
.
...£.

G
24"S-
~
-
-
.,,,...
___
:=----
=
-
-
42 41
7'X7'
RCB
1 •
-·
/
•
·-
I
I
L
12"W
G
G
roNc
G
r
I

EXISTING
WATER
LINES

EXISTING
SEWER
LINES

EXISTING
STORM
DRAIN
LINES
1 ~
·
...
y
1 'f
V
(JJ
I
,
.

I
i

EXISTING
ELEC,
COM,
TEL,
&
OH
LINES

EXISTING
GAS
LINES

PROPOSED
STORM
DRAIN

ALIGNMENT
12"W
G
+
.
/1
/1
+--
.
.

G
<O
-
.,-,
UT
12 W
CONG
~
CONCr"'<--.
(
•
·U
7'X7'
RC
12·w
~
7"2:
"W
CONG
.
.
•
l
.
"1/L
....f
i
I_
-
lr-----....._l
1 1
~,~
~
-
-
~
---
~
"'
-
.,-,
N
.,.,
12"W
~
-
C:..
:

CONG
G
r
\
'
.
.,
,..
....
.
..

G
7'X71
RCB
CONG
12"W
G
-
-
12·w
G
ASPH
~
12·w

G------G
,
I
i
.
_,,,,.,,
_,,
'
7'X7'
RCB-
G
/

1. ':-N
12"W
12"W
-1
·
2 "
-

G------G
~
G
'-
12"
CMCL

STEEL--
-=~~---=-~
-
-
=--,
~
=-=
'=c=
"T
-=-=t
rr"'..1,...
-
-
....__
.-/-,
/
.........
<
-
'
,
l
u
~
D
?\
.,
F
.
'
~
j
·
,._
"
*
\~
~
ll
r
..'.::'J'REE'--,
-
..........
,
,,
~
12"w
~
0 ~
C
l
0 0
12"'11
·
u
-
ASPH
1rw
-----
~
' '
'
L
12"W
/_
2 12
~
/
12·
-
/
V
-
j
,
-
CONG
\
12·w
ft'
CMCL
STEEL
_
_,,_
.
.
-
/
(
\
OHP
-
_/
12"W
SEALED
MH
_
,TA
30-tOu
,1U/(1t
/
/
---
/_
E
C.
e,
-
'-'
(D
-
0 ru
r--
0 u
•
"'
(7

I
I
_
-
.
0 i
(
l,
I
n
"'
e,
0 POWER
POLE
GUY
WIRE
(ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
SITE
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT
ON
POWER
POLE
STREET
LIGHT
FIRE

HYDRANT

TRAFFIC
SIGN
WATER
VALVE
COVER

MANHOLE
WATER
METER

CENTERLINE
RIGHT
OF
WAY
0 20
40 80
'
'-'
I
SCALE
1"
=
40'
120
'
.;;
3 0
"'
d
_J
a,
~
.,,
;..
+'
~
~
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
"'
+'
+'
:::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"'
-
,rj
0 /
C
"'
vi
•
"'
"'
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f--
0 +'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"'
V,
•
£
r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 ,g
CITY
OF

RIALTO,

CALIFORNIA
t--------------------.;._------------------10
©@~~@~

1r1g
(U)1r

lL

1rW
~[Lffe.lNJ
:;
t:-:~~":".":---"'T'--------------------------------1°'
DRAWN
BY
:

BASELINE
STORM
DRAIN
SCALE:
-
H.Z.

STAFF
AS
SHOWN
o
t----------------------lDES
I
GNED
BY:

IDYLL
WILD
AVE
TO
CEDAR
AVE
1-:D:--,-A=TEc-:
----1:ii
H.Z.

STAFF
STA.
30+00.00
TO
56+37.00
OCT
2018
~
t:C;;;H-;-;E=;
C
;;:K;;::E,;;:D~B;::cYc;-:--t-------------------------+----~--J~ DWG
.

NO
.:
3 ef
J.M./R.C./M.H.
ti_
5 ±
HUITT-~_
Huitt-Zollars,
Inc.

Ontario

PREPARED
UNDER
THE
SUPER~~ON
OF,
JOHNNY
MURAD
67512
3990
CONCOU
R
S,
#330
•

ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA
91761
•
(90
9)
941-7799
R.C
.

E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES
DATE

SMOKE TREE AVE

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND

CAUTION AREA
SEE SHEET 5 BOTTOM RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 82+80.00
MATCHLINE STA. 96+02.00

SEE BELOW LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

MAPLE AVE

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 69+59.00
MATCHLINE STA. 82+80.00

SEE BELOW LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

LOCUST AVE

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 56+37.00
MATCHLINE STA. 69+59.00
SEE SHEET 3 TOP LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

LINDEN AVE

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

CEDAR AVE
./
I
II
'
f--(
''""'
2"
I-
·
-
·
-
-
-
·
,
rw
~
A
,
.
~
B
i
tN
,
'
a·w
s
·w
'
~
~
11 94
72"
R•
,
I
IA'i
\/
..
1 ,n
27"S
•
I
,
14(
1 0.10
-
-
~
I
~
--=
--t-
-
--
- -
-
- - - - -
- -
- - -
-
~
-~
w
12·w
12·w
~
----.....

I
./
(
l
_j
'
I
'
..
.
,
-
"
.
.
1/
,
r;:---,,{
1 .
·v
)
,..,...
'
~-
t
1 ·
·
·
···
,_
A
-
~
~)
.
'"""'
F
(
\
\,
)
'-.,
'
'
\.
)
F
'
•
.,__.,,,
.
f
'
I
.I
...,_
\.
\
'
J
'
_..,
( '
J"'
C
0 }
'
'-
f
,(",
l
l
"
'
.,
---,
..
-
'
'
(
\.

J
1 \
J"'
..f
•
r..._
l
{
,'
I.
"'
)
~
'
'
,
......
~
J
"
\
-,,
..,
..l
)__,.
...
.f.1
"1.
l
l\
a·w
93 '
27 "
VCP
SEWER
•
"
"
'
(
'\
8 11
W
91 't.

J
'
'-
f
"
,
CAI
1eRED
BRUSH
[
j
"
(
1 t:_
CM
~
L
S
TJ
E
I,_--
'J
/,>-j--,
~
_:w
-
.
_,,_
TT"W
,a_j
:n'/
~
.
a·
w-=
a"w
)l(
a·w
.
a
·~
a
·
w
--
-··
'T
1"W
~
8"

ASBESTOS
»
=
'
/
l
CONC
1 rw-:
86 ~
"
B"W
85 \.
.I
•
'T
1"W
B
"
W
90 "-_,/
89 ~
...L
88 •·n"
87 "-..
•L."
RC
•
~~
±-..c
·
'
"
72"
R•
P
27"S
-
.,,
,
*
-
,:::-
~
-
.'
1 ""2r
~~
-
-:.
,
·uo-
,
'
.
,
a
·
,
i
;.!
,
J
~
'
,
'
,
_
L'
""
F'
c:.:..
,
•;a
>
-:
'
>PG
.
-
-
~
~
~
-
,.
\Z
-
,
J
Z
•
~
..
~
.
--,,.,,.
~
-
-=-
=F
::.+===

27.i
~-=
~
o
'.
".~,
1i
.
=
..,
!
_'I
=
~
i
~
-,.
.,-,,,
~
::.:i:J
ffi
.
~
l.lfi
_
__
Q
'i:
d'.
_
""=L
_,
_
_
'i._
_
.=--
1;1ct,.j:.::g
'-
:
--
.'.:..
~
--
z,
""'
'
~
""
-
-
~
-
__/
_______
L
_
~
_
'-"
~
-
'
G
=-t
d
~~'="
-
'wt
L
~H
'
t'
~
J
-
'\.-
..._,,
~
f
U
-
~
K
,,
'
8"W
84 ,,
-w
"
"
'
'
o
•
,.,
83 ,
,,_-=l
~
-
~
;;=-;;~
-
STA
92+70
oo
-
~
....---'
STA
87+70
/
~
~
=.G..::

G---
=
~-G
G
-e:
-~---
G.=
----
=-C.=
----
=-G
=
==
~
~:::'=~==
-;;;-;;;=
==

G------G------G-----
1-'>.,
't:

G
G

G------G
===
:::::;;
:;:;
~~====
=,;
G
,2·w------
12"w------12"w
12 .:,.W-:::::
-----
12"w
12"w
Hc
'
w
V
,2·w---
-
--
12"w------12
·
w
/
,
~
CITY
BOUND
~
;
~
LINt::
,
\
-
~'JA
W
12"
:
2''
CMCL
STEEL
~
;
;,-
2 •
w
~
12 :
~
-
,=
---
-11
::,
t/
w
(
1 ,
CONC
.
r
1 ~·,:i,_
'~
e
I
'
I
/J
l
,
n
'F
i;;;--;J..
,
r
....
.
'
....
'
/~
<
JI
VVl'IV
,
<,
J
//
-•
'
r
I--..
l
l
(
1 CONC
~
-
--
l
"'
.
'
"
.
1f\
'-,.,,..f1,,
I
,--fl
RU
SH--
'
J
\,
J~.r'

SCATTERED
BRUSH
(
K-J
'--.J
\
\J
.._,,
\.....)
f
l
.
...J
~
-
~
I
I
-------~
:
:
r::
.
~~-~,
~
~-
....
,.,
.......
~T""'1
,,ll.;
~--,.
f
'
\ J
.
,
J=..--""----.-:'
~)
.,_,,
(
1 I
\
I
1 -.......

I
"'
~H
ff
,
,
'
'
,
,.,.
\
t
·~
'
,·
/
.,,
J
"
F
t
...,__

1...,Up,1l,
,-./
CONC
"-
(,
1 ,
"
-.../
'
l
/4
(
3 ~
"
=
81 *
-----=--.r-
•
-
-
·
-
-
- -
-
-
-~
~
._
t
-
-
17"W
80 17"W
,&_
,,,
17"W
.
,
.
u
_
17"W
,,
1 7"W
----.....
o,
I
17"W
76 +-7"-
W
/5
ASPH
:j,?
"W
·
-17"
CMCL
STEEL
:'\
·
·,
·
F
72"
RCP
-1
72"
RCP-
F
/
27 I
3 J"
27"S
27"S
'
~
~
r,-
f:

Jry
27"
VCP
SEWER
,
~
'27
~
~
yrs.,
==r
=
'°
L
.lb.
"2
7"S
"'j"""
-
'"2
7?
·
-
7'
rS"i'
~
•
·
v
s-c
'
~
c
~
~
Tl
I
/
7 8"
c~cL
~
STEEL
k>f'
~
~
-
::
-
-
-
{
L'
"
-
-MH
::
~
-
~
<.:
v
q;
Q
a~
~
v
D..L
~
-0
U
+:....,,
'
,
~
_J_
td-
"
~
_,,
=M
;=-f
F
~Q
-
:.::;-_
:
:
~
z
__,,_.
____

G------G------G
G
STA
79+60
4 -----
~
A
lf'
~
"'
----G
-->
~
------G------,G
~==;;:;:::::~~~
G
f=::'.==
.-=!
===
:-
-----G
STA
74+60
/
____
G
'
,,
12 "
<1'.
'
-
;-
=
]:~
~
1 ~
·
~
-w
!'..::=====~
,
1 ~
.
"w-·---
~=
12 •
w
-
;~;::;::;;;::;;;;;;;::fi
12 ~
·w
~
.
~~~::::::
;:;
c.J
",l
z;
ww
::::.=====:
-
1 1
.
z:.
w
12·w------12·w
1 2
:
w
~
12·w------12·w
1 2
:
w
1 -
-
-
7 ~
-
-
-12"w
·
,
~
7 ~
I
~
~
I-
~
-
~
12"W-
fX',
_-
z
-'
----;
''-
----
I
_
J-
---
~
-j
fi'
1r
l
f2
~
/
/
-
,
,,
~
-
,
,:~J
,"""';
,.,
~
~
C
=
,.
=
-
"F""T=""
~

l
-
~
:
e
_,~o
~
~
v
h
o;
r
1 ~'
,
_
"
~
...
:
·,._
I-
~
,-
-
'
-
rl
_/
(
1390
~
~
,,4::::;,,__'_"':'!J/
_
_:,.
1 \
1=
~
<
~
)
..t}')
~
"'1
1 I
'
'i
r.:,
0 ~
\_-
'
I
/
I
\
Cf
~
:--....
t?
,,
l,
Q
I
r""\..
-
,'\t.)
<.
.1
_j]
/
'\;
A.
_
ri'-"
,,,......_.,
..
,~
11 ,r-...,
I
I
'
,
rl
I
l
__ll
r,
I
\
11,.,
\,
,..,CONC
(
J
Jf
h
=
-
rl
,,
"
"
I I
l
-
l
CONC
'
.J
,._
,,__
V
_
,p
_
o_O
_,
L;•
1 ~~/-<::::::.,__,.:::=:-T]7'-~1),r:~1
,
),
lrs::::-:;;a1f-~
-
A
-
,~-M_~
l
(__.--,
1 ,CON(
y
)
lx1
....
r~
,.,
,,,--,
(
l
,
·,
§
r
\
~
(
I
'"'\.
y"'c:--~--~-=--tr-,
'c7
\
tu)\,~::
~
CONC
(
J
'·)~~~
~
~~
I
'
I
CTV
\
-....

L
T
'~---"
"
'
/
1 CUNL,;
~
-
E
C.
e,
-
'"'
(D
-
0 ru
nL
..,
OHP
r.,
..__
0,
,-,
"-
6"
STEEL
.
>i'-
.
.
.
~
·
---=-
---
"
\
___
~
_
_g~_g_
__
./,
G
"-.____
'"
-
-
-
~
I
-------
6"
STEEL""-
"'
--------
)I(
-
30•
RC"
~
\
r--
0 ,------G--....::,
""s::°
__
G
-..,
---'
::....
==
=l:G
c=:
=:
t-
--G------G-----
-J,rr,l
~
~
"'
~
""'"
---G------G
~
G-
G-...::::
"'-=-
--G---
-'tl-
--G------
--:::---_
G
6"
STEEL
=
-t-
---G------G
•
~
'fl
s
;
---
~
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-:-;f
<lo=a
;
,,,_,
.,.L.
.,,-
:=!_
1 ~
8'
:_
'
'i!_
VC
~
P
~
~~
l
r
f.
-
~'lf-
f
!
R
21·s
~
~
~
21•
:
'X7'
RCB
21 ~
z
t"
s
s-
==
~
==.-=.
-:-
-
_~
-
~
.,
A
~
-
~
60 ~
~
1•
VCP
SE
~
1 -
·
s--=
===
-....
===
------
c-
:2
:r
"
-
,
,
.
-
~
-
ASPH
-
•.
s
'
,
~
-
G
_
\
~
\
\
____
G-
~
u
•
"
12'
'.W
l
"""""-
j\
\\
·-.

J.'
,
~
~
1 I
#
,,?
l
't"
~
MH
'
CONC
(
.,....-
V
r
1 1
2"
CMCL
STEEL
~
'
-"=
"-
=
l
f
=
=l
==__,.,=
i'i
lfV:O
.
1 _
:;
_
TA
6 .

B+
_A-!
,
1/
U
.
u
.
~
~
-
?I
.1
0 ASBESTOS
~
"-,1
~j
~
!
?
;
<
~
~
:
:
+¥<
,
'
0 ~
0 ----
POWER
POLE
GUY
WIRE
(ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
S
I
TE
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT
ON
POWER
POLE
STREET
LIGHT
FIRE

HYDRANT

TRAFFIC
SIGN
WATER
VALl/f.

COl/f.R

MANHOLE
WATER
METER

CENTERLINE
RIGHT
OF
WAY
CITY

BOUNDARY
LINE
(
i,-
67 ~
~
66 _______

1.'.
6 ~
5 ;:=
j::
.
=
-
=
:-;:;
t
:;=
,,,
+
===::.1
6 :)'.
4 ~
====
::t=-'=t.
~~
-
---63.-----
~
-
~
~
2•
',
-='..
--
-=
--
~
,,--
B
r
-2
-----
~
~
:::
6_Q
:=l:
=
_.,..,
~
-
~
-
,;a
~::_
"
:::_
;2
~
-
-59
I
/
-
,,,,.
--
.,;i;-
-
513
.?
..
57 ..::
/
_
\
\
\
/
°'
..,
0 .;;
3 0
>,
d
.J
-
" "
I
7'X7'
RC
/
~
,
I
~
..----::;:-
n
"'
✓
12"W-
G
-
-
==
====
==
-
1 _
2"W
-
--
~
~
=-
-
12"W
-
~-
-
--12n
_.-
12"W--
-+--+-
-
-
12"W
G----
_
--
G
-
G
~
-
-
-----
,;_
-
_
-
__...=
-
~~
-
-G------
;
-+-
----
.
-G
~
F
~
(ON{
.....,,,_
(
J
\,
]/
/~~
)
~
l
~
v-1
t
.~
)
(I.

EXISTING
WATER
LINES
EXIST
I
NG
SEWER
LINES

EXISTING
STORM
DRAIN
LINES

EXISTING
ELEC,
COM,
TEL,
&
OH
LINES

EXISTING
GAS
LINES

PROPOSED
STORM
DRAIN

ALIGNMENT
-
0 20
40 BO
120
!
1_
1 '-~'
SCALE
1 " -
40'
a,
~
.,,
;..
+'
~
~
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
>,
+'
+'
::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"
-
,rj
0 /
C
"'
vi
•
"'
"'
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f-
0 +'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"
V,
•
£
r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 ,g
CITY
OF

RIALTO,

CALIFORNIA
t--------------------,;._------------------10
©@~~@~

1r1g
(U)1r

lL

1rW
~[Lffe.lNJ
:;
t:-:~~":".":----r------------------------..--------1°'
DRAWN
BY:

BASELINE
STORM
DRAIN
SCALE:
-
H.Z.

STAFF
AS
SHOWN
a
t-----------------------lDES
I
GNED
BY:

CEDAR
A
VE
TO
LOCUST
A
VE
1-:
0 ,..,.A=TE,...:
----1:ii
~
H.Z.

STAFF
STA.
56+37.00
TO
96+02.00
OCT
2018
"'
t:C:;;H-;;E=;C;;:K:;::E,;;:0~8;::cYc;:--t--------------.::....=--=.-=--=-=::.::.c=...::.._ __
+----~--J~
DWG
.

NO
.:
4 ef
J.M./R.C./M.H.
ti_
5 ±
HUITT-~-
Huitt-Zollars.

Inc.

Ontario
3990

CONCOURS,
#330
•

ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA
91761
•
(909)
941-7799

PREPARED
UNDER
THE
SUPER~~ON
OF,
JOHNNY
MURAD
67512
R.C
.

E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES
DATE

SEE BELOW LEFT

SEE ABOVE RIGHT

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA. 96+02.00
MATCHLINE STA. 122+45.00
MATCHLINE STA. 122+45.00
MATCHLINE STA. 109+23.00
MATCHLINE STA. 109+23.00
SHEET 4 TOP LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CAUTION AREA

TAMARIND AVE

ALDER AVE

BASELINE ROAD

LAUREL AVE

LOCUST AVE
LEGEND

CAUTION AREA
~
/
-CB
#2
"'
W=21',
V=6.6'
~F
GRATE:3
0 p

SCATTERED
BRUSH
CONG
1i7.
n
I
"2:S'
W
"
.
/
/
12"
VCP
SEWER
----
,
-
_
-
11"w
-=
6''RCP=
J
66"
RC,
"W
15"W
MH
:,
TA
134+60
15"\
~
8 -~
~
I
f
W
_,..
-=====
"
==
=t
=======--
(;,

RELOCATE
6"
WATER
(
10 0')
_
~i"-..
,
FE
~
FH
-
12·s
-
7 MH
,
d..

STA
132+70
-
~
t;I
w
"'
I
,_
.J-
---/?
-
'Hn
~
109
1 '-'
·
,
.,_
_:
1 <
,
...__
/
~
C,P
,
/
M;
J
"
"['rffl
l,
's
.---'
'
'-
~
/
\
l
OS,:_
,---llS
'-~-.il~.1
rJ
cc~E-D
..
~RUSP
\
~
,
I
_
I
~
I
....
..
:
1 "
,
~
1 ~
'
.
~
o
I
8"
WATER

RELOCATION
,
-
:=:::::,
-
H
-
I
;
I
r----\:-_
'
/
Ii
l)
l
'""('
12"
CMCL
STEEL
L
-
I
/
:
~
'-
\
+
'
8"
VCP
SEWER
Jr,
I
~
I
_.,
c
~
~
)
,
L
i
/
~
~
~
I..
)
'
)
l
,
7U/j
-n6"
RCP
.,
"-=
=c:w~=
=
=::a:1
-,i,
--1b-
;,
"'~
:..j...
·
_j.'
\,
_j...
_
..
~
24"S
·
--
-
•-
-
I
'
?$
I
"
------MH
·-
,,
~
Sh
108+23
'
,....,.,
,
-
·-
7 0
I
-
17'"n
C
U
J
'
24 .,
5 ,,..-
24 "
VCP
S
-==
~
20 40
I_I
-
"
'
'
s
-
~
-
'
-
,
BO
120
1---..JI
SCALE
1"
=
40'
'
~
'
<
-
L./
12:
"
W
-
0 ,
1 -
\
_,
15"W
-
<O
CONG
'
\.
j
f
17"W
'"
,V
.OHP

V
-
1 -
7"'"'
~,
•
12"
S:,
12 11
S
-
~
T
.1
12"S
-
-
15"W
\
-
:1:

S-"W
-
u
/
I
370'
OF
8"
WATER

RELOCATION
CITY
OF
RIAL
TO
_,,_
-
·
-
/
-
\
m~
-
_
·
-
.
l
_,,_
W=14
'
,
V=5.5'
!1'-oaa
,
_
__
o
_
15 ..,
"
.
;"'-
c
_
M
_
C
~
L
-
.i.
·
~
ll'
-
TE
-
E
_
L
==
-.....,
~
=
=
=-'
ll>I
25 .
~
..,,
-·
;,--
17"
CMCL
STEEL
_.,,
,k
'\
(S§iJ
>
-25"
CMCL
STEEL
,k.
___
-
~
&
~
,-
_!_
1/0
~
F
~
G
:

R
~
A
~
TE
~
:
:
2 :::
"
t
•
~
·w
;;
:i:;
~
•
~
~~
~
15 ~
•w
;
·
•
g,~
i
~
-
l
-
,
7 •.
,
.
:
=
:::
:::::::::::~
:::i
,
f
::;::
=
;;:
;rr-,
==~22!5i'.'.!"W~==
;;~
=
=
==
=-
-
25"W
----=::--=-=:-=--::
"'
~
~
~
~
/
:;;;:c,~
25 ~
"
'!/-
w
==:;;;:=
-=:-=--::::--::
~i;:::f
=-:=
25"W--
-t
----
-=
~
-
25"W
.,
....
,
I
1t"'W
I
~v
"
-
f-2
¥
"-
tllf'N-"
-
=f-
27 -=
1-26
-
-
f-25--
-
-
-f-2,f-
"-.
136
"
RCP-
~
.
66"
R•
•
,
66"
RCP
~
~
,
~
~
12"5
12"S
12·s
-----
.

V
MH
~
'
15"W
-S
TA
127+7
fl=...
1S"W
-
-
15 "
W
G
\
G
@
I
W
f5"ff
-
·-.,
15"W
-
-
-
u
"
-
·u
'
.
-
-
=-l-2
""'
15"W
=-4-2
"'"'
5"W
"
-
~
1{'""'
-
,,_
-
_
____
_
,___
'
AC-riH
.__
25"
CMCL
STEEL
25·
w=
=
=
====
:M
''H
-
+
-
~
w
,.,
e===:
=I
STA
122+70
7'
/
~
•
~
15"
CMCL
STEEL
\_CITY

BOUNDARY
LINE
"
'-
17"
CMCL
STEEL
7"
✓
'
CITY
OF

FONTANA
...
,.,
H:,w
---
-~.,
~
-
·
-
'
<
-
"
'
f
)I
~
7 V'
'
ASPH

12. "
W
I.Ob
=:::::::__1
rw
72"
RC
I
-
I
I
'--..;
"-
rnNr
I
I
(
.J
;
__,,
/
'
,
'
..
-
_,,,
·u
..

OHP
\
~CONG
~
"-...,,-
l"\
1 :7"'
CONG
~
(
77"'
~
I
,
'
'
I
-
..
-
,
17"
CM
CL
STEEL
OHP
__J
o
'
_,
-
"

~
17"
CMCL
's1
TEEL
OHf'
OH
~
-
"
'
oOOoo
__
]
\
;;uo
br-
"""
_/
17"
CMCL
STEEL
CB
/fl
---
t
----
17"
CMCL
STEEL
.:>
.,,.,-
"

OHP------OHP-
-11
/H

SCATTERED
BRU:
/\
CITY
OF
RIAL
TO
./'TV
'"
~
)/
17"W
t_
[Q
ASPH
17"~
,_
-
-
=
-
-
-
)
OHP
~
--1e'-",...-~------=--
----
C
t
~O~~--~Z_
.
-
--
-
--
..
'
E
C.
e,
-
'"'
(D
-
0 ru
r--
0 '
,,
~-
""
'rJJ
~--
✓
'
(
\'
)
./
,
nNc.---
,CB
#6
~
-
(_
:
_)
~_r
W
14',
V 5
.
6'
'1-"'"11
1 ·
"-f
\._j
I
/
(
~
#OF
GRATE:2~
~
W
14',
V

6.4 F
GRATE
:
2 '
~
'
u
•
"
°'
.,
-
W4
CON
I
0 C
----
-
l
--···

_:,;:_-
,
_,.
r-..

I
>
~
36"RCP
~
"-C'DLJ
'-
I
l
I
<
POWER
POLE
GUY
WIRE
(ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
SITE
LIGHT
'
STREET
LIGHT
ON
POWER
POLE
STREET
LIGHT
FIRE

HYDRANT
I.I
.
\
\
'
.
~
,.
!>t..
---
,
I
_
rnNr
"
17"W
nil
17"W
/UU
"
'
,
17"'"'
17"W
gg
-
'O"
RCP
,
·w
--
98 ~
72"RCP
=-
+
'
I
I
'
CONG
\
EX
I
STING
WATER
LINES

EXISTING
SEWER
LINES

EXISTING
STORM
DRAIN
LINES
-
.r--
J

EXISTING
ELEC,
COM,
TEL,
&
OH
LINES

EXISTING
GAS
LINES

PROPOSED
STORM
DRAIN

ALIGNMENT
CONG
y
j
l"W
;
1 L"
RC
f
COM-
\
0 {
r
"'
-D
-
coNc
\
0 .;;
3 0
>,
d
..J
a,
~
.,,
;.,
+'
~
~
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
>,
+'
+'
::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"
-
lri
0 /
C
"'
vi
•
"
.,
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f--
0 +'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"
V,
•
£

TRAFFIC
SIGN
r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 .g
WATER
VALVE
COVER

MANHOLE
WATER
METER

CENTERLINE
RIGHT
OF
WAY
CITY

BOUNDARY
LINE
HUITT-~_
Huitt-Zollars,
Inc.

Ontario
CITY
OF

RIALTO,

CALIFORNIA
t--------------------.;._------------------10
©@~~@~

1r1g
(U)1r

lL

1rW
~[Lffe.lNJ
:;
t:-:~~":".":----r--------------------------------1°'
DRAWN
BY:

BASELINE
STORM
DRAIN
SCALE:
-
H.Z.

STAFF
AS
SHOWN
a
t----------------------lDES
I
GNED
BY:

LOCUST
AVE

TAMARIND
A
VE
1--:D,..,.A=Tlc,...:
----1:ii
~
H.Z.

STAFF
STA
96+02.00
TO
134+00.00
OCT
2018
"'
t:C;;;H-;-;E:-;C;;:K;;::E,;;:D~B;::cYc;-:--t------------'-'--'---"---=---'=-=-=---'=-=:..:..:=-::__ __
+----~--1~
DWG.

NO
.:

S
ef
J.M./R.C./M.H.
ti_
5 ±
3990

CONCOURS,
#330
•

ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA
91761
•
(909)
941-7799

PREPARED
UNDER
THE
SUPER~~DN
DF,
JOHNNY
MURAD
67512
R.C
.

E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES
DATE

APPENDIX 2

AIR QUALITY
and GHG
IMPACT
ANALYS
E
S

H
Z
-
1 16

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

CITY OF
RIALTO
, CALIFORNIA

Prepared by:

Giroux & Associates

1800 E Garry St., #205

Santa Ana, CA 92705

Prepared for:

Tom Dodson &
Associates

Attn: Kaitlyn Dodson

2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue

San Bernardino, California 92405

Date:

April
15 , 2019

Project No.: P1
9 -
0 09

ATMOSPHERIC SETTING

The climate of western San Bernardino County, as with all of Southern California, is governed

largely by the strength and location of the semi
-
permanent
high
-
pressure

center over the Pacific

Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic

conditions are characterized by ver
y warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate

daytime on
-
shore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic

conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of

the
local
atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population

and
industry attracted in part by the climate.

Rialto is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles

basin undergo photoche
mical reactions and then move inland across the project site during the

daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives western San Bernardino County some

of
the worst air quality in all of California. Fortunately, significant air quality improve ment in

the
last decade suggests that healthful air quality may someday be attained despite the limited

regional
meteorological dispersion potential.

Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter because they control

both
the
initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as controlling

their
regional trajectory. Winds across the project site display a very unidirectional onshore flow

from
the southwest
-
west that is strongest in summer with a weak
er offshore return flow from the

northeast that is strongest on winter nights when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore

winds during the day average 6
-
10 mph while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly

westward at 1
-
3 mph.

During the daytime, any locally generated air emissions are readily transported northeastward

toward Cajon Pass without generating any localized air quality impacts. The nocturnal drainage

winds which move slowly across the area have some potential for loc alized stagnation, but

fortunately, these winds have their origin in the adjacent mountains where background pollution

levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any unhealthful impacts.

In conjunction with the two characteristic w
ind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of

horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that

control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. The summer on -
shore flow is

capped
by a

massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air.

These
marine/subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local

mixing of
emissions, but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the ba sin until it

escapes into the
desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain slopes.

In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation

inversions
are formed that trap low
-
level emissions such as a
utomobile exhaust near their source.

As
background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the

combination of rising non
-
local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation

inversions creates micro
-
scale

air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other

traffic concentrations in coastal areas of the Los Angeles Basin. Because the nocturnal airflow

across the project site has its origin in very lightly developed areas of the San Gabriel Mountains,

background pollution levels at night in winter are very low in the project vicinity. Localized air

pollution contributions are insufficient to create a "hot spot" potential when superimposed upon

the clean nocturnal baseline. The combination of
winds and inversions are critical determinants

in
leading to the degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in winter in

the
project area.

AIR QUALITY SETTING

A
MBIENT
A
IR
Q
UALITY
S

TANDARDS
(AAQS)

In order to gauge the
significance of the air quality impacts of the
proposed project, those

impacts,
together with existing background air quality levels, must

be compared to the applicable ambient
air quality standards
. These standards are the levels of air quality considere d safe, with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened b
y other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.

National AAQS were established in

1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods.

The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality proble m areas
like Southern California. In

2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year

2021. Because
the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because
of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California a
re shown in Table

1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2.

The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently kn own health effects.

EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate.

EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+

hours per day) and for
very small diameter particulate matter (called "P
M
-

2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in
1997 for these pollutants.

Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM -

2.5 and for ozone (8
-
hour) were
challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S.

Supr
eme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -
based standards did not require
preparation of a cost
-
benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, tha
t there was some
inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment
-
planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -
hour ozone standard. EPA
subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainmen
t designation for a large number of communities
to “non
-
attainment” for the 8
-
hour ozone standard.

Table
1 Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
Ave
r
a
g
i
n
g
Call
for
n
la
St
a
nd
a
rd
s
1 Na
tl
o
n
a
l
Sta
n
dard
s
2 P
o
ll
u
t
an
t
T
i
me
Co
n
c
e
n
tr
a
ti
o
n
3 M
e
t
h
od
1 P
r
i
mary
3 .>
Sec
o
n
da
ry
"
·
"
M
e
t
h
od
'
I
H
o
u
r
0 .
09 p
p
m
(
I
SO
µg
,
;,,
·
'
)
-
O
z
o
n
e(03)'
U
"
ra
v
i
o
l
e-
t
Same
es
U
l
tre•
.1
i
~
e
f
8 H
ou
r
0 .
0 7
0 p
p
r
n
t
:
1 3
7 1,1
g
:'n
r°'
)
P
h
o
;
o
m
e
try
0 .
0 7
0 wn
(
137
µ
g:
n
r'
)
P
r
i
m
a
r
/
S
ta
n
d
ard
P
hoto
m
e
t
r
y
Resp
i
r
ab
l
e
24 H
o
u
r
50 µg
f
rn
1 15
0 ~
I
Q
•
'r
ll
1 l
n
e
n
ia
l
S
e
~ra
t
i
o
n
Part
i
c
ula
te
Gr
a
·
~
i
rne
tr
i
c
o
r
S
a
ni
e
.:.s
a
n
d
·
~
ra
\•
im.
e
1 r
i
c
M
att
e
r
(
PM1
0 )
9 An
n
u
.J
I
20 1Jg
r
rn
3 B.:
t
a
Att
e
n
u~
fon
P
r
i
m
a
r
1 S
t
a
n
d
a
rd
A
n
al
y
si
:s,
A
ri
th
me
t
i
c
M
:
,
m
-
Fi
ne
2 4
H
o
u
r
35 ~
9 1
m>
S
.::i
ni
e
,:.s
-
-
P
r
i
m
a
r
1 S
ta
n
d
a
rd
I
n
e
rt
i
a
l
S
e
para
t
i
o
n
P
art
i
c
ula
te
Ma
tt
e
r
a
n
d
G
ra
v
i
m
e
i
r
i
c
An
n
u
a
l
1 2
~
9 f
m'
Gr
t
w
i
r
ne
b
·
i
c;
o
r
1 2
.
0 µ
g
i
m
l
1 5
µ
g
/
m
·'
,

4. n
al
)
'
S
i
:S.
(
PM
2 .
5 )
9 Ari
th
n1e
t
i
c
M~
a
n
S;ta
Att
~
n
u
afo
n
1 H
o
u
r
2 0
pp
m
(
23 m
g
:
m
'
);
J
S
p
p
in
(
4 0
1 ng
l
m
')
)
-
Ca
r
bo
n
N
o
n
-
O
is
j)
@f'
S
i
V
&
N
o-
r
-.

O
i
s
~
rs
i
v
•
M
o
n
o
x
i
de
8 H
our
~
.
o
~
m
(
1 0
m
g
l
in
'
)
I
n
f
ra
r
ed
P
h
ot
o
n
-.;
tt
y
9 p
p
m
(
1 O
,
r,;i
f
m
'
)
-
l
n
fo
u
e
d
P
h
o
t
o
m
E1
:
r
1 '
(
CO
)
(
N
D
IR;
(
N
D
I
R
)
8 H
ou
r
{
Ls
k
e-
Ts
ho
-e
.)
0 pp
m
(
7 rrg
/
m-..)
-
-
N
itr
og
e
n
·
1 H
o
u
r
0 .1
8 p
p
m
(
S$
9 µg
i
m
'
i
1 0
0 p
p!>
(
1 e-3
~
g
:
m
'
)
-
D
i
o
x
i
d
e
Gas
Pl
\
:1
s.
e
Ga
s
P'
o
ase
(
N
0 z
)
'
0 An
OI
J
i.

I
o
.
0 3
0 p
r,
11 (
5 7
µg
,
i
n
.
'
l
Ch
em
i
'
u
m
il
•
s,ce,
n
c
&
o
.
o
s
3 wn
i10
0 µ
g
:n
,
·
1 1
Sa
m
e
S.
i'
C
h
&
n
i
l
u
m
i
n
es
cen
oe
Ari
th
n1e
t
i
c
M
e
an
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
S
ta
n
d
a
rd
1 H
ou
r
o
.
25 p
p
m
(
6 55
µg
,
i
n
.
'
J
7 5
p
pb
(
1 96
l
1 Q
it
n
1 )
-
0 .
5 ~
1"11
Ui
t
r
t
r
v
i
o
l
e
t
3 H
o
u
r
-
-
Fl
oure
sc:nc:
;
S
u
l
f
u
r
Dioxide
U
I
1 rs
v
i
o
l
e
-:
(
I30
G
~
g
.'
m
'
J
(S
O
t)'
1 F
t
u
Q-l'
noe
n
oe
0 .
14 p
pm
~i:edr
o
p
h
otom
e
tr
y
2 4
H
o
u
r
o
.
04 p
p
m
(
1 05
µg
,
i
n
.
'
J
-
{
P
a
r
a
r
o
sa
n
i
l
i
ne
(
f
er
ce;
rta
L
1 are
a.
s
t
M
e
t
ho
d
\
A
n
n
ua
l
-
0 .
030
p
p
m
-
Ar
i
th
me
t
i
c
M
ea
n
(
f
er
ce
m:i
L
1 ar
ea.
s
f
30 03
f
A-,
1 a
r
~;,a
1 .
5 1,,1g
k
n:
"
-
-
Le
a
d
1 2
·
'
;
C::i
~
n
d
a
r
O
u
a
rter
1 .
5 µ
g
/
m
·
i
H
i
gh
V
o
l
u
me
-
A
t
cm
i
~
.

A.b
i
o
r
p
ti
on
(
f
er
ce,
m:i
L
1 area
s
)
1 ~
t-.a
m
p
l
er
a.
n
d
A
t
o
m
i
c
Same
ss
A
b
s
o
r
p
1 io
n
Ro
ll
i
n
g
~
M
o
n
t
h
P
r
i
m
a
r
/
S
ta
n
d
ard
A,
•
ar~ga
-
0 .
1 5
µ
g
r'
m
'
V
is
i
b
ili
t
y
Be
~
a
A
tt
e
n
u
a
t
i
on
a
rKI
Red
u
c
in
g
8 H
o
u
r
S
ee
f
ootn
ot
e
·
1 4
T
ra
n
s
m
i
tt
e.
n
c
•
N
o
Part
i
c
l
es
14 t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Fi
l
t
,e;
r
T
a
~
S
u
l
f
a
tes
2'
H
o
u
r
251-1g
r
m
'
l
cn
C
h
r
on
1 .::tog
r
.::p
h
y
Na
tio
n
a
l
H
y
d
r
og
e
n
1 H
ou
r
0 .
0 3
P
P
•
•
(
4 2
µg
l
m
'
)
U
11 r
a
v
i
o
l
e
;
S
u
lf
i
de
F
t
u
oresc:e
n
ce
S
t
an
dar
ds
V
i
n
y
l
2'
H
o
u
r
0 .
0 1
p
p
m
(
26 1->3
/
m
1 ;
G
a
s
Cll
l
or
l
de
1 ~
C
h
rorn
:,togr~ph
y
S
ee
f
oo
tn
ot
e
s
on
next
pag
e
..
.
.1-
ti
l'
m
o
t
•
e
iu
lb
1 ·
w
:1
1i
u
u
J
>
l
e:t'it'
l'
:
d
l
~
\.KH-.f10
:
~
(
(
!
>
16 )
3 2
2-

2.99 0
C
:
dil'
o
r
n
i
n
Air
R
e
-s
u1u-.
:
es
llo
1 1
n
l
(
5 1
4 /
1 6
)
Table 1 (continued)

1 .
c:
::.
.l
i
fo
m
i
a
st
a
n
,
fa
r
d:.
fo
r
l
'l
7 o
n
-:.
c
a.
r
b
(in
n
l
on
o
x
i
d
~
(
accp
t
S
-
h
o
u
r
I
.
a
ke
r
a
h
l
~
},
s
u
l
fil
r
d
i
o
x
i
d
e
(
1 a
n
d
2 ·1
h
o
nr
),
n
i
t
ro
g
e
n
d
i
o
x
i
,k
,
a
nd
p
a
n
k
u
l:t
l
i.:
ll
lil
l
h
.:
r
(
1-'
(
V
l
1 0.
l'
M
2 .
.5.
a
m
l
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
r
c
1 h
1 ci
11 g
p
a
r
t
i
d
..
•
s
)
.
~
m.:
v
a
h
1 t:
:.
l
h
a
l
mi.:
11 0
1 IO
h
e
..:
x
ccc
d
...:
d
.
/\II
o
l
hL
'TS
;
m
.:
1 1
o
t
h
>
h
...:
c
c
1 11
.a
h:
1 l
m
i.:

X
~
'
i.:
\)(k
d.
(
:
tl
i
fomi
a
m
n
h
i
c
n
l
a
i
r
q11
.
a
l
i
l
y
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
l.
,;
a
n
;
U
i
s
t
cc
l
i
n
l
hi.:

T
:i
.
h
k
n
l'
S
1 :
11 11
l
:
ml
-;
i
u
S
~t
·
l
iu
n
i
020
0 l
)
f
Ti
1 k
1 i
o
f
th
e
C
a
l
if
o
rn
ia
Co
d
e
o
f
R
eg
1 ~
a
t
i
o
J1S
.
2 .

Nat
io
na
l
s
mn
d
a
r
d
s
(
ot
h
er
t
ban
o
z
o
n
e
.
p
a
rti
c
u
l
ate
n,,ne
r
,
a
n
d
c
l
t
o
,
e
ba
5 e
d
e>
n
annu
a
l
a
r
i
t
l
u
u
e
ti
c
mea
n
)
a
r
e
.
n
N
,
e>
b
e
ex
ceed
e
d
m
o
re
tbau
0111:
i.:
a
y
.:
a
r
.

T
h
-:
t>
:t
O
l
h
.:
s
l
a
rnl:
in
l
i
s
a
ll
a
i
rn
.:
i
l
whi.:
11 tlt
c
l"
h
t
ff
lli
h
i
g
h
-c
:--
l
S
-
ll
om
t'
(
1t1
<:c
11 1
r
:i
l
i
o
n
11 1
c
a
su
n
.:
cl
:
1 J
c
a
d
,
!-.
i
i...:
i
11 ;
t
y
..:a
r
,
a
,..i.:
rn
,
g
c
cl
ov
e
r
1 l
ir
ee
.
y
e
:
1 rs
,
i
s
c
t
1 11
a
)
10 01
l
e
:--
s
0 1
:
11 1
1 l
1 c
:--
1 .
m
1 d:
m
l.

F
rn
P
M
10 .
t
he
14 l
1 our
s
l
a
n
cl
an
l
i
s
:
1 1
1 :
ll
n
ed
wh
cu
t
h
e
c
x
p
c
c
l
~
1 l
m
11 11
h
er
n
l
'<
l
a
y
s
J
l
c
r
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
yea
r
w
i
t
ll
a
2 4
-
h
01 1
r
m•
e,
-a
ge
ce>n
e
e
n
tr
a
t
i
o
u
a
bo
v
e
1 5
0 pg
t
m
'
i
s
eq
u
a
l
t
o
or
l
e
s
s
ch
a
n
o
ne
..

F
o
r
P
M

2.5 ,
rbe
2 4
J
tou
r
s
t
an
d
a
r
d
is
att
a
i
n
e
d
w
hen
9 8
p
erc
em
o
frbe
d
a
i
l
y
c
o
nce
n
t
i-a
!
i
ous
,
a
v
e
r
age
d
o
v
e
r
!
lt
r
e
e
.
y
e
a
r.;
.
are
e
q
ua
l
1 0
o
r
J
e
ss
d
ta
n
th
e
s
ta
n
d
a
r
d
.

C
o
nt
act
r
it
e
U
.

S
.
r,
p
.,
\
fo
r
r
11 rt
l1
...
-r
cl
:t
r
l
l
k
a
1 i
m
1 ;
m
:
l
l
'
ll1
TC
1 1
t
11a
1 fo
11 a
l
l
>l
)
li
ci
L'S
.
.
,
.

C:
o
n
<.
·
-....
1 111
<
i
l
i
m
1 c
.
\
J
>r
i.:

SS
i.:d
lll
s
l
i
n
m
1 i
t
s
in
w
ll
i
d
1 i
l
w
a
:--
1 m
m
m
l
J:!;
a
l.
c
d.

F.
q
11 i
v
:
1 k
11 1
11 11
i
1 s
g
i
v

1.:
11 i
n
p
at
l
1 1
l
hi.:
sc
s
a
rc
l
m
:--
c
.d
u
p
on
a
n.:
l
\.1'1.
.
11<:..:
l
c111p:
:
rn
t
11 re
l
>
r
2::i
,..C
a
rn
l
a
r
d
Crcn
r..:
-:
p
1 c
i.
sm
e
o
f
7 (i0
t
o
n
.
\
Jo
s
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
-:111:
n
l
s
n
r
a
i
rt
L
I
La
Jil
y
o
tr
e
.
t
o
b
::
i.:
o
n
:t'lcd
l
o
a
n:
:
l
i::
r
c
m
:c
l
emp..
-
,
rn
l
L
1 rr:-:

L
)
f
2 5
,..

C
a
u
<l
n
r
d
(T<"
l
U.
:
{'
p
1 e
ss
u
r
e
o
f
?GO
k
u
;
p
pm
i
u
I
b
i
s
h
1 b
l
{'
r
d
t'
l
~
h
.
1 p
p
1u
t
,
y
V
L
'l
u
me
.

L,r
l
H
k
n
.\
mo
l
e
\
o
f
p
L
,
Jl
u
H
m
l
p
et
llR
'l<"
o
f
~
a
:-.
.
4 .

An
y
e
qu
i
val
en
t
lll
M
S
t
lf
e
m
e
ur
m
e
t
h
o
d
w
hich
c
an
b
e
.
s
l
t
o
w
n
t
o
th
e
s
at
i
s
fa
c
ti
o
n
o
f
!
l
t
e
.

ARB
t
e>
gi
v
e
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
en
t
r
~u
l
c
s
a
t
o
r
n
e
a
r
cite
level
o
f
!
lt
e
ai
r
q
u
a
l
i
cy
s
t
an
d
a
r
d
m
a
y
b
e
u,
e.d
.
5 .

K
;
1 1
io
11 a
l
P
ll
m
a
r
y
S
1 ;
m
1 l;
m
l
s
:

T
h
...:
k
v
ds
o
f'
a
i
r
.:
1 11
.
a
li
L
y
ll
i.:
<.'
...:
s
s
a
r
y
.
\
"
·
i
1 h
11 11
ad
c
1 1
m
1 h
.:
111
:
1 q
~
i
n
o
f
s.
t
l
i.:
t
y
l
o
p
rn
t
c
c:l
1 h..:
1 111
l
1 l
k
hc
a
J
1 h
.

G
.

Nat
i
ona
l
Se
c
m
d
a
r
y
St
a
n
d
ar
d
s
:

To
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
a
il'
,1u
a
l
i
ty
nece
,
s
ary
to
pr
o
t
ect
r
b
e
pu
b
li
c
w
e
l
li
ir
e
ir
om
a
n
y
k
n
o
wn
o
r
a
n
ti
c
i
p
me
d
a
dver
s
e
e
ff
ec
t
s
o
f
a
po
ll
m
a
m
.

R
efo
r
e.nc
e
m
t
r
ll
o
d
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
b
y
r
be
U
.

S
.

E
P
A.

A
n
"
e
qu
i
va
l
em
me
t
lt
o
d
"
o
f
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
m
m
ay
b
e
u
s
e
d
b
ur
J
m
1 ,
t
ha
v
e
a
"
c
on
,
i
;
1 e
nt
r
e
l
at
i
o
m
lt
i
p
t
o
r
h
e
r
eference
meth
O<I"
and
muH
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
ve
d
b
y
1 1te
U
.

S
.

I:::
l'
A
.

R
.

O
u
O
ct
o
l
n
:
r
1 .
2 0
1 .5
.

I
l
l
~
u
a
l
i
<l
n
a
l
S
-
ll
o
m
0 1
.
nrn
.:
p
1 i
m
a
r
y
and
:-
i.:
c.:
ond
;ir
y
:-
l
:
m
t
~
ir
d
:-
w
~
l
'C
l
o
•
,Y\.
'1
\
.
~
I
fr
u
rn
0 .
0 75
1 0
0 .
0'
7 0
p
p
m
.
9 .

O
u
Occc
mh
c
r
1 4
.
2 0
1 2
,
1 J
1 c
n
a
l
foua
l
aurn
rn
l
P
1 V
f

2.:5
p
ll
m;
n
y
~
l.
a
u
cl
a
n
l
'
N
a
s
l
ow
e
r
e
d
fr
o
m
1 :'i
1 1
g
.'
11 l
l
o
12 .
0 p
g..
,.
n
?
.

T
h
e
.:
x
i
s
1 i
11 g
n
a
t
i
o
na
l
2 4
-
L
o
ur
P
Y12
.
5 s
l
m1
d
a
r
J
s
(p
ri
m
a
r
y
u
u
<l
s
t'
r
~
,u
d
m
y
)
,
,
v
e
r
e
rt'
l
n
iued
a
l
3 5
!
l
g.
:
1 0
1 .
a
s
w
a
s
l
h
c-
a
w
n
m
l
'i<"'C:
om.l
a
1 ·
y
'>
l
amhir
d
L
l
f
15 i
1 .g
:'
u?
.

Th
t'
exh!
i
1 1g
2 1-l
i
ou
r
PM
I
Q
>1ao
<l
a
r
ds
(priu1
a
1 y
a
u
d
;
e
(o
ncl
a
iy
)

f
I
~
o
i
1 g,'
m
1 a
l
so
v
me
r
e
t
a
i
ne
d
.

Tile
fo
r
m
of
th
e
arumal
p
r
i
mai
-y
a
n
d
s
ccom
l
a
r
y
;-;
1 .a
m
la
n
l
-;
is.
t
h
e
;
m
11 u
,
1 I
m
e
.a
u
,
a
v
i.:
rn
,
g
..x
l
ov~
r
~
y

1.:a
rs.

I
O
.

T
o
a
n
a
in
1lt
c
I
-
h
o
u
r
n
a
tion
a
l
~
t
and
a
r
d
.
t
he
3-
y
ear
a
v
er
a
ge
of
11te
.
annu
a
l
9 S
!
lt
p
e
r
cen
ti
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
1 -lt
o
u
r
d
ail
y
u
u,xin
m
m
c
o
n
c
em
ra
ti
o
n
s
at
e
a
c
h
s
i
t
e
nm
,
!
uo
t
excee
d
10 0 p
p
b
.

No
i
e
rl
tm
th
e
na
!
io
na
l
1 -ltou
r
:.
1 rut
d
a
r
d
is
i
n
uni
!
s
o
f
p
rn
;
p
e
r
b
illion
<
p
p
b
).

C
a
li
forn
i
a
s
tan
da
r
ds
a
r
e
iJt
rn
1 i
ls
o
f
p
a
r
l
'i
po
m
i
lli
o
n
{
p
pm
)
.

T
o
din:
:
d
l
y
c
m
11p
a
r
e
01 i:::
n
a
l
i
m
1 a
l
1 -
l
i
o
nr
s
t
a
u
d
a
n
l
l
o
1 l
1 c
C
a
lilh
m
ia
s
l
a
m
l
a
rc
l
s
.

L
h
c
n
u
i
l
s
c
a
n
he
c.:
1 m
v
e1
1 e
d
fr
olll
[J
p
t,
l
u
p
pm
.

I
u
l
h
.i-,,
t:
.
a
'ie.
tht'
1 m
l
i
o
u
a
l
sla
u
d
anl
o
[
1 0
0 p
y
b
i
s
i
d
~
H
l
i
n
d
l

1..
1 0
.

J
OO
p
p
m
.
1 1
.

O
u
J
u
u
e
2 ,
20 1
0 ,
a
11 e
w
I
-
h
o
ur
S
0 1
s
t
a
rn
l:
m
l
w
a
s
e
s
l
a
h
l
i
-;h
ecl
a
rn
l
1 J
1 c
c
x
i.
-;
1 i
n
.
g
·
24 -
l
u
m
r
a
m:
)
a
n
11 11
a
l
l
il
i
m
a
r
y
!-
l
a
m
la
rc
l
<i
w
e
re
r-:
v
(ike
d
.

T
o
att
a
i
n
t
h
e
I
-
lt
o
u
r
1 u,
1 i
o
n
a
l
s
ta
n
d
ar
d
,
ch
e
3 -
y
ear
a
v
era
g
e
o
f
t
l
t
e
a
w1u
a
l
9 '.

Jl
b
pe
r
c
e
nt
il
e
o
f
!h
e
1 -
ll
o
ur
d
a
il
y
m
a
ximum
<O
J
Ke
n
rrat
i
on
,
at
e
a
ch
s
i
l
c
m
1 L
'i
l
11 0
1 c:\c
c
c
il
j
:
~
p
p
h
.

T
h
~
1 97
1 SO
;i
rn
11 io
11a
l
s
1 ;
m
d:m
l
s
(
24 -
l
mu
r
a
rn
l
m
n
m
a
l
)
1 '\:
m
a
i
11 i
n
c
l'l
b.
:
1 u
n
l
i
l
o
n
~
y
c;
i.r
a
n
c
r
:
m
a
n.:
a
i
s
d
e
si
gn
a
t
e
d
for
!
he
20 1
0 s
ta
nd
a
r
d
,
e
xc
ep
!
d
t
m
in
are
a
s
d
e
s
i
g
»~
t
e
d
1 1
o
na11aiwne
m
for
th
e
J
n
I
s
ta
n
d
a
t
d
s
.
che
.
19 7
1 ~
t
auda
r
d
~
r
e
Jt1
a
in
i
n
e
ff
ec
t
un
t
il
i
mp
l
e
menm
i
o
n
p
la
n
,
1 0
a
na
in
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
lt
e
:!OIO
&
t
rui
d
ar
d
s
a
r
e
a
p
pn
w
e
d
.

N
o
l
e
t
h
a
t
l
h
e
.
l
•
I.J
o
u
r
u
a
lfom
t
l
s
t
a
u
<lan
l
b
iu
u
u
i
l
s
L
'f
p
ar
l
'>
per
b
i
llio
n
(
p
)J
b
)
.

Ca
lil
Om
iu
s
l
a
rn
h
u
<l
s
u.
r
~
.
i
u
l
D
il
h
.

L
)
f
p
a
rl
'.>
p
a
u
tlllfou
(
p
pm
)
.

T
o
d
i
r
e.:t
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
-:
r
h
c
1 -
ho
nr
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f.
t
a
n
d
a
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
C
'
a
l
i
fo
rn
i
a
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
~
c
a
n
he
c
o
nve
rt
e
d
to
p
p
iu
.

I
n
th
i
~
c-
a
:
:.c
.
t
he
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
1 m
1 1
l.
m
l
o
(
7 5
p
p
b
i
s
i
d
i.:11
1 ic
a
l
t
o
0 .
0 75
p
1 n
1 1.
12 .

Tl
t
c
A
R
il
lt
a
s
i
dent
i
fi
ed
k
a
d
a
n
d
viny
l
c
h
l
o
r
i
de
a
;
'
t
o
x
i
c
a
i
r
c
o
utantin
a
ut
;
'
w
i
tlt
no
t
b
r
cslto
l
d
k
w
!
o
f
expo
s
ure
for
id
wr.
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
e
ff
e
c
t;
d
i.:lt:
111
1 i
rn
.:
<
L
T
Ii
e
s,;,:
:
u.:
1io
11 s
a
ll
n
w
f<
ir
l
hc
hr
q
1 k
1nL
1 1
l
;
1 1
hm
o
f
<.
'<
l
ll
l
rn
l
m
i.:
a:-
u
r
c
s
a
t
kvcl
s
hdo
w
l
h
-t:
;n
11 1J
i..:
111
c
m
u.:
cut
r
a
l
i
o
u
s
s
p
,
.:
c
if
k
d
f<a
r
1 1
1 ~

1.:
p
o
1 h
thm
1 :-
.
13 .

TI
L
e
J
U1
l
io11
a
l
s
h
1 mh
1 r
<l
fo
r
k.i
d
w
n,;.
r
e
v
i
s
ed
L'H
O
c
:
t

1..
,
l>
t'r
1 5
,
20 0
8 l
o
a
t
d
l
iug
3 •
ut
o
u
t
h
a
v
~
r
a
gt'
.

Tl
J
t"
l
!
.
:r78
l
e
t
i
d
shu
n
h
m
.
1 (
J
.5
p
g
/
ul
~
1 s
tt
,
1 u
a
n
el'l
y
a
ve11
1 ge)
r
e
m
a
i
n,
i
n
effect
unr
i
l
o
ne
y
e
a
r
a
f
,
e
r
an
a
r
ea
i
s
d
e
s
i
gn
a
t
ed
fo
r
,
be
20 0
8 s
ta
n
d
a
r
d
.
excep
r
t
ha
t
in
area
s
d
e
s
i
?J}
at
cd
rn
m
:
t1
1 :
1 i
m
11L
1 1
1 1
h
r
L
h
i.:
1 9
·
i
~
:-
1 :
mda
n
l
,
Il
ic
1 9,
x
:-
1 :
111
1 l
m
l
n
...
·111
.-i
i
u
:-.
i
n
d
T
c
i.:
1 m
1 1
i
l
i
111
1 1
k
m
..:
u
l
a
t
hm
1 1
h
111
s
w
a
ll
a
i
u
or
111
a
i
111
a
i
n
1 h
i.:
2 0
0 &
s
1 :

1. 111
k
m
l
a
r
e
:
1p
1 11
o
v
c
d
.
1 ,
1 .

I
n
1 9
~
9,
lh
c
,
\
R
I
)
(.
'(lfl
V
C
r
l
c
(
I
b
(
l
l.
h
t
h.:
~
C
I
K:
r
a
l
s
l
a
lt:W
i
(
k
I
0 -
1 n
i
k
v
is
i
l
1 i
l
i
1 y
:-
l
m
1 t
la
n
l
;
1 m
l
t
h
...:

I
.
a
t
e
·
1 :
d
u
)
.:

J
0 -
1 1
1 i
lc
v
i
s
i
l
,
i
l
i
L
y
s
t
:
n
,
d:
tn
l
l
o
ius
t
n
u
11 c:
n
1 :
1 J
c
.:
1 11
i
va
l
c
n
l
s
.
w
l
t
h:
h
m
·
-:
"
c
x
t
i
m.:
1 io
11 o
f
O.

B
pe
r
l
d
l
o
rnc:
1 -:
r
"
:
m
cl
"
c:
x
t
i
m
.:
t
i
o
n
o
l'
0 .
07 p
er
k
i
l
rn
m
:
l
e
r
"
fo
r
t
h
e
s
l
:
tl
e
w
i
d
c
a
ml
T
.
:
1 lc
T
.t
l.i
o
~
A
i
r
B
a
,;i
u
<;.
t
a
m.k
u
d
$
,
R'
S
})
t'
t
l
i
v
d
y
.

F
u
t·
m
ut
•
e
iuf
o
1 ·
w:
,
ti
o
u
1 ->
h
•:
1 ,;
to

1. ·
:
tl
l
ARB
-
PI
O
~
•
(
91 6)
.322
-
29 9
0 Cs1lifornfo
Ai
r
R
e
s
ourc..
:
t'
s
ll
o
1ar<l
(
5 /
4 /
1 6
}
Table
2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants

Pollutants

Sources

Primary
Effects

Carbon Monoxide

(CO)

•

Incomplete combustion of fuels and other
carbon
-
containing substances, such as motor
exhaust.

•

Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.

•

Reduced tolerance for exercise.

•

Impairment of mental function.

•

Impairment of fetal development.

•

Death at high levels of exposure.

•

Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide

(NO
2 )

•

Motor vehicle exhaust.

•

High temperature stationary combustion.

•

Atmospheric reactions.

•

Aggravation of respiratory illness
.

•

Reduced visibility.

•

Reduced plant growth.

•

Formation of acid rain.

Ozone

(O
3 )

•

Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight.

•

Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases.

•

Irritation of eyes.

•

Impairment of
cardiopulmonary function.

•

Plant leaf injury.

Lead (Pb)

•

Contaminated soil.

•

Impairment of blood function and nerve
construction.

•

Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Respirable Particulate
Matter

(PM
-
10)

•

Stationary combustion of solid fuels.

•

Construction activities.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Atmospheric chemical reactions.

•

Reduced lung function.

•

Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
pollutants.

•

Aggravation of respiratory and cardio
respiratory diseases.

•

Increased cough and chest discomfort.

•

Soilin
g.

•

Reduced visibility.

Fine Particulate Matter

(PM
-

2.5)

•

Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.

•

Residential and agricultural burning.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Also, formed from photochemical reactions
of other
pollutants, including NOx, sulfur
oxides, and organics.

•

Increases respiratory disease.

•

Lung damage.

•

Cancer and premature death.

•

Reduces visibility and results in surface
soiling.

Sulfur Dioxide

(SO
2 )

•

Combustion of sulfur
-
containing fossil fuels.

•

Smelting
of sulfur
-
bearing metal ores.

•

Industrial processes.

•

Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).

•

Reduced lung function.

•

Irritation of eyes.

•

Reduced visibility.

•

Plant injury.

•

Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes,
coatings, etc.

Source:

California Air Resources Board, 2002.

Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM
-

2. 5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM
-

2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only req uires continued progress
towards attainment.

Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8
-
hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8
-
hour s
tandard. The California 8
-
hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than
the federal 8
-
hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to ma ke steady progress
towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non -
attainment. During the same re
-
evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO
2 )
that is more stringent
than the corresponding federal standard, and
strengthened the state one
-
hour NO
2 standard.

As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial mod ification of federal
clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM -

2.5 were strengthened, a
new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM -
10 standards were revoked,
and a distinction between rural and urban air q
uality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal
annual standard for PM
-

2.5 was reduced
from 15

g/m
3 to 12

g/m
3 which matches

the California
AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non
-
attainment status for PM
-

2.5 may be increased by this
action and thus re
quire accelerated planning for future PM
-

2.5 attainment.

In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8 -
hour
standard
. A new 8
-
hour ozone standard was adopted in 2015 after extensive analysis and public input. The adopted national 8
-
hour ozone standard is 0.07 ppm which matches the current California standard. It will require three years of ambient data collection, then

2 years of non
-
attainment findings and planning protocol adoption, then several years of plan development and approval. Final air quality plans for the new standard are likely to be adopted around 2022.

Ultimate attainment of the new standard in ozone p
roblem areas such as Southern California might
be after 2025.

In 2010 a new federal one
-
hour primary standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO
2 ) was adopted. This
standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring dat a
in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO
2 ) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combus tion of coal and mandatory use of
low sulfur fuels in California, SO
2 is typically not a problem pollutant.

ASELINE
A
IR
Q
UALITY

Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are

best
documented from measurements made near the project site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operates a monitoring station in Fontana that monitors the complete spectrum of gaseous and particulate pollutants for which there are clean a ir standards.

From these data resources, one can well infer that baseline air quality levels near the project site are improving, but occasionally unhealthful. Full attainment may still be many years away. Table 3 summarizes the last four years of publishe
d monitoring data from the Fontana station.

1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels frequently exceed standards. The 1 -
hour state standard was
violated 9.2 percent of all days in the last
four

years in Fontana. The 8
-
hour state ozone standard
has been exceed
ed 1
4 percent of all days in the past four years. The Federal eight -
hour ozone
standard has averaged around 10 percent of the time during this period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean a ir standards in the
project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during
t
he current decade.

2. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels at the
Fontana

station have
remained
level

throughout the last
four years. The 8
-
hour standard has not been exceeded and the maximum 8
-
hour standard has been
steadily declining, with 2016 having the lowest concentration in the time period analyzed. These data suggest that baseline CO levels i
n the project area are generally healthful and can
accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected.

3. PM
-
10 levels periodically exceed the state 24
-
hour standard, but no measurements

in excess of
the national 24
-
hour particulate standard has been recorded in the last four years. State PM -
10 standards are exceeded an average of 2
2 percent of all days per year.

4. A substantial fraction of PM
-
10 is comprised of ultra
-
small diameter par
ticulates capable of
being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM
-

2.5). Year 2016 showed the fewest violations in recent
years.

Less than

one percent of all days exceeded the current national 24 -
hour standard of 35
μg/m
3 .

5. More localized pollutants such as n
itrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels never exceed allowable levels, and there are only limited sources of such emissions near the project site.

Table

3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (201
4 -
201
7 )

(Number o
f Days Standards Were Exceeded, and

Maximum Levels During Such Violations)

(Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken)

Pollutant/Standard

2014

2015

2016

2017

Ozone

1 -
Hour > 0.09 ppm (S)

31 36

34 33

8 -
Hour > 0.07 ppm (S)

52 57

49 49

8 -

Hour > 0.075 ppm (F)

37 39

34 38

Max. 1
-
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.127

0.133

0.139

0.137

Max. 8
-
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.105

0.111

0.105

0.118

Carbon Monoxide

8 -

Hour > 9. ppm (S,F)

0 0

Max 8
-
hour Conc. (ppm)

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.3

Nitrogen Dioxide

1 -
Hour > 0.18 ppm (S)

0 0

Max. 1
-
Hour Conc. (ppm)

0.074

0.089

0.071

0.069

Inhalable Particulates (PM
-
10)

24 -
hour > 50

g/m
3 (S)

13/58

13/55

15/61

7/43

24 -
hour > 150

g/m
3 (F)

0/58

0/55

0/61

0/43

Max. 24
-
Hr. Conc. (

g/m
3 )

68. 96.

94. 75.

Ultra
-
Fine Particulates

(PM
-

2.5)

24 -
Hour > 35

g/m
3 (F)

1/58

2/113

0/111

1/120

Max. 24
-
Hr. Conc. (

g/m
3 )

78.9 47.3

30.4 39.2

S=State Standard

F=Federal Standard

Source: South Coast AQMD
–

Fontana Air Quality
Monitoring Station

data:
www.arb.ca.gov/adam/77

AIR

QUALITY

PLANNING

The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air sta
ndards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps
that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -

10. In the SCAB, the agencies
designated by

the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainme nt
forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -
sheds with
“serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Amendments to the
SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table

4. Substantial reduct
ions in
emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades.

Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -
10 and PM
-

2.5 are forecast to
slightly increase.

The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) ado
pted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August
2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -
based standards for ozone
by 2010 and for partic
ulates (PM
-
10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one -
hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8 -
hour federal standard.

Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was ini tiated.

With re
-
designation of the air basin as non
-
attainment for the 8
-
hour ozone standard, a new
attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one -
hour ozone standard attainment
strategies to the 8
-
hour standard. As previously noted, t
he attainment date was to “slip” from 2010
to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM
-

2.5 standard.

Because projected attainment by 2021 require
d

control technologies that d
id

not exist yet, the
SC
AQMD requested a voluntary “bump
-
up” from a “severe non
-
attainment” area to an “extreme
non
-
attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation w as to

allow a longer time period
for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrat ed within the specified
deadline without relying on “black
-
box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose
sanctions on the region had the bump
-
up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA
approved the change in the non
-
attainment designatio
n from “severe
-
17” to “extreme.” This
reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also require d

the air basin to adopt even
more stringent emissions controls.

Table 4

South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts

(Emissions in tons/day)

Pollutant

2015
a

2020
b

202
5 b

20 30
b

NOx

357

289

266

257

VOC

400

393

391

PM
-
10 161

165

170

172

PM
-

2.5 67

68 70

71 a
20 1
5 Base Year.

b
With

current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.

Source:

California Air Resources Board,
2013 Almanac of Air Quality

In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA ha
d

disapproved part of the SCAB PM
-

2.5 attainment plan included in t
he AQMP. EPA

stated that the current attainment plan relie
d

on PM
-

2.5 control regulations that ha
d

not yet been approved or implemented. It
wa
s expected that a
number of rules that
we
re pending approval w
ould

remove the identified deficiencies. If these
i
ssues
wer
e not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the
current

California State Implementation
Plan (SIP)
wa
s expected to remedy identified PM
-

2.5 planning d
eficiencies.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that non
-
attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment
plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one -
hour ozone standard even though that
standard was revoked
almost ten

years ago. There wa
s no approved attainment plan for the one
-
hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one -
hour federal ozone standard. Because
the
current SIP for the basi
n

contains a number of control measures for the 8
-
hour ozone standard
that are equally effective for one
-
hour levels, the 2012 AQMP
wa
s believed to satisfy hourly
attainment planning requirements.

AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2 012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013.

An updated AQMP
was

required for completion

in 2016.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the
SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP ackno
wledges that
motor vehicle emissions have been
effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.) . The
current attainme
nt deadlines for all federal non
-
attainment pollutants are now as follows:

8 -
hour ozone (70 ppb)

2032

Annual PM
-

2.5 (12

g/m
3 )

2025

8 -
hour ozone (75 ppb)

2024 (
former

standard)

1 -
hour ozone (120 ppb)

2023 (rescinded standard)

I
I
24 -
hour PM
-

2.5 (35

g/m
3 )

2019

The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional stringent
NOx control m
easures are adopted and implemented,
ozone
attainment goals may not be
met.

The proposed project does
not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations
governing
storm drain

improvement
projects.

Conformity with adopted
plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined.

The SCAQMD,
however, while acknowledging that the AQMP i
s a growth
-
accommodating document, does not
favor designating regional impacts as less
-
than
-
significant just because the proposed development
is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has ther
efore been analyzed on a project
-
specific basis.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT

TANDARDS OF
S

IGNIFICANCE

Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” co ntribute to an existing violation of
standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.

Appendix G of the California CE
QA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Result in a cumulatively c
onsiderable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Primary Pollutants

Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such a
s a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly
in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive d ust emissions, are also
primary pollutants. Because of the non
-
attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
for PM
-
10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction.

Secondary Pollutants

Man
y pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified ex cept through complex
photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambien
t air quality impact.

Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transform
ation processes. Projects with daily emissions that
exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.

Table 5

Daily Emissions Thresholds

Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.

Additional Indicators

•

Project could interfere with
the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation

•

Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in
excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s build
-
out year.

•

Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.

Pollutant

Construction

Operations

ROG

75 55

NOx

100

55 CO

550

PM
-
10 150

150

PM
-

2.5 55

55 SOx

150

Lead

3 3

ONSTRUCTION
A

CTIVITY
I
MPACTS

CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to
provide a model by which to calculate construction
emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Cit
y of Rialto
proposes

to upgrade
the
existing drainage infrastructure conditions within
Baseline
Road

from Cactus Basin
(Cactus Avenue)
to Tamarind Avenue.

The project consists of
installing approximately 11,000 lineal feet (LF)
of
various diameter
storm dr
ain
s

that would
capture flows north of Baseline Road.

The Project will be constructed once funding becomes available, which is anticipated to be secured in 2021 or 2022. Construction is anticipated to require between 6 months and one year to complete.

At
any given time during construction a maximum of 30 employees would be required each day, though the number of construction workers required will range from 10 to 30 persons per day.

Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off
-
site equipment, t
he exact types and
numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. The
CalEEMod
.201
6 .
3 .2
computer model was used to calculate emissions from
the prototype construction equipment fleet and sche
dule as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6

CalEEMod Construction Activity Equipment Fleet and Workdays

(30 workers daily)

Prep and Concrete Removal

(
3 month
s
)

1 Concrete Saw

1 Dozer

1 Loader/Backhoe

2 Skid Steer Loaders

Trench and
Install
Pipeline

(
4 months)

1 Loader/Backhoe

2 Trencher
s

1 Forklifts

1 Crane

1 Excavator

Backfill and Paving

(
3 month
s
)

1 Paver

1 Roller

1 Loader/Backhoe

4 Mixer
s

2 Compactor
s

Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables 6 the following worst
-
case daily
construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 7.

Table 7

Construction Activity Emissions

Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)

Maximal Construction
Emissions

per
C
alendar
Y
ear

ROG

NOx

SO
2 PM
-
10 PM
-

2.5 Year 2021

2.4 21.9

19.5 0.0

1.8 1.2

SCAQMD Thresholds

75 100

550

150

55 Source: CalEEMod.201
6 .
3 .2 output in appendix

Peak daily construction activity emissions are below their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds without the need for any additional mitigation.

OCALIZED
S

IGNIFICANCE
T

HRESHOLDS

The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions
-
based thresholds of significance. These analysis
elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs w ere developed in response
to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1 -
4 and the LST
methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

For the propose
d project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction.

LST screening tables are available
for
various source
-
receptor distances.

For this project

the most
stringent thresholds for a 1
-
acre site and a 25
-
meter source
-
receptor distance
was

used to compare
to
construction
emissions

as shown in Table

8. Table 8

LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)

LST
1 acre/25 meters

Central San Bernardino Valley

NOx

PM
-
10 PM
-

2.5 LST Thresholds

667

118

4 3

Max On
-
Site
Project
Emissions

20 22

2 1

LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen in Table 8, even without use of
mitigation
, emissions
easily
meet the LST thresholds. LST impacts are less
-
than
-
significant.

PERATIONAL
I
MPACTS

There are no o
perational air pollution emissions
associated with a gravity fed
storm drain
.

I
I

I I I I I
I

I I I I I I
I

I I I I I

I I I I
II

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

MINIMIZATION

Construction activities are not antic
ipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds. Nevertheless, emissions minimization through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non
-
attainment status of the air

basin
. Recommended
measures include:

Fugitive
Dust Control

•

Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.

•

Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2
-
3 times/day).

•

Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed .

•

Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.

•

Minimize in
-
out traffic from construction zone

•

Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard

•

Sweep streets d
aily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site

Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non
-
attainment for photochemical smog, the
use o
f reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion emissions control options include:

Exhaust Emissions
Control

•

Utilize well
-
tuned off
-
road construction equipment.

•

Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 o
r better rated heavy equipment.

•

Enforce 5
-
minute idling limits for both on
-
road trucks and off
-
road equipment.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

REENHOUSE
G
AS
E

MISSIONS

“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increas e in the temperature of the
earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are c
arbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarb
ons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -
road motor vehicles, off
-
highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally . Industrial and
commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -
fourth
of total emissions.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases.

GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S
-
03 -
05, EO S
-
20 -
06 and EO S
-
01 -

07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain Ca lifornia’s reputation as a “national and
international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wide -
ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries.

A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide
-
ranging mandatory provisions
and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented.

Major components of the AB 32 include:

•

Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG

emissions beginning with sources or
categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.

•

Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.

•

Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be
reduced to 1990 levels.

•

Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25 -
40%, from business as usual,
to be achieved by 2020.

•

Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic ai
r contaminants.

Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.

Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased str
uctural energy efficiency. Additionally,
through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry
-
specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are ca
tegorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on -
and off
-
road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off -
site electricity gener
ation
and non
-
company owned mobile sources.

REENHOUSE
G
AS
E

MISSIONS
S

IGNIFICANCE
T

HRESHOLDS

In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines bec ame state laws as part of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in
March

2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines
were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:

•

Generates GH
G emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or,

•

Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project
-
related GHG emissions,
deciding
significance
, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially
significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.

CEQA guidelines all
ow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis.

Th
e significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero ne t emissions threshold. If
the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitativ e GHG
Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO 2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended
a threshold of 3,000 MT CO
2 e for all land use types. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis.

P
ROJECT
R
ELATED
GHG

MISSIONS
G

ENERATION

Construction Activity GHG Emissions

The proj
ect is assumed to require
10 months

for

construction

starting in November of 2019

and
continuing
September 202
1 . During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.3.
2 computer model
predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO 2 e emissi
ons identified in Table
9 .

Table 9

Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO
2 (e))

Year
2021

Total

252.4

Amortized

8.4 Significance Threshold

3,000

*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix

SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction
activities is to amortize emissions over a
30 -
year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less
-
than
-
significant.

ONSISTENCY WITH
GHG

P
LANS
,

ROGRAMS AND
P

OLICIES

The City of Rialto h
as partic
ipat
ed in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

with the San
Bernardino

Associated Governments (SANBAG)
. This

study
include
s

a
n

inventory
compilation of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be

adopted by the 21 partnership cities of San Bernardino County.

The

proposed project
has no associated operational emissions and generates minimal construction GHG emissions. Project GHG emissions will cease after the 10 -
month construction period.

Theref
ore,
there
are

no applicable mitigation measures

for the proposed project.

Storm w
ater conveyance is a very small component of the total City of Rialto

GHG emissions

inventory
.

Since project construction is below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO
2 e
threshold it would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.

CALEEMOD OUTPUT

•

Construction Daily

•

Construction Annual

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 11,000 lf x 72"
Construction Phase - Prep and Concrete Removal: 3 months, Trench and Install Pipe: 4 months, Cover and Fill: 3 months Off-road Equipment - Cover and Fill: 4 mixers, 1 paver, 1 roller, 1 loader/backhoe, 2 compactors Off-road Equipment - Prep and Concrete Removal: 1 concrete saw, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes, 2 skid steer loaders Off-road Equipment - Pipeline Install: 1 loader/backhoe, 2 trenchers, 1 forklift, 1 crane, 1 excavator Trips and VMT - 30 workers-60 trips per day
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
User Defined Industrial

1.00 User Defined Unit

1.50 0.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2021
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Riato Storm Drain
South Coast Air Basin, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM

Page 1 of 18 ends

Rialto City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Rialto City Council
September 10, 2024