Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Further, t he electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor - owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.
Operational energy consumption would represent an approximate 0.0084-percent increase in electricity consumption over the current Countywide usage (refer to Table 3.6 -1). The Project would adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a State mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs. As such, t he Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.
The City of Rialto Climate Action Plan ( Rialto CAP) establishes a series of energy efficiency related goals intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan.
Those applicable to the Project are Renewables Portfolio Standard for Building Energy Use, AB 11 09 Energy Efficiency Standards for Lighting, Electricity Energy Efficiency, and Commercial Energy Efficiency Requirements.
The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, State, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because th e Project would comply Title 24 and with City of Rialto CAP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur. Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause an energy impact to occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant unavoidable energy impacts and would therefore not result in a new or subs tantially more severe project -specific or cumulative energy impact than those already analyzed. The Project’s contribution to energy use would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure 5.12-6 of the Airport Specific Plan EIR related to energy conservation is applicable to the Project.
MM 5.12-6 All construction shall be done within the guidelines established by State building regulations and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as they relate to energy conservation Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
including such measures as solar heating for water and the use of landscaping to shade buildings.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum, no new impacts relative to energy or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to P RC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance is known that would impact the prior finding of les s than significant with mitigation. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on energy. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
49 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Geology and Soils
Threshold (a) Would the project d irectly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
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?
Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Threshold (c) Would the project 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 on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Threshold (e) Would the project 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?
Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR Geology and soil resources are addressed in Section 5.3, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, of the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan EIR noted that there are no faults across the Airport Specific Plan area. However, Rialto, like most areas of Southern California, is located in a seismically active region.
The presence of several a ctive faults in Southern California could result in strong seismic shaking (horizontal ground accelerations). The Airport Specific Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures 5 .3-1A through 5.3-1D that require future development comply with the seismic design re quirements of the Uniform Building Code (subsequently referred to as the California Building Code) and conduct a geotechnical investigation. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts related to liquefaction were not ident ified as a potential hazard due to the depth of the water table. Potential impacts related to soil erosion were reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2A requiring future development provide approved Erosion Control Plans with measures such as the placement of sandbags if grading is set to occur from October to March, minimizing the length of time that soil is exposed, and using hydroseeding or other similar methods to encourage revegetation of graded areas pl aned for development in subsequent phases.
Implementation of measures related to compliance with seismic design parameters from the California Building Code would reduce impacts. Additional measures include the preparation of a geotechnical investigation, a requirement that building plans are reviewed for seismic design by a qualified Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
professional, and a requirement that building plans are reviewed and approved by the City’s Building and Safety Department.
At the time that the Airport Specific Plan EIR was prepared, the State CEQA Guidelines checklist addressed paleontological resources as a part of Cultural Resources. Paleontological resources are addressed in Section 5.7, Cultural Resources, of the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan EIR n oted that the Airport Specific Plan area is underlain by surficial deposits of varying thickness of Older Quaternary Alluvium and Recent Alluvium. The paleontological sensitivity of Older Quaternary Alluvium is moderate to high and the paleontological sensitivity of and Recent Alluvium is low. The Airport Specific Plan found that potentially fossiliferous geologic units underlie the entire Airport Specific Plan area and excavations in and at all depths of the quaternary deposits should be expected to produc e significant vertebrate fossils.
Accordingly, the Airport Specific Plan EIR identified pre -construction measures, Mitigation Measures
5.7-1A, 5.7-1B, and 5.7 -1C, which require the retention of a Certified Vertebrate Paleontologist (CVP), preparation of a paleontological resource monitoring program, and the presence of the CVP at a pre - grading conference to explain the procedures related to the paleontological resource monitoring program. Mitigation Measures 5.7-1D through 5.7-1J, identify procedures related to paleontological field monitoring and protocols in the event of fossil discovery during construction. Mitigation Measures 5.7-1K and 5.7-1L require projects to provide a Final Paleontological Resources Report of Findings. The Airport Specific Plan EIR found that implementation of these mitigation measures reduced potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
The Airport Specific Plan and Airport Specific Plan EIR assumed the development of the project site with industrial land uses. As such, the findings for the proposed Project are consistent with the Airport Specific Plan EIR. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix E), the project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults in the vicinity of the site . The nearest fault to the project s ite is the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 1.7 miles to the east and the Cucamonga Fault located approximately 2.7 miles to the west.10 The Geotechnical report noted that due to distance from an active fault potential for surface fault rupture is considered low to moderate.
Project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2022 California Building Code and California Health and Safety Code (or applicable adopted codes at the time of plan submittal or gradi ng and building permit issuance for construction). The building and safety standards established by these codes have been developed to address structural integrity during a seismic event. State laws and local ordinances require that, prior to construction, potential seismic hazards be identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices. Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Rialto Municipal Code C hapter 11.12, Excavations and Fills, which requires approval of a soil engineering and engineering geology report. The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations
10 Department of Conservation. July 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzap p/app/.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
51 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
included in the reports and approved by the development services and publi c works departments be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications.
As determined by the Geotechnical Report, the project site is not located within the areas susceptible to liquefaction or ground failure. The Geotechnical Report indicated that th e liquefaction potential of the site is considered to be low due based on groundwater depth records, soil type, and distance to an active fault. There are no known geologic conditions on the project site that would render development infeasible. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce the risk associated with seismic - related ground failure and associated liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence to a less than significant level. The Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the Airport Specific Plan.
The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 1,660 to 1,643 feet amsl, sloping from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast corner. The Geotechnical Report indicated that the project site is not within a landslide zone. As such, the project site is not subject to the potential for a landslide.
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations and engineering design standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the Airport Specific Plan.
The project site has been disturbed and the southern portion of the site is paved. Consistent with the assumptions of the Airport Specific Plan EIR, disturbance of the ground surface at the project site would occur during grading of the site. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require approximately 32,893 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 26,270 cy of fill, with approximately 6,623 cy of imported soil. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short- term erosion by wind and water. However, the increased erosion rates and the consequent downslope and downwind movement of sediment can be mitigated to less than significant levels by proper and strict erosion control measures enacted during grading.
All demolition and construction activities within the City are required to comply with California Building Code (CBC) standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. Compliance with policies in the Airport Specific Plan would further ensure that the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Further, compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. The Project’s impact on soil erosion would be less than significant, similar to those impacts previously analyzed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
The Project would be required to comply with City of Rialto Mun icipal Code Chapter 11.12, Excavations and Fills, which requires approval of a soil engineering and engineering geology report that includes analysis of expansive soils at the project site . The Excavation and Grading Code requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved by the Development Services and Public Works Departments be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. Compliance with the Municipal Code and CBC regulations related to expansive soils would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant level.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
The Project would connect to existing utility infrastructure and would not include septic tanks. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project ’s implementation.
A search of paleontological records was conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (March 2023) and included as Appendix F. With respect to paleontological resources, and as discussed in Appendix F, no known fossil lo calities underlie the project site . However, fossil localities have been identified within the same sedimentary deposits that occur within the vicinity of the project site. As such, there is a probability that scientifically significant vertebrate fossils would be uncovered during subsurface excavation. Consistent with the Airport Specific Plan EIR, the Applicant would be required to cease grading in the event an artifact is uncovered and report the find to a qualified institution. In the event unknown paleontological resources are unearthed during construction, the Project could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. AS such, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures 5.7-1A through 5.7-1D and 5.7-1F through 5.7-1L from the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to geology , soils, or paleontological resources would substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and coul d not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a new geologic or paleontological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. As such, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a cumulatively considerable im pact related to geologic or paleontological resources.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.3 -1A, 5.3 -1B, 5.3 -1C, 5.3 -1D, and 5.3 -2A from the Airport Specific Plan EIR associated with geology and soils are applicable to the Project. With respect to paleontological resources, Mitigation Measures 5.7-1A through 5.7-1D and 5.7-1F through 5.7-1L are applicable.
MM 5.3-1A Subsequent developments shall be required to comply with the standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction ‹if the Building and Safety Department.
MM 5-3-1B Prior to issuance of building permits, a structural engineer, civil engineer or architect, experienced with earthquake -resistant design, shall sign off on all building plans to determine the adequacy of seismic criteria for project structure s, and to recommend appropriate design changes, if needed.
MM 5.3-1C Prior to issuance of building permits, the Building and Safety Department, shall review and approve building plans to assure compliance with the latest Building Code as adopted by the City of Rialto.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
53 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
MM 5.3-1D Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit within each Specific Plan Planning Area (excluding the Neighborhood Commercial and residential areas), the developer shall contract with a qualified geotechnical engineer to conduct a geotechnical investigation into the soil conditions and properties for the Planning Area and shall prepare a geotechnical conditions report in a manner meeting the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
MM 5.3-2A Erosion Control Plans shall be pr epared and approved by the Building and Safety Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit, for projects over five acres in size. The Erosion Control Plan Shall outline methods that shall be implemented to control erosion from graded or cleared porti ons of the site. The erosion control measures may include one or more of the following.
▪ Placing sandbags along the perimeter of the project site prior to initial grading if grading is to be undertaken during the rainy season (October to March). ▪ Minimizing the length of time that soils lie exposed. ▪ Revegetating (landscaping, hydro seeding or any other method of providing vegetation cover) graded areas, in a manner approved by the City if determined to be required for erosion control in areas not planned for development until subsequent phases. Landscaping and hydro -seeding should be under the direction of a licensed landscape architect and approved by the City.
MM 5.7-1A Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall direct a Certified Vertebrate Paleontologist (CVP) to provide written evidence (letter of verification) indicating that a CVP has been retained to monitor all earth -disturbing construction - related activities, and salvage, prepare, catalogue an4 document significant fossil finds as appropriate.
MM 5.7-IB Prior to initiation of construction activity, the CVP shall prepare a paleontological resource program and procedure plan which details methods for paleontological resource surveillance (monitoring) which includes: a schedule for grading monitoring to be maintained when earth -disturbing constructi0n -related activities are being conducted within fossiliferous geologic units; assessing the significance of and need to mitigate (salvage) fossil finds; and actions to be taken in the event that significant fossils, requiring mitigation are discovered.
MM 5.7-1C The City shall require that a CVP be present at the pre -grading conference to establish and explain procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, procedures for temporarily and long-term halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils, and explain the roles and responsibilities of the CVP, field supervisors, and paleontological field monitors (staff paleontologists).
MM 5.7-1D Paleontologic monitoring, supplemented by -weekly periodic in -grading supervisory inspections by the CVP (usually 1/8 of monitoring hours), shall be maintained when earth- disturbing, construction-related activities occur in any previously undisturbed Quaternary geologic unit within the study area. The monitoring levels shall be in accordance with the recommendations below. Variations (increases/decreases) in the levels of mitigation monitoring can only be determined by CVP in consultation with the City.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
▪ Older Quaternary Alluvium - Half-time monitoring; full-time when concentrations of significant fossils are encountered.
▪ Recent Alluvium - 1/8 time; full -time when concentrations of significant fossils are encountered.
MM 5.7-1F Paleontological field monito rs shall be equipped to: salvage minor concentrations of fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays, and/or be able to direct the removal of sediments samples which are likely to contain the remains of small and/or micro-vertebrate fossils.
MM 5.7-1G Regardless of the paleontological sensitivity assigned to fossiliferous sediments, the area around all fossil localities (recorded and unrecorded) discovered during the pre - construction literature and records search or established during pre-construction surveys, quarrying operations, geotechnical investigations, or during mitigation monitoring of construction activities, shall be monitored on a full -time basis during any construction activity until the fossil locality is completely mitigated. As determined by the CVP, the area to be monitored around each fossil locality may include an area up to a maximum of 500 feet on all sides of the fossil locality, within the project grading limits.
MM 5.7-1H If significant concentrations of fossils are encountered, which cannot be collected by the paleontological field monitor during normal monitoring time, salvage operations shall be initiated and completest as quickly as feasible. The salvage operations shall be conducted under the direction of the CVP, or his/her designated representative, and coordinated with the on-site grading foreman. As soon as it is feasible and reasonable, the property developer and/or City shall be notified regarding the need for, and initiation of, any paleontologic salvage operation.
MM 5.7-1I If any fossil microfauna are encountered in on -site sediments (specifically small fossil vertebrates), 6,000 pounds of representative sediment samples shall be screen -washed, “floated” and/or “picked” in accordance with current SVP/SBCM prot ocols to recover small and/or micro-paleontologic resources.
MM 5.7-1J Fossils collected during salvage and/or screen washing activities shall be curated to the point of identification. Curation involves such activities as the removal of excess matrix, specimen stabilization, time numbering, identification, cataloging, etc.) and temporary storage by the CVP until they are accessioned to the City -designated institution for permanent protection.
MM 5.7-1K Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, a Final Paleontological Resources Report of Findings shall be prepared for submission, review and approval by the City and/or SBCM. The report shall include grading dates, methodologies, an itemized inventory of specimens, and analysis of the significance of encountered fossils, to the SBCM or another suitable repository with a retrievable storage system.
MM 5.7-1L Upon approval of the Final Paleontological Resources Report of Findings, a copy of the final report and all curated fossils shall be acc essioned to a City -designated institution, such as the SBCM, for permanent protection where they will be available for research.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
55 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Accessioning of the fossils Signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum , no new impacts relative to geology and soils or paleontological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Airport Specific Plan EIR
The Airport Specific Plan EIR did not evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the time of the Airport Specific Plan EIR’s certification in 1997, the State CEQA Guidelines did not require this topic to be analyzed. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Since the Airport Specific Plan EIR has already been certified, the determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for this specific development is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (PR C §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163). GHG emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time” the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)).
The issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The U.S. EPA publishes an annual GHG inventory (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks),11 which tracks the national trend in GHG emissions back to 1990.
Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known at the time the Airport Specific Plan was approved and the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified.
Consistent with the statutory language, courts have repeatedly held that new information that “was known” or “cou ld have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence” at the time of EIR certification does not trigger the supplemental EIR standard ( Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532 (“CREED II”); ALARM, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at 1800–1803).
Although the City finds that GHG impacts and climate change is not “new information” under PRC Section 21166, the following analysis for the proposed Project is nonetheless provided for informational purposes.
Global Climate Change
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires a lead agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The State CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions would have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions (14 CRC §15064.4(a)).
Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. GHG emissions from a project would combine with
11 A greenhouse gas “sink” is a process, activity, or mechanism that absorbs more greenhouse gases than it releases.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
57 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) industrial threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CE QA documents. This Working Group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and included a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the Air Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the Air Basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. However, the SCAQMD has not announced when a GHG thresholds for land use projects will be presented to the governing board where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.
The Working Group proposed a tiered approach to evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency, wherein projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions. With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold.
As noted above, the SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial projects.
A 3,000 MTCO 2e threshold was proposed for non -industrial projects but has not been adopted. During Working Group Meeting #7, it was explained that the 10,000 MTCO 2e threshold was derived using a 90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. During Meeting #8, the Working Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). Additionally, the Working Group specified that a warehouse is considered to be an industrial project.12 Further, the Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions (electricity, water use, etc.). During the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group Meeting #15, the SCAQMD noted that it was considering extending the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by all lead agencies.
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, SCAQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design feature s and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement
12 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8 , 2009.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
off-site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offs ets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.
Tier 3 Screening Thresholds. When the tiered approach is applied to a proposed project, and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because, at the time, SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a final threshold. However, no statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in effect.
For projects for which SCAQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted.
However, as noted above, the SCAQMD Working Group has recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO 2e/year for residential and commercial projects.
SCAQMD determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from a ll new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).13 Although the screening threshold for industrial projects is 10,000 MTCO 2e per year, this analysis conservatively uses 3,000 MTCO 2e per year as the proje ct GHG threshold. The numeric bright line and efficiency-based thresholds were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners and l ead agencies with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.
In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213, 221, 227, following its review of various potential G HG thresholds proposed in an academic study, [Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the California Supreme Court identified the use of numeric bright -line thresholds as a potential pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements. The study found numeric bright-line thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA. Specifically, California PRC Section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the State that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual sign ificant effects on the environment." The California Supreme Court - reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient, expeditious manner. Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emission s: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.)
13 SCAQMD, “Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” December 5, 2008, At tachment E: “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold,” October 2008, p. 3 -2.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
59 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
The City of Rialto has not adopted GHG significance thresholds but may set a project -specific threshold based on the context of each particular project, including using the SCAQMD Working Group expert recommendation, for this project because: (1) it is in the same air quality basin that the experts analyzed; (2) it is an industrial project; and, (3) there is a factual basis to sup port why the experts believe that projects with less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr would have less than significant contributions to GHG emissions.
For the proposed Project, the SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr screening threshold is used as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr screening threshold represents a 90 percent capture rate (i.e., this threshold captures pr ojects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources). The 3,000 MTCO 2e/year value is typically used in defining small projects within this Air Basin that are considered less than significant because it represents less than one percent of the future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target and the lead agency can provide more efficient implementation of CEQA by focusing its scarce resources on the top 90 percent or new developments within the Air Basin emitting GHGs. Projects above the 3,000 MTCO2e/year level would fall within the 90 percent of largest projects that are worth mitigating without wasting scarce financial, governmental, physical and social resources.14 As noted in the academic study, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (Crockett, 2011), the fact that small projects below a numeric bright line threshold are not subject to CEQA -based mitigation does not mean such small projects do not hel p the State achieve its climate change goals. Even small projects participate in or comply with non -CEQA-based GHG reduction programs, such constructing development in accordance with statewide GHG-reducing energy efficiency building standards (CalGreen or Title 24 energy -efficiency building standards). 15 Moreover, as workers buy cars and gasoline and as future tenants of the industrial building buy trucks and diesel from manufacturers regulated by the State to reduce GHG emissions, the GHG generated by a p roject often reduces over time, as demonstrated in the GHG modeling addressed later in this section.16
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) was prepared by the CARB to provide strategies to reduce the State’s carbon emi ssions. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022 Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.
14 SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold , at pp. 3 -2 and 3 -3, October 2008; Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World, July 2011, 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227, 229 -235).
15 Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: C alifornia's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World, July 2011, 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227, 229 -235). 16 On pages 3-2 and 3-3 of the SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (October 2008), the SCAQMD notes that a GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long -term GHG impacts. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough t o capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that the SCAQMD estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO 2e/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future c ontribution to the statewide GHG inventory.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off -Road Fleet Recognition Program, In -use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off- Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In -use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap -and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, an d regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from c onstruction activities. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment for the Project is identified in Table 3.8-1: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 490.55 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30 - year period, then added to the operational emissions. 17 The amortized Project construction emissions would be approximately 16.35 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Table 3.8-1: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
2024 Construction 490.55
30-Year Amortized Construction 16.35
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of a project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project -generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources such as off -site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3.8-2: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in the table, the Project would generate approximately 4,123 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations which would be a reduction from the 8,489 MTCO2e based on the maximum development that could occur on the project site as set forth in the Airport Specific Plan .
Although project-related net GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold , the Project would result in a net change of -4,366 MTCO2e. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, based upon the analysis of potential environmental consequences anticipated to occur from implementation of the Project, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a known impact.
17 Amortization period is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
61 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Table 3.8-2: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Existing Specific Plan
Maximum Allowed
Development Proposed Project
Net Change of
Emissions
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years - 16.35 16.35
Area Sources 10 5 -5
Energy 877 457 -420
Mobile 7,184 3,359 -3,825
Cargo Handling Equipment - 89.67 89.67
Waste 143 67 -76
Water and Wastewater 275 129 -146
Total 8,489 4,123 -4,366
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Consistency with the City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan. The City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (Rialto CAP) 18 outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. Goals include:
▪ Prevent truck routes from disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities; ▪ Create a clean air checklist for new development of sensitive land uses; ▪ Increase use of low-emission and electric vehicles where feasible; ▪ Adopt building and maintenance standards that reflect the regional best practices in reducing urban heat island effect.
The Rialto CAP focuses on municipal measures that the City would implement to prepare the City and its residents for the expected impacts of climate change. The Rialto CAP evaluates Rialto’s vulnerabilities and capabilities and propose policy around four climate-related hazards: air pollution, extreme heat, wildfire, and flooding. The Rialto CAP does not include project -specific GHG thresholds or policies for individual development projects. The CAP builds on the City’s existing General Plan Safety Element and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Rialto CAP through compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and the preparation of an Air Quality Assessment, the latter which has been prepared as a part of this Addendum and finds that impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high‐efficiency lighting, high‐ efficiency heating, ventilating, and air‐conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double‐glazed windows, water -conserving plumbing fixtures), these standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three‐year
18 Rialto Climate Adaption Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1761/Rialto -Climate-Adaptation-Draft-Plan-July-2021.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
cycle. The most recent 2022 standards went into effect January 1, 2023. As discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, the Project’s energy impacts would be less than significant.
Further, the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project would also comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction and the operational phase and would not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated AB 32, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as stated by SB 32, and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels as stated by AB 1279.
The GHG emissions associated with th e proposed Project would be minimal when compared to those associated with the land uses in the Airport Specific Plan area and would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures, such as State Building Code provisions, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and California Green Building Standards. In addition, the Project would be consistent with Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, and the Rialto CAP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions, and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Accordingly, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
Cumulative Impacts
Due to the global nature of climate change, most projects will not result in GHG emissions that are individually significant. Therefore, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change. GHG emissions from the proposed Project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. The Project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
As discussed above, impacts related to GHG emissions were not analyzed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
The Airport Specific Plan assumed a maximum FAR of 0.7:1 for planned industrial development. The total area of the proposed project site is 488,624 sf, resulting in a maximum allowable building size of 342,037 sf. As such, the proposed development would generate fewer mobile source GHG emissions (due to the generation of fewer trips) and generate less energy emissions than assumed for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Accordingly, impacts related to GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than when compared to the allowable uses for the project site assumed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new significant impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance is known that would result in significant effects not addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.
Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
63 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and a ccident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Threshold (d) Would the project 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Threshold (e) Would the project be 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, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk o f loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Airport Specific Plan EIR found that the historical presence of hazardous materi al contamination in the Airport Specific Plan area ranges from moderate to high, depending on the location within the Airport Specific Plan (i.e., Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill, fireworks manufacturers, Rialto Municipal Airport , and industrial uses). These uses, in addition to illegal dumping in the southwest portion of the Airport Specific Plan area, have the ability to create an adverse environmental condition. The Airport Specific Plan EIR also determined that existing and future industries and businesses would continue to use, produce, and transport hazardous substances and waste. The Airport Specific Plan area is no longer proximate to any airports or within an airport land use plan. Airport Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 5.13-1 and
5.13-2 require site-specific developments within or adjacent to the industrial area along Locust Avenue and the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill to prepare parcel -specific assessments and provide protocols in the event that unknown waste is discovered during construction. Mitigation Measures 5.13-3A, 5.13-3B, and
5.13-3C provide requirements related to renovation or demolition of any on -site structures.
Implementation of these mitigation measures reduces potential impacts to hazards and hazardous to less than significant levels.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
Development of the project site with light industrial uses was contemplated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with the Project would be similar to or less than those evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardo us materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods, improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, and/or emergencies such as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.
Similar to all development pursuant to the Airport Specific Plan, the Project would be required to comply with regulations and standards established by applicable regulatory agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous material would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public o r the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials on and off the project site. Such materials would include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to the public. The routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Complianc e with the regulatory framework would ensure that Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
The Project would include the construction of one warehouse and distribution building, including an office component, and associated on -site and off -site improvements and is not anticipated to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed warehouse and distribution building would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substa nces which include cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for the proposed landscaping. Project implementation would not create a significant impact through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as the proposed development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations which are intended to avoid impacts to the public and env ironment. These regulations ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators and transporters provide operational safety and measures to reduce potential threats to public health and safety.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepare d by Waterstone Environmental, Inc. (Appendix G) for the project site. A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined in the ASTM Standard as the presence or likely presence of a hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1 ) due to release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
No RECs were identified for the project site. The project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list; accessed November 15, 2023). In addition to the Cortese List, federal, State, and local governmental agencies maintain other lists of sites where hazardous materials may be present or used. The Phase I ESA did not identify the project site on databases that record properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials. The project site is not listed on the Geotracker database (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov; accessed November 15, 2023) or the Envirostor website (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public; accessed November 15, 2023). The project site does not appear on any databases that record leaks, spills, or other hazardous waste violations.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
65 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Per Envirostor and Geotracker, there are between 32 to 40 off-site fireworks and pyrotechnic companies that are believed to have contributed to area -wide perchlorate contamination of the groundwater. As a result, the City’s potable water source has been compromised and restricted for use due to contamination in certain groundwater wells. 19 Both the Envirostor website and Geotracker database identified open cases west of the project site , referred to as the “Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares” (RFF) site (formerly known as th e B.F. Goodrich site) at 3196 N . Locust Avenue . The RFF site is a 160-acre area that also includes a six-mile-long area of groundwater contamination downgradient of the 160-acre area in Rialto where volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate have contaminated soil and groundwater. The 160-acre area is bordered by West Casa Grande Drive on the north, Locust Avenue on the east, Alder Avenue on the west, and an extension of Summit Avenue on the south. A map made available by the City of Rialto and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Appendix G) indicates that the perchlorate plume extends adjacent to or potentially beneath the southwest portion of the project site. Site investigations and cleanup are ongoing.
The 160-acre area was part of a larger area acquired by the United States Army in 1942 to develop an inspection, consolidation, and storage facility for rail cars transporting ordnance to the Port of Los Angeles. Since the federal government sold the property in 1946, a portion of the property has been used by defense contractors, fireworks manufacturers, and other businesses that used perchlorate salts and/or solvents in their manufacturing processes or products. In 1956 and 1957, West Coast Loading Corporation manufactured and tested two produ cts, photoflash flares and "ground -burst simulators," containing potassium perchlorate. From about 1957 to 1962, B.F. Goodrich Corporation conducted research, development, testing, and production of solid -fuel rocket propellant containing ammonium perchlorate and used solvents in the manufacturing process. Since the 1960s, the 160 -acre area has been used by a number of companies that manufactured or sold pyrotechnics, including Pyrotronics, Pyro Spectaculars, and American Promotional Events.
In 2002, the SWRCB began actively working with Potentially Responsible Parties and property owners to investigate soil and groundwater contamination at the B.F. Goodrich site and in surrounding areas. The U.S. EPA began assisting the SWRCB in 2002, providing technical, enforcement, and financial assistance.
In 2008, after the SWRCB's efforts were stalled by legal challenges, the U.S. EPA increased its efforts at the site. In September 2009, the U.S. EPA added the B.F. Goodrich site to the Superfund National Priorities List.
Between 2003 and 2013, numerous investigations have been conducted to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination. The studies have included the collection and analysis of soil samples, the collection and analysis of soil gas samples, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and/or the collection and analysis of groundwater samples. The studies were overseen by the SWRCB, the U.S.
EPA , and the DTSC.
Investigations carried out by U.S. EPA between 2008 and 2012 include d a groundwater pump-and-treat system intended to intercept and remove contaminated groundwater spreading from the 160-acre source area. The 160-acre source area is where most or all of the contaminants entered the groundwater and testing has identified the hi ghest levels of groundwater contamination. A second groundwater remedy was constructed between 2015 and 2021 to remove perchlorate from extracted groundwater; pipelines
19 City of Rialto. (2010). City of Rialto General Plan . https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -General-Plan. Accessed March 2023.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
and pumps to convey the treated water from the treatment plant to the City of Rialto's water distribution system for use as drinking water supply; and a groundwater monitoring program. In January 2022, the U.S. EPA proposed a second groundwater cleanup remedy to address contaminated groundwater in the "mid-basin" area which has moved past do wngradient of 160-acre area. Eleven multi-level groundwater monitoring wells were installed; testing is ongoing.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site indicates that groundwater is typically encountered at depths of approximately 420 feet below sur face grade (bsg) in the site vicinity. Perched groundwater is occasionally encountered at depths of approximately 100 feet bsg; therefore, it is not considered a threat to surface development. Given that the plume is known, responsible parties identified , and the unlikely to impact surface development, the perchlorate plume is not considered a n environmental concern for the proposed Project.
The northern part of the project site is vacant and the southern portion of the project site is paved and fenced off for construction equipment storage. According to historic aerial review, prior residential structures appeared on site in the late 1950s and were demolished in 2023. No RECs were identified for the project site and no further assessment regarding hazardous materials is required.
The Airport Specific Plan EIR required the preparation of a parcel-specific ESA prior to development activities. The documentation provided in this Addendum satisfies this measure. Any removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil or groundwater would be performed in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Adherence with regulatory requirements and mitigation would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
There are no existing or planned schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to proximity to schools or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur.
The former Rialto Municipal Airport, which was located approximately 1.7 miles south of the project site, closed in September 2014 and has since been demolished. The closest airpor t is the San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately 9.5 miles southeast of the project site. Accordingly, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a public use airport and would not create a safety hazard or excessive noise for people at the project site.
Project implementation would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Project construction would require the temporary closure of West Coast Boulevard.
Access to the residential area north and east of the project site would be maintained during construction for residents and emergency access only. Upon completion of construction, the impacted portion of West Coast Boulevard would resume similar to existing conditions. Adherence to all applicable regulations and General Plan policies would result in a less than significant impact with respect to interfer ence with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Wildland fires are discussed in Section
3.19, Wildfire.
Similar to the Airport Specific Plan EIR, hazards and hazardous materials related impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the Airport Specific Plan.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
67 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. The RFF site is a 160 - acre area that also includes a six-mile-long area of groundwater contamination downgradient of the 160- acre area in Rialto where VOCs and perchlorate have contaminated soil and groundwater. The perchlorate plume extends adjacent to or potentially beneath the southwest portion of the project site. Site investigations and cleanup are ongoing. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site indicates that groundwater is typically encountered at depths of approximately 420 feet bsg in the site vicinity. Given that the plume is known, responsible parties identified, and is not likely to impact surface development, the perchlorate plume is not considered an environmental concern for the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute known groundwater contamination. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in incremental effects to hazards or hazardous materials that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from cumulative projects.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.13-1 and 5.13-2 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures 5.13 -3a through 5.13 -3c are not applicable, as the Project would not include the demolition of existing structures.
MM 5.13-1 Site-specific developments within or adjacent to the Industrial area along Locust Avenue and the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill shall pre pare parcel-specific assessments, prior to development activities.
MM 5.13-2 The following is a cautionary measure to be implemented during grading activities. If unknown waste is discovered during construction by the contractor which he/she believes may involve hazardous waste materials, the contractor shall:
▪ Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area;
▪ Notify the Project Engineer of the implementing Agency; ▪ Secured the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and ▪ Notify the implementing agency’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis set forth in this Addendum, the Project would not cause a new hazardous materials impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a hazardous material impact previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, the Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding less than significant impact with mitigation . Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or th rough the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
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.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR Water quality and hydrology are discussed in Section 5.5, Water Resources, of the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan EIR found that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would result in decreased infiltration to groundwater reserves , thereby creating increased surface runoff generated in the Airport Specific Plan area. H owever, i mplementation of the proposed storm drainage system identified in the Airport Specific Plan would reduce these impa cts to less than significant levels. The Airport Specific Plan EIR also determined that construction runoff from disturbed areas within the Airport Specific Plan area may contain silt and debris, resulting in short-term increases in the sediment load in the storm drain system serving the Airport Specific Plan area. The Airport Specific Plan EIR also identified that general grading activities, including those related to demolition and construction (then regulated by Chapters 29 and 70 of the Uniform Building Code ), require erosion control. Further, development in the Airport Specific Plan area would be required to comply with NPDES permit regulations for erosion, siltation and contaminated runoff control. The Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that water quality may be impacted within the groundwater storage area due to the addition of chemicals, such as oils, grease, detergents, and fertilizers from urbanization. The Airport Specific Plan EIR also found that e rosion and sedimentation during grading and construction of individual projects would occur only if adequate erosion control measures were not applied during and after the earthwork stage when disturbed soil is left temporarily unprotected.
Mitigation Measures 5.5-1A, 5.5-1B, 5.5-2, and 5.5-3 require individual developments to pay a pro -rata share of the storm drain improvements; use stepping stones/bricks set in pervious materials for walkways, divert water to landscaped areas, and provide pervious paving wherever possible; comply with NPDES Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
69 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
rules and regulations; and adherence of the adopted master plans of the Rialto Public Works Department (Water Division), Fontana Water Company, and the West San Bernardino County Water District, as well as the guidelines and plans for the San Bernardino Flo od Control District ( SBCFCD). Implementation of these mitigation measures was found to mitigate the degradation of storm water and urban runo ff associated with increased development to a less than significant level.
With respect to flood hazards, tsunamis, and seiches, the Initial Study for the Airport Specific Plan EIR noted that there are no large water bodies in the area. Therefore , people and property would not be exposed to water-related hazards such as seiches or tsunamis. The Airport Specific Plan EIR found that the Specific Plan area was not within a 100-year flood zone.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
The Airport Specific Plan EIR assumed that the project site would be developed and potential impacts associated with drainage and water quality would be addressed. The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Therefore, the Airport Specific Plan EIR evaluated potential drainage and water quality impacts assuming that the project site would be developed with uses permitted under the I-PID land use designation, which includes light industrial uses such as warehouse and distribution uses as proposed by the Project. It is also noted that the project site has been previously disturbed and is partially graded. Runoff from the site is conveyed to the existing 102- inch storm drain located within Locust Avenue.
Preliminary Hydrology and Water Quality Management Plan reports were prepared for the Project and are provided as Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively. The Project would meet storm water treatment requirements in the San Bernadino MS4 Permit. Stormwater generated by the proposed development would be captured and conveyed to the proposed on-site underground retention chambers. To minimize water quality impacts during construction of the Project, construction activities would be required to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs such as gravel bags, silt fence, and fiber rolls. The Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on-site. Similar to the development assumed under the Airport Specific Plan, the Project would occur on a partially paved site and would not substantially decrease groundwater recharge. The Project is consistent with the Airport Specific Plan and zoning designations and therefore the development envisioned for the project site would have been accounted for in the water supply estimates included in the General Plan. Further, there are no public water wells located on the project site and groundwater is not drawn from the area.
As discussed in the Preliminary Hyd rology Report, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the project site. The proposed condition would mimic the existing drainage pattern and excess flows from the proposed drainage system would continue to discharge to the existing 102-inch RCP located within Locust Avenue. The project site does not contain any streams or rivers; therefore, none would be altered by the Project. Additionally, the project site is located approximately 48 miles inland and east of the Pacifi c Ocean. There is no risk of exposure to inundation by seiche of tsunami. Accordingly, there is no significant risk of release pollutants due to site inundation.
The Project does not propose the use of groundwater and the majority of the drainage would us e underground infiltration retention systems, which would retain water prior to discharging into the public Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
storm drain system. Accordingly, the Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of subsequent environmental documentation.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a new drainage or water quality impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a drainage or water quality impact previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. As such, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a cumulatively signific ant impact related to water quality and drainage.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.5-1A, 5.5-1B, 5.5-2, and 5.5-3 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are applicable to the Project.
MM 5.5-1A Individual developments shall be required to pay a pro -rata share of the storm drain improvements identified on Exhibit 22 and on Table 5-17.
MM 5.5-1B Individual development projects shall be required to reduce runoff by using stepping stones/bricks set in pervious materials for walkways, divert water to landscaped areas, and provide pervious paving wherever possible. Reduce landscape irrigation waste and runoff by water conserving irrigation systems, moisture sensing devices and avoidance of rounded landscaped areas.
The need to implement these types of runoff control measures shall be determined during individual project design review.
MM 5.5-2 For individual development projects, require compliance with NPDES rules and regulations, as well as applicable permits.
MM 5.5-3 The adopted master plans of the Rialto Public Works Department (Water Division), Fontana Water Company, and the West San Bernardino County Water District, as well as the guidelines and plans for the SBCFCD shall be adhered to in order to ensure continued water availability to the inhabitants of the City.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis provided in this Addendum, no new impacts relative to hydrology and water quality or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circu mstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in a new or more severe environmental impacts that previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding less than significant impact. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
71 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Land Use and Planning
Threshold (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and much of the properties proximate to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were sited to accommodate development were removed from the Airport Specific Plan and incorporate d into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport no longer exists , the City’s Airport Specific Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels in the Airport Specific Plan area that were not removed from the Airport Specific Plan, primarily located northwest, west, and east of the former airport.
The Airport Specific Plan EIR identified the potential for land use conflicts between the proposed industrial, office, and retail uses adjacent to residential uses and airport uses. Several measures were identified to restrict activities in industrial and airport-related uses from sensitive uses through the use of buffers to screen different land uses and restrictions within Runway Protection Zones or Airport Safety Zones to reduce land use conflicts. Potential impacts related to inconsistencies with existing land use regulations were reduced to a less than significant level with the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change as part of the actions proposed with the Airport Specific Plan.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substa ntial change from previous analysis.
The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). The northern portion of the 11.21-acre site is vacant and the southern portion of the site is partially paved and used for construction equipment storage. The Project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the Project, consistent with the assumptions in the Airport Specific Plan , would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Plan Map depicts the City’s land use designations and indicates that the project site has a Light Industrial land use designation with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Light Industrial land use designation allows for a mix of commercial, office, research and development, laboratories, and light industrial uses. The City’s Zoning Map identifies the project site as being located within and subject to the Airport Specific Plan. The Airport Specific Plan was adopted in 1997; however, many portions of the Airport Specific Plan area were replaced by the adoption of the Renaissance Specific Plan. The project site remains within t he Airport Specific Plan , which identifies the project site as Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). The Project’s proposed industrial warehouse and distribution use would comply with the allowable uses identified in the Airport Specific Plan . A Conditional Development Permit (CDP No. 2023-0011) is required to allow the development of a warehouse, which is a conditionally permitted use in industrial zones within the City. Additionally, as required by Chapter 18.65 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed Project has prepared a Precise Plan of Design (PPD No. 2023-0018); and in accordance with Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Chapter 17.16 of the City’s Municipal Code, a Tentative Map (TPM No. 20853) has also been prepared to consolidate the existing parcels into one parcel and show the required City right -of-way dedication for West Coast Boulevard including vacations and easements. Mitigation Measures 5.1A and 5.1B from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are not applicable to the proposed Project because the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational. Mitigation Measure 5.1-2 is not applicable because the Project is not related to a landfill expansion. Mitigation Measures 5.1-5 and 5.1-6 have already been implemented by the City of Rialto. Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR identifies that uses along the perimeter of the project area boundaries adhere to the design guidelines contained in the Airport Specific Plan which relate to orientation and buffering of non-residential uses when adjacent to residential uses. Accordingly, and consistent with Section 6.2.5 of the Specific Plan, the Project would provide landscape buffers, walls, and additional setbacks as buffers between the proposed warehouse and distribution building and existing residential uses to the east.
The Project is consistent with the pertinent land use planning and policy documents, including the General Plan, the City’s Zoning Ordinance , and the Airport Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
Cumulative Impact
The Project is consistent with applicable land use goals and policie s. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary for individual future projects, such changes have been, and would be, required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the Project is consistent with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to cause an adverse land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy. Any associated physical impacts are covered in the individual topic sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County of San Bernardino, City of Rialto, and other cities in San Bernardino County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of wh ich require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to any cumulative land use impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR is applicable to the Project. The Rialto Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the Project is not located within the vicinity of an operating airport. Thus, Mitigation Measures 5.1-1a through 5.1-2 are not applicable to the Project.
MM 5.1-4 The City shall require developments along the perimeter of the project area boundaries to adhere to the design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan which relate to orientation and buffering of non -residential uses when adja cent to residential uses.
Further, the City shall require implementation of the streetscape programs and landscape buffer treatments when adjacent to residential uses.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
73 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis provided in this Addendum , no new impacts relative to land use or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environment al impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that wou ld impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Mineral Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project 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? Threshold (b) Would the project 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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Airport Specific Plan EIR addressed mineral resources impacts in Section 5.4, Natural Resources. The Airport Specific Plan area includes three mineral resource sectors; however , no mining activities were operational within these sectors at the time of the Airport Specific Plan analysis. The Airport Specific Plan EIR assumed that the site would be developed and did not identif y the presence of or the potential for use of the site for mineral resource excavation. Accordingly, the Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact resulting from a loss of opportunity to extract aggregate resources in the Airport Specific Plan area. Aggregate extraction within the mineral resource sectors was considered not feasible due to the small size of one of the sectors, existing uses and multiple ownership patterns, and uses planned by other agencies including a Fontana Water Company reservoir and a County Flood Control District facility . The Airport Specific Plan EIR also included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts from mining operations.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact ; no substantial change from previous analysis.
The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Therefore, the Airport Specific Plan EIR assumed that the site would be developed and did not identify the presence of or the potential for use of the site for mineral resource excavation.
The State of California Depar tment of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy wells. CalGEM maintains a mapping system that shows the location of a ll oil and gas wells in California. According to the mapping system, the closest active well used for oil and gas production is approximately 5.9 miles northeast of the project site. No wells are mapped on the project site and there is no known history of oil or gas wells having been drilled at the site.20 The project site does not have a history of known mining or quarry operations. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires the State Geologist to classify land in California according to its potential to contain mineral resources. Exhibit 2.7 of the City of Rialto General Plan identifies mineral resource zones (MRZ) for the City based on the SMARA. According to the General Plan, the project site is located within the MRZ -2 zone, indicating that significant Portland Cement Concrete -Grade (PCC) aggregate resources are present.21
Although the project site has been mapped within the MRZ-2 zone, the site does not have a history of aggregate resource mining. Further, the site has a Light Industrial land use designation and is zoned for
20 Department of Conservation (2023b). Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/ - 117.36675/34.07440/14. Accessed March 2023.
21 City of Rialto. (2010). City of Rialto General Plan . https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -General-Plan. Accessed March 2023.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
75 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Planned Industrial Development. Therefore, the use of the project site for mining would be inconsistent with pertinent planning and policy documents. Due to the proximity of adjacent land uses including residences, the project site would not be conducive for mining purposes. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The mitigation measures set forth in the Airport Specific Plan EIR apply to mining extraction activities. Because no mining is proposed, the mitigation measures are not applicable to this Project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur regarding the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and no mitigation is required.
The Project would develop an industrial warehouse and distribution adjacent to existing development .
The Project would not remove any locally or regionally important mineral resources from production or preclude access to important mineral resources. No impact to locally-important mineral resource recovery sites would occur. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require subsequent environmental documentation.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a new mineral impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a mineral impact previously disclosed in th e Airport Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to impacts to mineral resources.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.4 -2A, 5.4-2B, 5.4-2C, 5.4-2D, 5.4-2E, 5.4-2F, 5.4-2G, 5.4-2H, and 5.4 -2I from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are not applicable because the Project does not include mineral extraction, mining operations, or the implementation of a Reclamation Plan.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum , no new impacts relative to mineral resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circum stances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Noise
Threshold (a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold (b) Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Threshold (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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Airport Specific Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would create noise that would impact new and existing receptors. With respect to temporary construction noise, the Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that noise from constructio n activities would potentially result in excessive noise levels that impact noise sensitive receptors. However, these impacts are anticipated to be short-term, ceasing upon project completion. Further, construction -related noise impacts would be substantially mitigated and minimized by staging construction equipment away from existing and future sensitive receptors and with implementation of Airport Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures.
Airport Specific Plan implementation would also create several new sta tionary noise sources, such as mechanical equipment, loading areas, parking areas, and loudspeakers on the project site. However, the Airport Specific Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to City noise standards, noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the Airport Specific Plan EIR analyzed existing off -site sensitive receptors located along key roadways within the Airport Specific Plan area and concluded that noise impacts to off -site sensitive receptors resulting from project related traffic would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
Construction
Construction noise typicall y occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving, etc.). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.
During construction, exterior noise levels could affect nearby sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the project site boundary .
However, construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require concrete/industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; tractors, excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders du ring building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
77 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machin ery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are identified in Table
3.13-1: Typical Construction Noise Levels.
Table 3.13-1: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , September 2018.
As shown in the table, exterior noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Sensitive uses in the project site vicinity include residential uses 15 feet to the east. These sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during construction. However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near sensitive uses. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards.
Instead, the Municipal Code establishes limited hours of construction activities. As a result, t his analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Authority’s (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. 22 All motorized equipment used in such activity shall be equipped with functioning mufflers as mandated by the State.
22 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Construction activities may also cause increased noise along site access routes due to movement of equipment and workers. Compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. By following Municipal Code standards, Project construction activities would result in a less than significant n oise impact.
Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise. The noise levels calculated in Table 3.13 -2: Project Construction Noise Levels show estimated exterior construction noise. In accordance with FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all construction equipment is assumed to operate simultaneously at a construction area nearest to sensitive receptors to represent a worst-case noise scenario as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site and would operate at different intervals. Therefore, the distances used in the RCNM model were approximately 375 feet for the nearest residential prop erty (average distance from construction equipment to the nearest residential property line).
Table 3.13-2: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction
Phase Land Use Direction
Distance
(feet)1
Worst Case Modeled
Exterior Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold 2
(dBA Leq) Exceeded?
Demolition Residential East 375 69.0 80 No
Site Preparation Residential East 375 66.8 80 No
Grading Residential East 375 67.6 80 No
Construction Residential East 375 70.5 80 No
Paving Residential East 375 69.0 80 No
Architectural
Coating Residential East 375 56.2 80 No
1. Per the methodology described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), distances are measured from the nearby buildings to the center of the project construction site.
2. The City does not have a quantitative noise threshold for construction and only limits the hours of the construction activities. Therefore, FTA’s construction noise threshold is conservatively used for this analysis (FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , September 2018).
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix J for noise modeling results.
The maximum construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA construction thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at the nearest residential receptors would occur during the building construction stage and would be 70.5 dBA , which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold. Construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Although sensitive uses may be exposed to elevate d noise levels during Project construction, these noise levels would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near sensitive uses.
The City of Rialto has set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities. Municipal Code Section 9.50.070 states that the erection, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolition, or improvement of any structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays from October 1 through April 30 and shall only occur between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays from May 1 through September 30 . It is noted that nighttime construction would be Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
79 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
limited to brief periods should nighttime concrete pours be necessary (i.e., nighttime activities would not occur during the entire construction period). Although the Rialto Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not provide specific noise level performance standards for construction. By following the City’s standards, the impact from construction noise would be less than significant level.
Operations
The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Warehouses are a permitted use in the I -PID. The Airport Specific Plan assumed a maximum FAR of 0.7:1 for planned industrial development. The total area of the proposed project site is 488,624 s f, which at an FAR of 0.7:1 is a maximum allowable building size of 342,037 sf. Noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed use is consistent with those contemplated in the Airport Specific Plan. In addition, the proposed development would generate fewer trips, result in lower operational noise levels associated with on-road trips and on-site parking activity than assumed for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project would include the following:
▪ Mechanical equipment (e.g., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); ▪ Slow moving trucks on the project site, approaching and leaving the loading areas; ▪ Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); ▪ Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and ▪ Off-site traffic noise
Mechanical Equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences approximately 15 feet to the east.
Potential stationary noise sources related to long -term operation of the project site would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g. , heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC ] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. 23 For the purposes of a conservative analysis, the closest mechanical equipment is assumed to be at the edge of the proposed warehouse and distribution building, approximately 90 feet to the west of the nearest sensitive receptors.
At 90 feet, mechanical equipment noise would be 46.9 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloa ding activities, noise would be generated by trucks diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up toward the loading docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks.
Vehicular access to the project site would consist of two driveways located along Locust Avenue and one driveway along West Coast Boulevard. Trucks would only access the site from Locust Avenue and the truck loading bay and dock doors are on the west side of the warehouse and distribution building. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet. The closest sensitive receptors to the loading dock area are residences approximately 100 feet north of the project site. At this distance, noise levels would be 49.5 dBA with considering attenuation from the proposed intervening 14-
23 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values , 2015.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
foot-high concrete wall24, which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Noise levels at other sensitive re ceptors that are further away would be lower. Loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day.
Existing noise is produced at the construction equipment yard on the southern portion of the project site.
The existing construction yard is directly adjacent to the residential sensitive receptors , while the proposed warehouse and distribution building and truck yard would be set back approximately 100 feet and 24 feet , respectively, from the eastern property line. The existing noise was not c onsidered in the operational noise analysis; therefore, the analysis is conservative compared to the anticipated operations of the proposed Project. Accordingly, n oise l evels associated with trucks and loading or unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standards and impacts would be less than significant.
Back-Up Alarms. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks reversing into loading docks would produce noise from back-up alarms (also known as back-up beepers). Back-up beepers produce a typical volume of 97 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) from the source. 25 The property line of the nearest sensitive receptor would be located approximately 100 feet north of the loading dock are as where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering. At this distance and considering attenuation from the proposed intervening 14-foot-high concrete wall, exterior noise levels from back -up beepers would be approximately 59.3 dBA, which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA) . It is also noted that back-up beeper noise is short in duration and would occur intermittently. Therefore, back-up alarm noise impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Noise. Parking stalls would be located to the east, west, and south of the proposed project site.
According to the Traffic Study for the West Coast and Locust Avenue Project (Kimley-Horn, 2024), the Project would generate up to 41 trips during the peak hour. For the purpose of providing a conservative, quantitative estimate of the noise levels that would be generated from the vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot, the methodology recommended by FTA for the general assessment of stationary transit noise sou rces is used. Using the methodology, the Project’s peak hourly noise level that would be generated by the on-site parking levels was estimated using the following FTA equation for a parking lot:
Leq(h) = SELref + 10 log (NA/1,000) – 35.6
Where:
Leq(h) = hourly Leq noise level at 50 feet
SELref = reference noise level for stationary noise source represented in sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet
NA = number of automobiles per hour
35.6 is a constant in the formula, calculated as 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour
24 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006, a solid barrier can reduce noise levels by eight dBA.
25 Environmental Health Perspectives , Vehicle Motion Alarms: Necessity, Noise Pollution, or Both? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018517/, accessed November 2023.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
81 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Using the FTA’s reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL26 at 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 42.5 dBA L eq at 50 feet from the parking lot. The nearest sensitive receptors (to the east) are located at least 15 feet from the passenger vehicle parking area. Conservatively assuming that all vehicles would park at a location nearest to sensitive receptors rather than dispersed throughout all av ailable parking and based strictly on distance attenuation, parking lot noise at the nearest receptor would be 53.0 dBA, which is below City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise. Implementation of the Project would be consistent with the allowable uses for the project site as determined by the Airport Specific Plan. Therefore, traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with and less than what was anticipated for the site in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5 -dBA increase is readily noticeable. 27 Traffic volumes on area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. 28 Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA would be less than significant. Project -related trips would occur along Locust Avenue and West Coast Boulevard. According to the Traffic Scoping Agreement, the proposed Project would generate approximately 391 daily trips. The surrounding area is currently developed with existing industrial and residential uses and an additional 391 daily trips would not result in a doubling of traffic. Therefore, off-site traffic noise would be less than significant.
Ground-borne Vibration and Noise Levels. Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short‐term construction‐related activities.
Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations in their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of h uman perception for extended periods of time.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
The nearest structures to the Project construction site are approximately 15 feet to the east and south , and approximately 65 feet to the north of the project site boundary. Table 3.13-3: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet and 15 feet for typical construction equipment
26 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 27 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, Noise Fundamentals , https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm , accessed November 2023. 28 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol , 2013.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
based on FTA data . Ground-borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 3.13 -3, at 15 feet, vibration velocities from typical heavy c onstruction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.0065 to 0.1915 in/sec PPV at the closest structure, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold.
Table 3.13-3: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 15 Feet (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.1915
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.1915
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.1635
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0753
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0065
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (125/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , 2018.
It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, based on the significance criteria, vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy -duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks , heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the proposed Project would include truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Ass essment, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, trucks operating at the project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than significant.
Airport-Related Noise. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Bernardino International Airport located approximately 9.5 miles to the southeast. Therefore, the project site is not within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. The distance of separation am ong the proposed Project and other cumulative projects would be such that the temporary noise and vibration effects of the proposed Project would not be compounded or increased by similar noise or vibration effects from other cumulative projects. As discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant. Due to site distance and these intervening land uses, cumulative stationary noise Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
83 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
impacts would not occur. No known projects would compound or increase the operatio nal noise levels generated by the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant and within the level of impacts analyzed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR.
Mitigation Program
The Airport Specific Plan EIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Airport Specific Plan project.
Mitigation Measure 5.8 -3G, as stated below, has been satisfied through the prep aration of this noise analysis for the proposed Project.
MM 5.8-3G The project applicant shall submit detailed design plans and an acoustical study, prepared by a City -approved acoustical expert, for each site plan, which delineates appropriate setbacks from adjacent existing and/planned sensitive receptors, which is consistent with City of Rialto Noise Standards. The study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the design, such as noise walls and other n oise barriers, and other appropriate measures. [NOTE: This measure has been satisfied through the preparation of this Acoustical Assessment.] The following measures from the EIR are applicable to the proposed Project: Mitigation Measures 5.8-1A through 5.8-1D, and 5.8-2A through 5.8-2E.
MM 5.8-1A Construction activities shall comply with the City of Rialto Noise Standards relating to construction noise. Enforcement of City standards relating to construction -related noise discernable at residential boundari es is required and construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturdays (excluding Sundays and Federal holidays).
MM 5.8-1B All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with proper ly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
MM 5.8-1C Stationary construction equipment shall be staged such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
MM 5.8-1D Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities, to the satisfaction of the City of Engineer.
MM 5.8-2A The project applicable shall submit detaile d design plans and an acoustical study, prepared by a City -approved acoustical expert, for each site plan, which delineates appropriate setbacks from adjacent existing and planned sensitive receptors, which is consistent with City of Rialto Noise Standards . The study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the design, such as noise walls and other noise barriers, and other appropriate measures (refer also to Mitigation Measure No. 5.8-3). [NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through the preparation of this Acoustical Assessment.]
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
MM 5.8-2B Development of the proposed project land uses shall adhere to City of Rialto and California State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4). These standards require that the interior noise levels for residential living spaces and for hotel rooms be no greater than 45 dB CNEL. If additional attenuation is necessary, measures (i.e. increases in window STC rating, reduction of window area) can be specified at such time.
MM 5.8-2C Any loudspeaker system installation shall conform to the following standards:
a. The use of a hand held paging system shall be encouraged. A combination of loudspeakers and hand held paging may be authorized upon review of the system by City of Rialto.
b. The outdoor loudspeakers system shall have limited hours of operation, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. In no event shall any use of outdoor speakers be authorized for operation on weekends or holidays. c. All loudspeakers shall be mounted at a 75 degree angle facing the ground to avoid voice travel. All loudspeakers mounted on perimeter walls shall be located at least two (2) feet below the top of the wall.
d. All loudspeakers shall be directed toward the interior of each lot. Each speaker layout system shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Department.
MM 5.8-2D Mechanical equipment shall be located and designed so that it will not be audible at adjacent residential land uses. This includes adhering to specifications for quiet equipment, and locating/shielding equipment away from homes. It is recommended that any mechanical equipment be located on the side of the building furthest from residential areas and/or constructed with a parapet surrounding the equipment.
MM 5.8-2E The following measures are recommended to minimize noise impacts from activities within parking areas:
a. Maximize the use of berms and landscaping to help shield and attenuate nois e from cars within parking lots.
b. Loading dock should be located away from residential areas. Loading hours should be limited so that deliveries do not occur between midnight and 6 a.m.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Adden dum, no new impacts relative to noise or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
85 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Population and Housing
Threshold (a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
Threshold (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Airport Specific Plan EIR proposed approximately 117 acres of residential land uses, most of which was comprised of existing residential neighborhoods. At the time that the Airport Specific Plan EIR was prepared, the CEQA Appendix G checklist did not e valuate impacts to population and housing as a separate threshold; however, Section 5.10, Parks and Recreation and Open Space, estimated the potential population growth . Accordingly, The Airport Specific Plan EIR assumed that the Airport Specific Plan buildout would result in an increase in population to approximately 1,923 persons in the Airport Specific Plan area. An estimated 155 to 160 new residential units were expected to be constructed as a result of implementation of the Airport Specific Plan, resulting in a net increase of 81 to 86 residential units in the Airport Specific Plan area, accounting for non -conforming residential uses that would eventually be replaced with non -residential uses. Further, analysis of ways in which the Airport Specific Plan could directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing was analyzed in Section 6.3, Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project, of the Airport Specific Plan EIR, which determined that e mployees of commercial and industrial uses in the Airport Specific Plan area would likely be drawn predominantly from the existing labor pool in the cities of Rialto, Fontana, and San Bernardino, and the surrounding subregion and employees that might choose to relocate to housing closer to the Airport Specific Plan area, would do so over time, as the land uses are developed. Therefore, the demand for housing over time was expected to be satisfied by existing and proposed housing in the area. Additionally, the Airport Specific Plan was found to be generally consistent with the City General Plan and zoning designations and was not anticipated to result in growth -inducing impacts related to population or housing. The Airport Speci fic Plan EIR did not identify any impacts; therefore, mitigation was not required.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
The Project would result in the construction of an industrial warehouse and distribution building, including an office component . Development of the project site was anticipated as a part of the Airport Specific Plan area and is consistent with the project site’s zoning ; no significant impacts were identified .
Additionally, no residential development is proposed as a part of the Project. The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Warehouses are a permitted use in the I -PID. The Airport Specific Plan assumed a maximum FAR of 0.7:1 for planned industrial development. The total area of the proposed project site is 488,624 sf, which would result in a maximum allowable building size of 342,037 s f. As such, the proposed development which proposed under the maximum development envelope previously analyzed w ould have fewer employees than assumed in the Airport Specific Plan for the project site. Consistent with the Airport Specific Plan EIR, no population and housing impacts would occur as a result of the Project.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
As of September 2023, unemployment in San Bernardino County was 4.8 percent and within the City of Rialto, it was 5.1 percent 29. The Project would create new jobs and increase the demand for new employees. By providing jobs, the Project is expected to benefit the local community while having little effect on population growth. The growth that would occur as a result of the proposed Project is accounted for in the General Plan, which indicates that the site has a Business Park land use designation with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Light Industrial land use designation allows for a mix of commercial, office, research and development, laboratories, and light industrial uses. The Airport Specific Plan identifies the project site as Planned Industrial Development (I-PID), which allows industrial land uses like warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, and related office areas.
Given the need for jobs to meet the existing population and the relatively small number of jobs created by the Project compared to those on a regional basis, the Project would not induce substantial population growth. Although the Project would create job opportunities, an indus trial project such as this is not considered inherently growth inducing relative to other land use categories.
With respect to indirect effects, roadways near the project site include Locust Avenue to the west, West Coast Boulevard to the north, and SR-210 to the south. The Project would provide two driveways on Locust Avenue and one driveway on West Coast Boulevard. In addition, infrastructure (water, sewer, electrical) is located within the immediate vicinity of the project site and these services would b e extended to the site to serve the Project. The Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, the Project would not result in any adverse change in the population, housing, or employment projections developed by or for the City of Rialto. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
The northern portion of the project site is currently vacant and the southern portion of the project site is paved and currently used for construction equipment storage. The Project does not include the removal or construction of habitable structures. Therefore , Project implementation would not displace ex isting housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. The Project would cause neither a new impact to occur nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Project would not cause an impact to population and housing to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan was found to be generally consistent with the City General Plan and zoning designations and was not anticipated to result in growth-inducing impacts related to population or housing. Therefore, the Project would not cause either a new cumu lative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation measures are required.
29 California Employment Development Department. ( 2023). Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP). https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed November 2023.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
87 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum and consistent with the Airport Specific Plan EIR, the Project would have no impact on population and housing. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Pl an EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant.
Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Public Services
Threshold (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of ne w or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Threshold (c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental f acilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Threshold (d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Threshold (e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or phy sically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR Fire Protection. Fire protection and paramedic services are provided by the Rialto Fire Department. The Airport Specific Plan EIR concluded that impac ts to fire services from implementation of the Airport Specific Plan were less than significant with mitigation, specifically compliance with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants , and through the payment of fire protection development impact fees as identified in Mitigation Measures
5.11-1A, 5.11-1B, 5.11-1C, and 5.11-2A.
Police Protection. The Rialto Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Rialto, inclusive of the Airport Specific Plan area. The Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that police services via calls for service, police enforcement , and protection would increase as development occurs throughout the Airport Specific Plan area. The Airport Specific Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measure 5.11-3A to address increased demand for police services, including Police Department review of site plans to ensure adequate access and lighting is provided, and payment of police protection development impact fees.
Schools. The Rialto Unified School District (School District) serves the Airport Specific Plan area and residents in the surrounding area. T he Airport Specific Plan EIR noted that schools in the School District Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
89 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
that would serve area residents were at, or near capacity. The Airport Specific Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measure 5.11-4B to address school impacts, including School District review of tentative tract maps to help ensure that adequate school facilities and services are planned, as well as the payment of school development impact fees.
Parks. Please refer to Section 3.16, Recreation.
Other Public Facilities. The Airport Specific Plan EIR did not address impacts related to other public facilities including libraries. However, the Airport Specific Plan EIR did note that existing City policy provided for the development of supplemental funding sources for libraries. Although the Airport Specific Plan did not call for the provision of funding for library services, induced population growth associated with the buildout of the original Airport Specific Plan area would result in increased funding for the library system.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact ; no substantial change from previous analysis.
Fire Protection. The Project would result in the construction of an industrial warehouse and distribution facility, inclusive of 10,000 sf of ancillary office space. The Project does not involve any residential development and therefore is not expected to substantially increase service demand such that new or altered facilities would need to be constructed. The closest fire station, Rialto Fire Station No. 204, is located at 3288 Alder Avenue, approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site.30 Consistent with Municipal Code Section 3.33.220, Fire Protection Facilities Development Fee, the Project would be required to pay a fee to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate any additional incremental demand from future development including the Project. The Project does not propose or require new or physically altered fire station facilities.
Police Protection. The project site is in a currently developed area served by the Police Department. The closest police station is located at 128 N. Willow Avenue, approximately 4.2 miles southeast of the project site.31 Because of this, and because law enforcement personnel already patrol the area, the Project is not anticipated to increase response times to the project site or surrounding area. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Municip al Code Section 3.33.210, Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee, which requires all development projects to pay a fee to account for any cost increases associated with the law enforcement facilities, equipment, and training resulting from Project implementation. The Project does not propose or require new or physically altered police protection facilities.
Schools. The Project is a non-residential development. Implementation of the Project would not directly result in increased population in the City and therefore, would not increase the need for the construction of additional school facilities. The Project would be required to comply with SB 50 requirements, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new projects. I n compliance with SB 50, the School District requires a development fee for New Commercial/Industrial Construction to be paid by an applicant.32 As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed …are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation
30 City of Rialto. (2010). City of Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/Facilities?clear=False. Accessed March 2023. 31 Rialto Police Department. (2023). Our Department. https://rialtopolice.com/our -department. Accessed March 2023. 32 Rialto Unified School District. (202 2). Developer Fee. https://kec.rialto.k12.ca.us/Page/1939. Accessed March 2023.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization …on the provision of adequate school facilities.”
Cumulative
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a new public services impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any public service impacts previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan did not identify any potential significant cumulative impacts associated with the provision of public services addressed in the EIR. The Project would not cumulatively contribute to any impacts to public services.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.11-1A, 5.11-1B, 5.11-1C, 5.11-2A, 5.11-3A, and 5.11-4B from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are applicable to the Project. Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3B is no longer applicable because development fees have been established by the City for police protection services . Mitigation Measure
5.11-4A is not applicable because the Project does not require approval of a tract map.
MM 5.11-1A Prior to issuance of building permits, project developers shall comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements as required by the City of Rialto for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants.
MM 5.11-1B At time of issuance of building permits, developers shall be required to participate in any City-wide fire protection impact fee program(s).
MM 5.11-1C Temporary construction roads and water supplies for fir efighting shall be required to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Construction contractors shall be required to prepare and implement temporary fire control systems and plans consistent with the requirements of the City’s Fire Department. The Fire Department shall review all construction plans to ensure adequate emergency access and water for fire protection to the entire Specific Plan area.
MM 5.11-2A Prior to any final entitlements for specific projects in the Specific Plan area, the project developer shall be required to provide evidence to the Fire Department that the proposed infrastructure and fire protection requirements and emergency services would be adequate to serve the proposed development. This evidence shall define phasing and project implementation.
MM 5.11-3A Prior to issuance of building permits, site plans shall undergo review by the Rialto Police Department to ensure that: one, adequate access to the site is provided; and two, that all entryways, lobbies, stairways, and parking areas are illuminated and visually isolated areas shall be minimized for public safety purposes.
MM 5.11-4B Developers shall be required to contribute their fair share to school impact fees.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum, no new impacts relative to public services or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
91 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts.
No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Recreation
Threshold (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?
Threshold (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Rialto Recreation, Park, and Social Services Department manages recreational facilities in the City of Rialto, inclusive of the Airport Specific Plan area. The City’s parkland standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The Airport Specific Plan EIR identified that the Airport Specific Plan implementation would increase the City’s population and create a demand for approximately 4.9 to 5.8 acres of parkland. This was considered a less than significant impact because the analysis concluded that the majority of the persons residing in the Airport Specific Plan area would use the 22-acre Jerry Eaves Park, located at 1485 N. Ayala Drive, in the Airport Specific Plan area. The analysis also noted that the City as a whole did not meet the goal of 3 acres of parkland per resident. Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 were identified, including the collection of developer fees as permitted by the Quimby Act and design review for commercial recreation projects. The Airport Specific Plan EIR concluded that ensuring that new projects conform with existing City regulations and fee programs, and Specific Plan regulations and guidelines (e.g., recreation overlays within certain parts of the Airport Specific Plan area) would further reduce impacts on recreational facilities and create certain beneficial impacts.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new i mpact/reduced impact ; no change from previous analysis.
Development of the project site with non-residential uses was assumed in the Airport Specific Plan. The Project does not include residential development, which would directly increase population and result in increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that could result in substantial physical deterioration of the City’s parks and recreational facilities. The City of Rialto requires the payment of development fees for public facilities maintained in the City for uses including but not limited to parks and recreation. The proposed Project would be subject to Municipal Code Section 3.33.190, General Municipal Facilities Development Impact Fee. In addition, the proposed project site has a Light Industrial land use designation with a Specific Plan Overlay and is not identified in the Rialto General Plan as a park or open space resource. T he Project does not include the construction of recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Therefore, no impact to existing recreational facilities would occur and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
Under the significance criteria for recreation, potential cumulative impacts could occur if the project— when combined with cumulative projects —would include new recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities tha t might adversely affect the environment in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks; or increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. The Airport Specific Plan identified that with mitigation, buildout of the Airport Specific Plan area could result in beneficial impacts. The Project would Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
93 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
not cause the need for new o r expanded recreational facilities or result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. As discussed above, the Project would not cause an increase in the severity of recreational impacts previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in project -specific recreational impacts nor cumulatively contribute to recreation impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure 5.10-1 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR is not applicable to the Project because it is not subject to the Quimby Act . Mitigation Measure 5.10 -2 is not applicable to the Project because the Project is not a commercial recreation use.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum , no new impacts relative to recreation or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Transportation
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Threshold (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Threshold (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR The Airport Specific Plan EIR evaluated existing traffic conditions and existing plus project conditions and concluded that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would contribute traffic greater than the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) threshold volume of 100 two -way trips to State Highways (Route 30 Freeway, I -15, and I -215). The Airport Specific Plan EIR also found that the Airport Specific Plan would contribute more than 80 trips (the CMP Roadway threshold volume) along roadway segments serving CMP intersections within the cities of Fontana and San Bernardino, as well as the County of San Bernardino. This was considered an unavoidabl e impact. Although roadways in the study area would experience heavier traffic conditions as a result of Airport Specific Plan development, implementation of the mitigation measures, such as a requirement for individual developments to provide a traffic analysis to determine fair share contribution to circulation improvements, construction of bus - turn outs and bus stops by individual developments, and requiring bicycle racks with commercial developments, were determined to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Reduced Impact; change from previous analysis.
A Traffic Study was prepared by Kimley -Horn in May 2024 to evaluate potential traffic -related impacts associated with the Project. The Traffic Study is included as Appendix K to this Addendum.
Methodology. When the Airport Specific Plan EIR was approved in 1997, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS). On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change the methodology and significance criteria for transportation impact analys es as par t of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released revisions to its proposed CEQA Guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020.
Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The mandate requiring lead agencies to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted in 2018 and became effective in 2020. The potential environmental impacts regarding the amount of travel associated with the Airport Specific Plan were known at the time that Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
95 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Trip Generation. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition was used to develop trip generation characteristics of the Project. The Project is most comparable to Warehousing (Land Use Code 150), which is consistent with the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LOS (October 2021) which states Warehousing (Land Use Code 150) shall be used for all warehousing projects. The truck rates, t ruck mixes and Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) for warehousing follow the City’s Guidelines. The estimated trip generation is shown in Table 3.17-1: Trip Generation. The Project is estimated to generate 655 PCE trips per day with 65 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 68 PCE trips during the PM peak hour.
The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial (I-PID).
Industrial land uses may include warehousing, manufacturing, and multi-tenant spaces. Key requirements for these industries include large parce ls, designated truck access routes, and appropriate utility connections. Warehouses are a permitted use in the I -PID. Based on the land use designation and the maximum FAR of 1. Applying the 11th Edition of ITE to the Warehousing Land Use Code 150, development of the project site with 225,173 sf industrial uses is estimated to generate of 655 PCE trips per day, with 65 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 68 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the trip estimates for the proposed Project based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual are expected to be very conservative compared to the anticipated operations of the proposed Project.
It should be noted that existing driveway counts for a similar site were conducted on two typical weekdays in December 2021 to estimate existing operations at the project site. The existing use trips are noted in the Scoping Agreement (Appendix K). The existing use credit would be applied when determining traffic development impact fees (DIF) for the proposed Project.
Trip Distribution. The trip distribution is based on expected travel patterns to/from the site from areas in Rialto and other surrounding communities. Truck distributions use designated truck routes and are routed in the direction of intended travel to the nearest freeways while per the City of Rialto Guidelines. The distribution also reflects that the SR-210 Alder Avenue interchange provides the shortest travel times and most direct routing to the site for passenger vehicle and trucks traveling from the west. The trip distribution for passenger vehicles and trucks is summarized below:
Passenger Vehicles
▪ 30% to/from the east along Riverside Avenue (east of Locust Avenue) ▪ 20% to/from the east along SR-210, using Ayala Drive interchange ▪ 5% to/from the north along Riverside Avenue (west of Locust Avenue) ▪ 30% to/from the west along SR-210, using Alder Avenue interchange ▪ 15% to/from the south along Locust Avenue
Trucks
▪ 20% to/from the north along Riverside Avenue (west of Locust Avenue) ▪ 30% to/from the east along SR-210, using Alder Drive interchange ▪ 20% to/from the south along Locust Avenue
▪ 30% to/from the west using SR-210, using Alder Avenue interchange Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Table 3.17-1: Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates1
ITE Land Use ITE Code Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 KSF 1.710 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 22.8.413 KSF 391 30 9 39 11 30 41
Passenger Vehicles 60.00% 235 18 5 23 7 18 25
Trucks 40.00% 156 12 4 16 4 12 16
Warehousing Project Trips - Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) Vehicle Type
Vehicle
Mix 3
Daily
Vehicles
PCE
Factor3 Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Passenger
Vehicles 60.0% 235 1.0 235 18 5 23 7 18 25
2-Axle Trucks 0.8% 3 1.5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
3-Axle Trucks 11.2% 44 2.0 88 7 2 9 2 7 9
4+ Axle Trucks 28.0% 109 3.0 327 25 8 33 9 25 34
Total Truck PCE Trips 420 32 10 42 11 32 43
Total Project PCE Trips 655 50 15 65 18 50 68
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent; KSF = thousand square feet
1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
2. Source: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing Delay and Level of Service
Peak Hour Operating Conditions . The Traffic Study included an Intersection Level of Service analysis , which was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours using the analysis procedures and assumptions described in Appendix K. The results of the intersection analysis for Existing Conditions are shown on Table 3.17-2: Summary of Existing Intersection Operations. Review of this table indicates that the following study intersections currently operate at unaccept able levels of service under Existing Conditions:
▪ #1 – Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive: PM – LOS F
▪ #2 – Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard: AM – LOS E The Level of Service for an unsignalized intersection is reported based on the single approach movement with the highest delay, which in this case, would be the eastbound approach for intersection #1 and the westbound approach for intersection #2. While the side street approach operates at a deficient Level of Service based on the highest d elay approach, the overall intersection delay would be acceptable. Any queuing that occurs on the side street is contained on the minor intersection approach and does not impact the progression of traffic on the main arterial (i.e., Locust Avenue).
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
97 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Table 3.17-2: Summary of Existing Intersection Operations Int. # Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive U 33.4 D 60.7 F
2 Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard U 35.8 E 24.2 C 3 Locust Avenue at Casmalia Street S 27.5 C 29.1 C
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection app roach.
Projected Future Traffic
Opening Year 2025
Peak Hour Operating Conditions . An Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted for Opening Year 2025. Consistent with the approved Traffic Scoping Agreement (Appendix K) and standard practice in the City, an ambient growth rate o f 2.0 percent per year to Opening Year 2024 was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop Opening Year 2025 forecasts. The results of the intersection analysis for Opening Year 2025 are shown on Table 3.17-3: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year 2025 Conditions. With the addition of ambient growth, the following traffic study area intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service:
▪ #1 – Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive: AM – LOS E; PM – LOS F ▪ #2 – Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard: AM – LOS E Table 3.17-3: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year 2025 Conditions Int. # Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive U 37.3 E 77.3 F
2 Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard U 38.7 E 25.6 D 3 Locust Avenue at Casmalia Street S 27.7 C 29.9 C
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection app roach.
Project Traffic
Opening Year 2025 Plus Project
Peak Hour Operating Conditions. An Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted for the Opening Year 2025 Plus Project conditions. The results of the intersection analysis are shown on Table 3.17-4:
Summary of Intersection Operation O pening Year 2025 Plus Project Conditions. With the addition of project traffic, the following study intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service:
▪ #1 – Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive: AM – LOS E; PM – LOS F ▪ #2 – Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard: AM – LOS E Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
98 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Table 3.17-4: Summary of Intersection Operation Opening Year 2025 Plus Project Conditions Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without
Project With Project Change
Delay?
Sig
Effect?
Without
Project
With
Project Change
Delay?
Sig
Effect? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Ave at Casa
Grande Dr 37.3 E 39.1 E 1.8 No 77.3 F 84.4 F 7.1 No
2 Locust Ave at West
Coast Blvd 38.7 E 41.5 E 2.8 No 25.6 D 26.6 D 1.0 No
3 Locust Ave at
Casmalia St 27.7 C 28.1 C 0.4 No 29.9 C 30.3 C 0.4 No
D1 Locust Ave at North
Project Driveway - - 23.1 C - No - - 17.2 C - No
D2 Locust Ave at South
Project Driveway - - 23.8 C - No - - 18.1 C - No
D3 West Coast Blvd at
Project Driveway - - 8.7 A - No - - 8.6 A - No
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative Projects, Cumulative Projects Trip Generation, and Trip Distribution In addition to ambient growth, traffic volumes for Cumulative Projects (approved and pending projects) were added to the Opening Year 2025 traffic volumes. Cumulative Projects consist of any project that has been approved and is not yet occupied, and projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not yet been approved. A summary of Cumulative Projects in the project vicinity and the trip generation associated with each is provided in Appendix K.
Trip generation information for the Cumulative Projects was derived either from approved traffic studies, where available; or d eveloped by Kimley -Horn if approved traffic studies were not available. Project information and trip generation assumptions for Cumulative Projects are provided in Appendix K.
Likewise, trip distribution and assignment for the Cumulative Projects were either derived from approved traffic studies, where available; or were developed by Kimley -Horn if approved traffic studies were not available. Trip distribution assumptions for Cumulative Projects are provided in Appendix K.
Peak Hour Operating Conditions. Cumulative Project peak hour traffic volumes for were added to Opening Year 2025 traffic volumes to develop Opening Year 2025 Cumulative traffic volumes. Intersection Level of Service results for Opening Year 2025 Cumulative conditions are show n on Table 3.17 -5:
Summary of Intersection Operation Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Conditions. With the addition of Cumulative Project traffic, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service:
▪ #1 – Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive: AM – LOS E; PM – LOS F ▪ #2 – Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard: AM – LOS E Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
99 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Table 3.17-5: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Conditions Int. # Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive U 48.5 E 146.1 F
2 Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard U 46.5 E 31.0 D 3 Locust Avenue at Casmalia Street S 29.1 C 31.1 C
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection app roach.
Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Conditions
Peak Hour Operating Conditions . Project traffic was added to Opening Year 2025 Cumulative traffic volumes to develop Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project traffic forecast volumes. Intersection Level of Service analysis results under Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project conditions are shown on Table 3.17-6: Summary of Intersection Operation Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project. As this table indicates, with the addition of project traffic, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
▪ #1 – Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive: AM – LOS E; PM – LOS F ▪ #2 – Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard: AM – LOS E Table 3.17-6: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without
Project
With
Project Change
Delay?
Sig
Effect?
Without
Project With Project Change
Delay?
Sig
Effect? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Ave at Casa
Grande Dr 48.5 E 51.4 F 2.9 No 146.1 F 161.2 F 15.1 No
2 Locust Ave at West
Coast Blvd 46.5 E 50.3 F 3.8 No 31.0 D 32.5 D 1.5 No
3 Locust Ave at
Casmalia St 29.1 C 29.5 C 0.4 No 31.1 C 31.3 C 0.2 No
D1 Locust Ave at North
Project Driveway - - 26.1 D - No - - 19.5 C - No
D2 Locust Ave at South
Project Driveway - - 27.0 D - No - - 20.6 C - No
D3 West Coast Blvd at
Project Driveway - - 8.7 A - No - - 8.6 A - No
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection app roach.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
100 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Traffic Signal Warrants
The following unsignalized study intersections would operate an unacceptable level of Service under all analysis scenarios:
▪ Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive
▪ Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard
A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the def icient unsignalized intersections based on the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrants were conducted using Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Warrant) for the following analysis scenarios:
▪ Existing Conditions
▪ Opening Year 2025
▪ Opening Year 2025 Plus Project
▪ Opening Year 2025 Cumulative
▪ Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project
Based on the signal warrant analysis, Warrant 3 was met under all study scenarios for Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive. Traffic signal warrants were not met for Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard.
The CA MUTCD specifically states that, “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” The reference document goes on to state a number of other factors to take into account when considering a signal for a specific location, including whether or not a signal would improve the overall safety of the intersection, whether it would benefit or disrupt progressive traffic flow (in this case, on Locust Avenue), and consideration of site -specific characteristics such as queueing, signal spacing, and overall delay to the main street through movements.
The decision to install a traffic signal should be based on engineering judge ment, and not solely upon satisfying a single peak hour warrant. It is recommended that a decision about signalization at the intersection be based on future observations as well as engineering judgment, based on the factors listed above.
Based on the signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal and other associated signal improvements necessary to construct the traffic signal, is recommended at intersection #1 (Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive).
The Project would pay a fair -share, based on future traffic gr owth, towards the recommended signal improvements benefitting intersection #1 (Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive).
No improvements are recommended at the intersection of Locust Avenue at West Coast Boulevard (#2) since a traffic signal warrant was not met under any analysis scenario due to the nominal amount of traffic on West Coast Boulevard. The level of service for an unsignalized intersection is based on the single approach movement with the highest delay, which in this case, would be the westbound app roach for intersection #2. While the side street approach operates at a deficient level of service based on the highest delay approach, the overall intersection delay would be acceptable. Under Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the westbound approach would have a 95th percentile queue of less than one car length in both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, any queuing that occurs on the side street would be contained on the minor intersection approach and would not impact the progression of traffic on the main arterial (i.e., Locust Avenue). It should be noted that the Project is required to construct the full Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
101 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
ultimate roadway width, consistent with industrial street standards, including curb and gutter, on both sides of West Coast Boulev ard along the project site frontage, consistent with the existing West Coast Boulevard roadway section just east of the project site frontage. This improvement would provide one travel lane in each direction on West Coast Boulevard along the project site frontage and would improve overall circulation within the project site area, compared to existing conditions.
A summary of the intersection operation before and after implementation of a traffic signal and the fair- share are provided on Table 3.17 -7 for informational purposes only. Fair-share calculations for intersection #1 (Locust Avenue at Casa Grande Drive) are provided on Table 3.17-8.
Table 3.17-7: Summary of Intersection Operation with Recommended Improvements Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Locust Ave at Casa Grande Dr
Traffic signal 51.4 F 39.3 D 161.2 F 38.3 D
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Table 3.17-8: Summary of Project Fair Share Improvements Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume
Total
Growth
Project
Trips
Fair-
Share
%-age
Total Volume
Total
Growth
Project
Trips
Fair-
Share
%-age Existing
Opening
Year 2025
Cumulative
Plus
Project Existing
Opening
Year 2025
Cumulative
Plus
Project
#1 Locust Ave at
Casa Grande Dr 1,055 1,219 164 20 12.2% 1,017 1,186 169 16 9.5%
Construction Traffic and Emergency Access . Construction of the proposed Project would add construction-related trips to and from the site during construction activities. These trips are associated with construction workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features.
Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases . Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on-site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction.
Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on the project site during all phases of const ruction. Construction workers would not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking would be provided.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
102 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
The Applicant will be required to provide a CMP and identify planned travel patterns for haul v ehicles.
Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be via Locust Avenue and West Coast Boulevard. Trucks would typically arrive and depart via I-210, south of the project site.
Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occas ional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt-hauling trucks and other heavy trucks will be scheduled outside of the AM and PM peak hours. Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required.
The project site is in a developed area, and the proposed development would be accessed by roadways and driveways into the project site. The Project would have three points of access: two driveways on Locust Avenue and one driveway on West Coast Boulevard. The northern Locust Avenue driveway would be a full -movement truck driveway and would be 45 feet wide. The southern Locust Avenue driveway would be a full-movement passenger car and truck driveway and would be 46.8 feet wide. The driveway on West Coast Boulevard would be a full-movement passenger car driveway and would be 26 feet wide.
All drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers for emergency and fire vehicles.
The Project would not introduce incompatible use s to area roadways. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable State and City building codes and would meet City of Rialto standards for design, including sight distance at all intersections. The Project would not introduce roadway haz ards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the Specific Plan.
Constructed driveways are required to meet access standards of the Rialto Fire Department. Project traffic would not result in substantial delays an d congestions that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area.
The Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. However, the Project is subject to the City’s citywide traffic impact fee program and the CMP.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a transportation impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any cumulatively considerable transportation impacts previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures dis cussed in this section.
Implementation of the Project would not cumulatively contribute to cumulative transportation impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.2 -2A, 5.2-3A, and 5.2 -4 are not applicable to the Project because the Project is subject to the City’s citywide traffic impact fee program and the Project’s payment of impact fees will be used to offset the costs of implementing the mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may be required to construct a needed improvemen t in advance of the City’s receipt of full funding, in which case the improvement may be subject to a reimbursement agreement, to allow the Project to recoup costs from future development. Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the City of Rialto complied with this mitigation measure prior to the approval of the Airport Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-2B is not applicable to the Project because bus turn-outs and bus stops have been Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
103 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
constructed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR area. Mitigation Measures 5.2-2C and 5.2-2E are not applicable to the Project because the Project is not a commercial project; however, the Project would provide bicycle racks in accordance with current City requirements and MM AQ-10 in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Mitigation Measure 5.2-3B is not applicable to the Project because it is an action to be completed by the City of Rialto rather than an individual applicant.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum, no new impacts relative to transportation or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Airport Specific Plan EIR concluded that the Airport Specific Plan would result in significant unavoidable impact with respect to the Airport Specific Plan’s generation of more than 80 trips (the CMP Roadway threshold volume) along roadway segments serving CMP intersections within the cities of Fontana and San Bernardino, as well as the County of San Bernardino. Based on the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Project, all transportation impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
104 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of whi ch could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold (b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Threshold (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 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? Threshold (d) Would the project 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?
Threshold (e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR Water. The Airport Specific Plan area is within the service area of three water utilities: City of Rialto, West San Bernardino County Water District (WSBCWD) , and the Fontana Water Company. Domestic water demand would be increased substantially as a result of Specific Plan implementation and would require the construction of domestic water transmission facilities to serve the Airport Specific Plan area; however, these system expansions would be added as necessary and would be paid for by user fees and, as appropriate, developer impact fees. Several mitigation measures , including Mitigation Measure 5.12 -1 and 5.12 -3, were identified to meet the daily water supply demand and City’s maximum fire flow requirements. Impacts were considered less than significant with mitigation.
Sewer. The Airport Specific Plan area is served by the sanitary sewer system of the City of Rialto.
Wastewater is currently treated at the existing City of Rialto wastewater treatment plant, near the intersection of Acacia Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue. Specific Plan implementation would require upsizing of existing facilities to serve the area. The Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would result in significant amounts of wastewater, requiring additional facili ties.
Mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure 5.12-1and 5.12-3, were identified to reduce impacts to sewer facilities, although sewage generation would occur incrementally as projects are developed in the Specific Plan area. Impacts were considered less than significant with mitigation.
Electrical/Natural Gas/Telecommunications. Electricity is provided to the Airport Specific Plan area by Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural g as is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) . Telephone service was provided by Pacific Bell Company. Airport Specific Plan implementation would require expansion of existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would create additional demand for electricity, natural gas, and telephone service facilities related to t he development of the proposed land uses. Several mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure 5.12- 6, were identified to reduce impacts to utility services and infrastructure.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
105 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Solid Waste. The Airport Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Airport Specific Plan would result in the generation of significant amounts of solid waste. However, impacts on existing solid waste facilities from Specific Plan land use solid waste would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation including compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Mitigation Measure 5.12 -5A), review of site plans identifying proposed solid waste and recyclable collection areas (Mitigation Measure 5.12 -B), and the use of landscape treatments that minimize yard trimmings and waste (Mitigation Measure 5.12-5C).
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No new impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Warehouses are a permitted use in the I-PID.
Water. The project site is in the service area of the WVWD.33 As it applies to the Project, the West Valley Water District 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP), as part of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP, is the applicable planning d ocument for evaluating water supply and demand. According to the RUWMP, WVWD’s 2020 water supply was approximately 20,098 acre-feet (AF), which was a combination of 11,401 AF of groundwater, 5,356 AF of surface water, and 3,342 AF of purchased or imported water. Table 3.18- 1: WVWD Projected Water Supplies shows the forecasted water supply for the WVWD service area through 2045.
Table 3.18-1: WVWD Projected Water Supplies (AFY)
Water Supply Additional Detail 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Groundwater1 Bunker Hill (part of SBB) 2,052 2,353 3,554 4,754 6,455 Groundwater 1 Bunker Hill (part of SBB, via
Baseline Feeder) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Groundwater 1 Lytle (part of SBB) 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 Groundwater 1 Rialto-Colton 4,426 4,538 4,650 4,761 4,873 Purchased or Imported
Water
State Water Project – Rialto Colton
Groundwater Supplemental Supply - - - - -
Groundwater 1 Riverside-Arlington 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,000 Groundwater 1 Chino - 900 900 900 900
Surface water (not
desalinated) Lytle Creek 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100
Purchased or Imported
Water
State Water Project – Direct
Delivery 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Total ─ 26,978 28,791 30,603 32,415 34,229
AFY = acre-feet per year; Source: WVWD, 2021.
1. Not desalinated
Source: WVWD, 2021.
The 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP provides water demand projections for the City, as shown in Table 3.18-2: WVWD Water Supply and Deman d Comparison. The IRUWMP determined that the water supply would be able to accommodate the service area’s normal years, single dry years, and
33 West Valley Water District. (2016). West Valley Water District Boundar y Map. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1207/Map -of-West-Valley-Water-District-Boundaries.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
106 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
multiple-dry years, if required. Additionally, the Project would include the construction and operation of an industrial warehouse and distribution development on land zoned for industrial uses. Therefore, the Project’s water demand has been accounted for within the General Plan and Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to the City’s available water supply.
Table 3.18-2: Projected Water Demand (AF)
Customer Class 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential 6,528 6,945 7,362 7,629 7,897
Commercial 1,577 1,678 1,779 1,843 1,908
Institutional/Government 776 826 876 907 939
AF = acre-feet
Note: The IRUWMP characterizes by three categories. The Project would fall under the commercial category.
Source: IRUWMP, 2021.
Sewer. The Project is an industrial warehouse and distribution development within land zoned I-PID. As such, the proposed development is consistent with the assumptions in the Airport Specific Plan for the project site. Assuming the City’s wastewater generation factors of 1,000 gallons per acre for commer cial land uses from the 1994 Rialto Storm Drain and Wastewater Master Plan, the Project would generate 11,220 gallons per day (gpd).
Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant, which functions in conjunction with four additional independent treatment plants. The combined total treatment design capacity of the plants is over 12 million gallons per day (mgd) 34. Given that the Project would generate an additional 11,220 gpd or 0.011 mgd of wastewater based on these generation rates, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of the treatment plants. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the project-generated wastewater and continue to maintain a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. The Project includes a new sewer connection. The Project would design the sewer connection consistent with current City design guidelines and would pay a sewer connection fee.
Development of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the project site. The proposed condition would mimic the existing drainage pattern with the development of the warehouse, surface parking areas, and associated on-site improvements. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 12.60.260, Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), the Project would be required to submit and have the City Engineer approve a SWQMP. The SWQMP would identify all BMPs that would be incorporated into the Project to control storm water and non-storm water pollutants during and after construction and would be revised as necessary during the life of the Project. BMPs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Therefore, storm water runoff expected at buildout of the Project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
Electrical/Natural Gas/Telecommunications. The Project would not require relocation or construction of new backbone infrastructure facilities. The Project would connect to existing connections for services.
34 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -General-Plan.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
107 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Additionally, the Project would include the underg rounding of existing overhead utilities located along the project site frontage along West Coast Boulevard.
Solid Waste. Implementation of the Project would be expected to generate additional waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as w ell as the operational phase, but it would not result in inadequate landfill capacity. Waste generation may vary greatly depending upon individual tenants; however, the Project does not propose a land use change; therefore, the uses allowed to operate on the project site would be consistent with the assumptions for solid waste in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The City of Rialto’s Waste Management Office provides environmental services to City residents and businesses. The Waste Management Office oversees the City's trash and recycling service contract provided by Burrtec Disposal. Solid waste service for the City of Rialto is provided by the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill located in the northern portion of the City. The landf ill has a maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day. This landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 61.2 million cubic yards. 35 The landfill has an expected operational life through 2045 with the potential for vertical or downward expansion.36 Landfill capacity is expected to decrease over time with future growth and development throughout San Bernardino County and surrounding In land Empire areas. Waste reduction and recycling programs and regulations are expected to reduce this demand and extend the life of existing landfills. The Project complies with the land use and zoning designat ions set forth in the Airport Specific Plan for the project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.
The Project would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling, as detailed in Municipal Code Chapter 8.08, Refuse Collection. The Project’s solid waste generation would be subject to compliance with AB 939, which measure s for each jurisdiction, in part, the actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Further, the Project, similar to all projects, is required to recycle construction waste in compliance with the 20 22 California Green Building Code, to store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341, and to handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. Overall, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information associated with the Project.
Cumulative Impact
Given the existing available water supply, the water suppl y needs of the Project—together with related projects—would not result in the need for new or expanded water entitlements that could result in significant environmental impacts. Since the Project would not have a significant impact on the water supply and would have adequate water infrastructure improvements, the Project combined with related projects would not result in significant water supply and infrastructure impacts. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Further, the Project would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. No significant cumulative impact is anticipated with respect to water supply, and the Project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively considerable.
35 CalRecycle. (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 .
Accessed November 15, 2023.
36 City of Rialto. (2017). Addendum to the Renaissance Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
108 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Given the existing available capacity of the water treatment plant, the wastewater treatment needs of the Project—together with related projects —would not result in the need f or new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities that could result in significant environmental impacts or that could cause the wastewater treatment to exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities. The City indicated that sufficient capacit y exists for sewer services for the Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.
Further, the Project would have adequate wastewater capacity to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development. No significant cumulative impact is anticipated with respect to wastewater capacity, and the Project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
As addressed in Section 3.6, Energy, the Project would not cause an energy impact to occur, including the use of electricity. Implementation of the Project would not result in significant unavoidable energy impacts and would therefore not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative energy impact than those already analyzed. The Project’s contribution to energy use would less than cumulatively considerable.
Potential future projects in the area would increase solid waste generation and decrease available capacity of the County’s landfills. The Project does not propose a change to land use or zoning; thus, the solid waste generation for construction and operations of industrial uses on the site were assumed in planning documents. The Project would not result in a significant imp act and combined with related projects would not result in significant impacts to solid waste standards, infrastructure, or reduction goals.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulative considerable.
In summary, the Project would not cause utilit y impacts to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any utilities impacts previously disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The Project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 5.12-1, 5.12-3, 5.12-5A, 5.12-5B, 5.12-5C, and 5.12-6 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR are applicable to the Project. Mitigation Measure 5.12 -2 from the Airport Specific Plan EIR is not applicable to the Project because the Project does not require the approval of a subdivision map.
MM 5.12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, project developers shall demonstrate the use of low water use fixtures, plumbing fixtures and appliances, to the satisfaction of the City Building Inspector, as follows:
Interior:
▪ Supply line pressure: Reduce water pressure greater than 50 psi to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve.
▪ Drinking fountains: Equip drinking fountains with self-closing valves. ▪ Ultra-low toilets: Install 1.ft gallon per flush toilets in all new construction.
Exterior:
▪ Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. ▪ Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses. ▪ Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low- water-using plants.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
109 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
▪ Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction.
▪ Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low -water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation.
▪ Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Dr ip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods to consider in increasing irrigation efficiency and may be feasible for the project. ▪ Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff. ▪ investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed wastewater, stored rain water, or gray water for irrigation.
MM 5.12-3 Project developers shall pay applicable connection fees prior to issuance of connection permits and shall provide appropriate facilities on-site to connect with the City’s system.
MM 5.12-5A Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall provide the City and County with evidence of compliance with guidelines set forth by the State of California in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 989) which requires jurisdictions to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills by the year 2000.
This shall include consideration for relocating mature trees, and offering marketable materials to recyclers such as concrete, asphalt and steel.
MM 5.12-5B Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a site plan delineating the capacity, number, and location of all proposed solid waste and recyclable collection areas shall be submitted to the City of Rialto Department of Public Works for review and approval. Further, each location shall be verified by the City of Rialto Development Services Department, prior to issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy.
MM 5.12-5C The applicant shall utilize special landscape treatments to minimize the amount of yard trimmings and waste from the proposed project area, to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department, as part of the Precise Plan of Development review and approval.
MM 5.12-6 All c onstruction shall be done within the guidelines established by State building regulations and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as they relate to energy conservation including such measures as solar heating for water and the use of landscaping to shade buildings.
Conclusion
Based on the comparative analysis set forth in this Addendum , no new impacts relative to Utilities and Services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstan ces under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
110 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
111 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Wildfire
The topic of Wildfire was not addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR because the requirement to analyze in CEQA documents, the potential impacts associated with proximity to very high fire hazard severity zones did not become effective until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of the Airport Specific Area EIR by the Rialto City Council in November 1997.
Threshold (a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold (b) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, d ue 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 a wildfire? Threshold (c) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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?
Threshold (d) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project e xpose 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?
No Impact. According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project site is not within or proximate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone for a Local Responsibility Area (LRA).
Additionally, the project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility 37.
Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the project site is not within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur or cumulatively contribute to wildfire impacts.
Mitigation Program
No mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Project would not cause a new wildfire impact. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was certified is available that would result in a significant impact that would require major revisions to the Airport Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (202 3). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed March 2023.
Section 4
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Determination
112 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
Based upon the analysis of potential environmental consequences anticipated to occ ur from implementation of the proposed Project as provided in Section 3, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts that were not disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for in the Airport Specif ic Plan EIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the proposed Project’s potential impacts would either be the same or less than those anticipated for the approved project as evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential fo r new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified.
Therefore, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum to the previously certified Airport Specific Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation f or the proposed Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision -making body must consider the whole of the data presented in the Airport Specific Plan EIR, as augmented by this Addendum. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not req uired and the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project is this Addendum to the Airport Specific Plan EIR. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed Project.
Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; The land use designation for the project site in the Airport Specific Plan is Planned Industrial Development (I-PID). Warehouses are a permitted use in the I-PID. The Airport Specific Plan assumed a maximum FAR of 0.7:1 for planned industrial development. The total area of the project site is 488,624 s f, which at a
0.7:1 FAR would result in a maximum allowable building size of 342,037 s f. The proposed Project would allow for a 225,173-sf warehouse and distribution facility on the 11.21-acre project site and would include 215,173 sf of warehouse space and 10,000 sf of ancillary office space.
The City of Rialto proposes to implement the Project within the context of the Airport Specific Plan, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR would occur that would require substantive revisions to the Airport Specific Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in increased impacts above what was evaluated in the Airport Specific Plan EIR with regard to environmental factors such as air quality, noise, public services, and utilities. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or Section 4
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Determination
113 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
As documented herein, subsequent to the implementation and certification of the Airport Specific Plan, the Rialto City Council adopted resolutions declaring the intent t o relocate the Rialto Airport operations to other nearby facilities. With the closure of the Rialto Airport, many of the assumptions for development in the Airport Specific Plan area were no longer applicable. On November 9, 2010, the Rialto City Council adopted the Renaissance Specific Plan and certified the Renaissance Specific Plan Program EIR. The approximately 1,439-acre Renaissance Specific Plan area is generally bordered by Casmalia Street to the north, Baseline Road to the south, Ayala Drive to the east, and Tamarind Avenue to the west. With the adoption of the Renaissance Specific Plan, the boundaries of the Airport Specific Plan area were modified to exclude the Renaissance Specific Plan area.
Although the boundaries of the Airport Specific Plan were modified, the remainder of the Airport Specific Plan, located primarily north of SR -210, continues to regulate the areas within the remaining Airport Specific Plan area, outside of the Renaissance Specific Plan area. The Airport Specific Plan identified this area as (1) an industrial area, (2) largely “underutilized and underdeveloped”, (3) intended to “encourage and improve the economic and physical vitality of the area” , (4) providing for “development standards and design guidelines … to ensure a quality appearance within the area”.
Accordingly, this change in circumstances does not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previou sly identified. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken which will require major revisions of the Airport Specific Plan EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
No new information that was not known at the time the Airport Specific Plan EIR was prepared is now available that demonstrates that the proposed Project will result in a new or increased impact. Based on the analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the project-related effects would not be substantially more severe than were disclosed in the Airport Specific Plan EIR as a result of the proposed Project.
Implementation of the proposed Project within the context of the Airport Specific Plan would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the Section 4
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Determination
114 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
No feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially red uce significant impacts associated with the buildout the Airport Specific Plan. However, the proposed Project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Additional technical analyses were performed for the proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects that are substantially different from those identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR nor would it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Airport Specific Plan EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in sub division (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any.
In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, no subsequent EIR is required.
Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the proposed Project . Therefore, an Addendum to the Airport Specific Plan EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the EIR or adopted negative declaration.
Section 4
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Determination
115 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
This Addendum will be attached to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City of Rialto.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City of Rialto would consider this Addendum with the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City of Rialto records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the proposed Project.
Section 5
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Preparers
116 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
PREPARERS
City of Rialto (Lead Agency)
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Project Manager
Casey Schooner, AICP, Assistant Project Manager
Madison Brown, Planning Analyst
Section 6
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project References
117 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
REFERENCES
Armstrong & Brooks Consulting Engineers. (2024). Preliminary Hydrology Study.
Armstrong & Brooks Consulting Engineers. (2024). Water Quality Management Plan.
California Department of Conservation. (2023a). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed November 2023.
California Department of Conservation (2023c). Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.36675/34.07440/14.
Accessed November 2023.
California Department of Conservation. (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed November 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zone s in State Responsibility Areas. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed November 2023.
California Department of Transportation. (2023). California State Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa. Accessed November 2023.
California Employment Development Department. (2023). Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places. (CDP). https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force- and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed November 2023.
City of Rialto. (1997). Rialto Airport Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report.
City of Rialto (2010). City of Rialto General Plan.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
City of Rialto. (2021). Rialto Climate Adaption Plan.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1761/Rialto-Climate-Adaptation-Draft- Plan-July-2021.
Rialto Police Department. (2023). Our Department. https://rialtopolice.com/our-department. Accessed November 2023.
Rialto Unified School District. (2023). Developer Fee. https://kec.rialto.k12.ca.us/Page/1939. Accessed November 2023.
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non- attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S).
Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. (2015). Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values.
FTA. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Geo Environmental Resource, Inc. (2023). Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Analysis.
Section 6
West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project References
118 Addendum to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR
Kimley-Horn and Associates (2023). West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Air Quality/GHG Modeling Calculations and Health Risk Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Energy Data.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Noise Data.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2024). West Coast and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project Traffic Study Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. (2023). Paleontological Records Search Results.
Rialto Police Department. (2023). Our Department. https://rialtopolice.com/our-department. Accessed November 2023.
Rialto Unified School District. (2022). Developer Fee. https://kec.rialto.k12.ca.us/Page/1939. Accessed November 2023.
Rocks Biological Consulting.(2023). West Coast Warehouse Development Project Biological Technical Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (August 2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.
SCAQMD, (October 2018) Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, at pp. 3-2 and 3-3,; Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World, July 2011, 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227, 229-235).
SCAQMD (2009). Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8, 2009.
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). (2023). Records Search Results for the West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Project – 194553001.
Waterstone Environmental, Inc. (2023). Phase I Environmental Assessment Report.
West Valley Water District. (2016). West Valley Water District Boundary Map. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1207/Map-of-West-Valley-Water-District- Boundaries.