Rialto City Council
October 28, 2025

SANTA ANA

TRUCK TERMINAL PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2023120143

CITY OF RIALTO
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
AUGUST 2024

SANTA ANA TRUCK TERMINAL PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 2023120143

Prepared for City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376

Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92101
Date August 2024
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Areas of Controversy ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2

1.5 Alternatives Analyzed ...................................................................................................... 1-2

1.6 Summary of Effects with No Impact ................................................................................ 1-3

1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 1-5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact ............................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Type of Environmental Impact Report................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Standards of Adequacy Under CEQA .................................................................. 2-2

2.1.3 Compliance with CEQA ....................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Scope of the Environmental Impact Report .................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation (NOP) ............................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Scoping Meeting ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3 EIR Scope and Content ..................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................... 2-5

2.5 Lead Agency and Contact Persons ................................................................................... 2-5

2.6 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................................ 2-5

2.7 List of Acronyms Used in The EIR ..................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 On-site and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................. 3-1

3.4 Land Use Designations ..................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.1 General Plan Designations .................................................................................. 3-7

3.4.2 Zoning Designations ............................................................................................ 3-7

3.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3-8

3.6 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 3-8 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto ii

3.6.1 Site Access and Parking ....................................................................................... 3-9

3.6.2 Building Design, Landscaping, and Lighting ...................................................... 3-19

3.6.3 Infrastructure and Off-Site Improvements ....................................................... 3-25

3.7 Construction Phasing ..................................................................................................... 3-25

3.8 Intended Use of the EIR ................................................................................................. 3-25

3.8.1 City of Rialto ...................................................................................................... 3-26

3.8.2 Responsible Agencies........................................................................................ 3-26

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.0.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology .......................................................... 4-1

4.0.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.0.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................. 4-2

4.0.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-3

4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts .................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.1-2

4.1.4 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.1-4

4.1.5 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.1-5

4.1.6 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................... 4.1-6

4.1.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.1-6

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.1-9

4.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.1-10

4.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.2-9

4.2.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.2-15

4.2.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.2-14

4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.2-16

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.2-32

4.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.2-33 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iii

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.3-5

4.3.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.3-7

4.3.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.3-20

4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.3-21

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.3-26

4.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.3-27

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.4-4

4.4.4 Methodology and Results ................................................................................ 4.4-8

4.4.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.4-10

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.4-10

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.4-13

4.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.4-13

4.5 ENERGY ......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.5-4

4.5.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.5-7

4.5.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................... 4.5-7

4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.5-8

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.5-13

4.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.5-14

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.6-5

4.6.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.6-9 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iv

4.6.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................... 4.6-9

4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.6-10

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.6-16

4.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.6-17

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.7-14

4.7.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.7-16

4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.7-16

4.7.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.7-17

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.7-28

4.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.7-29

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.8-11

4.8.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.8-13

4.8.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.8-14

4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.8-14

4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.8-19

4.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.8-20

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.9-4

4.9.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.9-6

4.9.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................... 4.9-6

4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.9-7

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.9-13

4.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.9-13

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto v

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.10-5

4.10.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.10-5

4.10.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.10-5

4.10.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.10-5

4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.10-23

4.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.10-23

4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.11-3

4.11.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.11-4

4.11.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.11-4

4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.11-4

4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.11-6

4.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.11-6

4.12 NOISE .......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.12.2 Noise Criteria and Definitions ........................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.12-3

4.12.4 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.12-7

4.12.5 Methodology ............................................................................................... 4.12-11

4.12.6 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.12-12

4.12.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................... 4.12-12

4.12.8 Cumulative Noise Impacts ........................................................................... 4.12-21

4.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.12-23

4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.13-2 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto vi

4.13.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.13-4

4.13.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.13-5

4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.13-5

4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.13-6

4.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.13-7

4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.14-6

4.14.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.14-8

4.14.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.14-8

4.14.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.14-9

4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.14-13

4.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.14-14

4.15 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.15-4

4.15.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.15-5

4.15.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.15-5

4.15.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.15-6

4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.15-12

4.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.15-13

4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.16-6

4.16.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.16-4

4.16.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.16-4

4.16.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.16-5

4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.16-6

4.16.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.16-7 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto vii

4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 4.17-1

4.17.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4.17-1

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.17-1

4.17.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.17-6

4.17.4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 4.17-10

4.17.5 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.17-11

4.17.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................... 4.17-11

4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.17-17

4.17.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.17-18

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ............................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Significant Irreversible Effects ......................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Growth-Inducing Effects .................................................................................................. 5-2

5.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 5-4

6.0 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Project Summary.............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives .................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Alternatives for Analysis .................................................................................................. 6-3

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................... 6-17

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.1 EIR Preparers .................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Contributors ..................................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................................ 1-7 Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation ..................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: Building Summary .................................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-2: Automobile Parking ................................................................................................................ 3-10 Table 3-3: Truck Trailer Loading .............................................................................................................. 3-19 Table 4.0-1: Cumulative Projects List ........................................................................................................ 4-5 Table 4.1-1: Development Standard Consistency Summary .................................................................. 4.1-8 Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................. 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ........................................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns .............................................. 4.2-11 Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data ................................................................................................. 4.2-13 Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .............................. 4.2-15 Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations ............................................ 4.2-16 Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions ...................................................................................... 4.2-19 Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions...................................................................................................... 4.2-21 Table 4.2-9: Equipment-Specific Site Preparation Rates ..................................................................... 4.2-25 Table 4.2-10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions .......................................................... 4.2-26 Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions............................................................ 4.2-27 Table 4.2-12: Unmitigated Carcinogenic Risk Assessment .................................................................. 4.2-30 Table 4.2-13: Chronic Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................... 4.2-31 Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence ............................. 4.3-17 Table 4.3-2: Potential Project Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Uses ................................. 4.3-24 Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Benardino County 2012-2022 .......................................... 4.5-6 Table 4.5-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 20120-2022 ................................... 4.5-6 Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 .............................. 4.5-7 Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction ........................................................................................ 4.5-8 Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations ............................................................................ 4.5-11 Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity ........................................................................................... 4.6-6 Table 4.6-2: Paleontological Resources within the Project Vicinity ....................................................... 4.6-9 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases .................................................................................... 4.7-14 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto ix
Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................... 4.7-17 Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 4.7-18 Table 4.7-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.............. 4.7-26 Table 4.8-1: Adjacent Properties ......................................................................................................... 4.8-11 Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................................. 4.10-8 Table 4.10-2: Specific Plan Consistency ............................................................................................. 4.10-21 Table 4.12-1: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning .............................................................. 4.12-5 Table 4.12-2: Permitted Hours of Construction Work ......................................................................... 4.12-6 Table 4.12-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-4: Existing Noise Measurements ........................................................................................ 4.12-7 Table 4.12-5: Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.12-13 Table 4.12-6: Project Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.12-14 Table 4.12-7: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.12-18 Table 4.12-8: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... 4.12-20 Table 4.12-9: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels .............................. 4.12-23 Table 4.13-1: Population Projections for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .......................... 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2: Housing for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .................................................. 4.13-3 Table 4.13-3: Labor Force Data for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .................................... 4.15-4 Table 4.15-1: Project-Generated VMT ................................................................................................. 4.15-9 Table 4.15-2: Project’s Effects on VMT ................................................................................................ 4.15-9 Table 4.17-1: Projected Water Supply ................................................................................................. 4.17-7 Table 4.17-2: Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ............................................................... 4.17-8 Table 6-1: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternative Impacts .......................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis .................................................................................. 6-5 Table 6-3: Alternative 2 and Project Comparison ..................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-4: Alternative 3 and Project Comparison ................................................................................... 6-13

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-4a: Conceptual Elevations Truck Terminal ................................................................................ 3-13 Figure 3-4b: Conceptual Elevations Truck Terminal ............................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-4c: Conceptual Elevations Maintenance Shop ......................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-5a: 3D Color Renderings ........................................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3-5b: 3D Color Renderings ........................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 4.3-1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources .............................................................................. 4.3-11 Figure 4.3-2a: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife ....................................................... 4.3-13 Figure 4.3-2b: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife....................................................... 4.3-15 Figure 4.12-1: Noise Measurement Locations ..................................................................................... 4.12-9

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto xi
Volume II

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Notice of Preparation and Correspondence
B Air Quality Assessment
C Health Risk Assessment
D Biological Technical Report
E Cultural Resources Memorandum
F Energy Memorandum
G Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
H Paleontological Resources Search Results
I Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
J Phase II Report
K EDR Radius Map Report
L Preliminary Drainage Report
M Water Quality Management Plan
N Acoustical Assessment
O Traffic Study
P VMT Analysis

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto xii
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the potentially direct and indirect significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project.

In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this is a Project EIR that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, known as “Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project.”

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project site is at 249 East Santa Ana Avenue, approximately 0.3 miles east of South Riverside Avenue, in the City of Rialto (City), County of San Bernardino, California. The approximately 45.7-acre property is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 900 to 955 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The project site is generally rectangular shaped, and is bordered by East Santa Ana Avenue to the north, Veolia Water North America to the east, and industrial land uses to the south and west.

As proposed, the Project would allow for the development one 172,445 square foot (sf) truck terminal warehouse and one 18,700 sf maintenance shop, with associated surface parking and landscaping. The proposed truck terminal would include 166,553 sf of truck terminal space and 5,890 sf of office space. The proposed maintenance shop would include 17,810 sf of maintenance space and 890 sf of office space. The Project would include 149 passenger parking spaces, 679 trailer parking spaces, and 100 tractor parking spaces. Landscaping would be included along the boundaries of the project site and within the passenger vehicle parking area.

The project site has a Rialto General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of General Industrial. The Project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the project site. The project site is within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area. The Specific Plan zoning designation for the project site is Heavy Industrial (H IND). The proposed warehouse and truck terminal uses are identified as permitted uses within the H IND zone. Although the Project is consistent with the existing land use designation and zoning designation, the Project would require a Conditional Use Permit as development of a truck terminal is considered a conditionally permitted use within an industrial land use designation.

1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
State CEQA Guidelines §15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that this section of the EIR identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to, mitigate the significant effects. The following issues of concern have been identified during the review period of the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and public meetings:
 Adequate air quality analysis, greenhouse gas emissions analysis, and noise analysis.  Traffic impacts associated with development.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-2
 Thorough tribal consultation and discussion of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

The aforementioned issues have been considered in this EIR, where applicable, in Sections 4.1, Aesthetics through 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. Alternatives to the Project are evaluated in Section 6.0, Alternatives. However, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation remain.

1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project. The following objectives have been identified for the Project.

Objective 1: Develop the property consistent with the guidelines and policies of the City of Rialto General Plan and more specifically, the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan.

Objective 2: Develop an industrial zoned site with land uses which meet current market demands.

Objective 3: Create revenue-generating uses that provide reliable employment for the long term.

Objective 4: Provide new buildings that are compatible with the surrounding industrial uses.

Objective 5: Develop an industrial use consistent with current zoning in close proximity to designated truck routes and the State highway system to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways.

Objective 6: Redevelop an underutilized property in accordance with Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan.

1.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project and that would feasibly attain most or all of the basic Project objectives are discussed below. A detailed alternatives analysis is provided in Section 6.0, Alternatives.

Alternative 1: No Development Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it. The No Development Alternative assumes that the proposed Project would not be developed, which means there would be no warehouse facilities, landscape improvements, or surface lot improvements developed on the project site. In its existing condition, the site would remain vacant and disturbed.

Alternative 2: High-Cube Short-Term Storage
The High-Cube Short-Term Storage Alternative would involve the development of one short-term storage warehouse. The building would be one story with approximately 500,000 sf of warehouse space.

Alternative 2 would be required to provide 7 loading docks and 255 parking spaces. Alternative 2 would comply with the development standards of the Specific Plan. Although Alternative 2 would result in less Project trips, resulting in a reduction to significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG impacts and reduced noise impacts, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) impacts would be similar to the proposed Project and remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 2 would reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts associated with the Project.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-3
Alternative 3: Business Park Alternative
Under the Business Park Alternative, the project site would be developed as a 500,000-sf business park.

The business park would include two to three warehouse buildings/incubator buildings. Alternative 3 would be consistent with the Specific Plan. The buildings would be one story and building height would be consistent with development standards included in the Specific Plan. Alternative 3 would result in more square footage than the Project, the alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG impacts and VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

1.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS WITH NO IMPACT
Throughout preparation of the EIR, the City of Rialto Environmental Checklist was used to determine the impact categories that would require evaluation to determine the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. The following includes a discussion of the impact categories where the Project would have “no impact” and a summary discussion of why this determination was reached. There is no further evaluation of these Environmental Checklist questions in the EIR.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
 “Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?”  “Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?”
 “Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?”
 “Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?”  “Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?”
The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract.2 Additionally, the area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. For these reasons, no impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the EIR.

1 Department of Conservation (DOC). (2024). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed January 2024. 2 DOC. (2017). State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B %20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf. Accessed January 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-4
Recreation
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
 “Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility occur or be accelerated?”
 “Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?” The proposed Project does not include the development of any residences, which would directly increase population and result in increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.

Wildfire
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
 “If located in or near State Responsibility Area or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. d) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.” Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as set forth in PRC 4201-4204 and Government Code 51175-89. FHSZs are categorized fire protection within a Federal Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, a State Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of CAL FIRE, or within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a local agency. CAL FIRE is responsible for fire protection within State Responsibility Areas. CAL FIRE defines a State Responsibility Area as land that is not federally owned, not incorporated, does not exceed a housing density of three units per acre, contains wildland vegetation as opposed to agriculture or ornamentals, and has watershed value and/or has range/forage value (this effectively eliminates most desert lands). Where local fire protection agencies, such as the Rialto Fire Department, are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area. The project site Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-5
and its adjacent areas are classified as a Non-VHFHSZ (non-very high FHSZ).3 For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.

1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

MEASURES
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program, provides a summary of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, the Mitigation Program recommended to ensure that Project impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible, and the expected status of effects following the implementation of the Mitigation Program. The Mitigation Program is comprised of Standard Conditions and Requirements (SCs) and Mitigation Measures (MMs). The Mitigation Program will serve to prevent, reduce, or fully mitigate potential environmental impacts. The more detailed evaluation of these issues, as well as the full text of the Mitigation Program, is presented in EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.17.

Given the length of some measures in the Mitigation Program, some measures are only summarized in the table. Each measure is identified by a number that can be used to reference the full text of the measure in the applicable EIR section. Where a measure applies to more than one topic, it is presented (either summarized or full text) in the primary section to which it applies and is then cross-referenced.

3 CalFire. (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Viewer.https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed January 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-6
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-7
Section 4.1: Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.1-2: In non-urbanized areas, would the
project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.1-3: Would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.1-3: Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.2: Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
SU Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Air Quality
Mitigation Measure 2: Individual industrial users should take all reasonable steps to encourage employees to car-pool rather than
utilizing one vehicle per employee. Typical measures
which can be taken by employers include:

SU
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-8
a. Designation of preferential parking areas which may
be used only by employees engaged in car-pooling.
b. Employers should be encouraged to institute van-
pooing programs to reduce the number of vehicles
driven by employees.

Mitigation Measure 4: To minimize dust during construction activities, periodic soil wetting should be utilized.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM TRF-1 is applicable. See 4.17 Traffic, below.

MM AIR-1: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
 All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule)
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
(WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.  All standard emergency generators shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Impact 4.2-2: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable state or
federal ambient air quality standard?
SU Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures SU
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-9
Air Quality
Mitigation Measures 1-4 are applicable. Mitigation Measure 2 and 4 are included above, under Impact 4.2-1; Mitigation Measures 1 and 3 are below:

Mitigation Measure 1: Local bus lines should be encouraged to extend service into the Study Area to discourage the use of private
automobiles by employees. Bus shelters and bus stops
should be constructed as dictated by ridership demand.

Mitigation Measure 3: The local governmental entities should enforce emission standards on equipment used during the construction
and operation of industrial facilities.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 is applicable.

MM TRF-1 is applicable, see 4.17 Traffic, below.

Impact 4.2-3: Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 is applicable.

MM TRF-1 is applicable, see 4.17 Traffic, below.

LS
Impact 4.2-4: Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-10
Section 4.3: Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the CDFW or USFWS?
S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1A: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for BUOW within suitable habitat to determine presence/absence of the species. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW protocol within 30 days of site disturbance to determine whether the burrowing owl is present at the site. Pre-construction surveys shall include suitable BUOW habitat within the Project footprint and within 500 feet of the Project footprint (or within an appropriate buffer as required in the most recent guidelines and where legal access to conduct the survey exists). If BUOW are not detected during the clearance survey, no additional mitigation is required.

If BUOW is located, occupied BUOW burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or the juveniles from the occurred burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival. A 500-foot non- disturbance buffer (where no work activities may be conducted) shall be maintained between Project activities and nesting BUOW during the nesting season, unless otherwise authorized by CDFW.

If BUOW is detected during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or confirmed to not be nesting, a 160-foot non- disturbance buffer shall be maintained between the Project activities and occupied burrow(s). Alternatively, a Burrowing Owl Relocation LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-11
Plan may be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW. Once approved, the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan would be
implemented to relocate non-breeding BUOW from the project site.

The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall detail methods and guidance for passive relocation of BUOW from the project site, provide monitoring and management of the replacement burrow sites reporting requirements, and ensure that a minimum of two suitable, unoccupied burrows are available off-site for every burrowing owl or pair of burrowing owls to be passively relocated.

Compensatory mitigation of habitat would be required if occupied burrows or territories occur within the permanent impact footprints.

Ratios typically include a minimum of 19.5 acres per nesting burrow lost; however, habitat compensation shall be approved by CDFW and detailed in the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan.

MM BIO-1B: If avoidance is not possible, either directly or indirectly, a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW. Once approved, the Burrowing Owl
Relocation and Mitigation Plan would be implemented to relocate non-breeding burrowing owls form the project site. the Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall detail methods for passive relocation of BUOW from the project site, provide guidance for the monitoring and management of the replacement burrow sites and associated reporting requirements, and ensure that a minimum of two suitable, unoccupied burrows are available off-site for every Burrowing Owl of pair of burrowing owls to be passively relocated.

Compensatory mitigation of habitat would be required if occupied burrows of territories occur within the permanent impact footprint.

Habitat compensation shall be approved by CDFW and detailed in the Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan.

MM BIO-2: To avoid direct impacts on raptors and/or native/migratory birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (generally February 1 to September 15). If removal of habitat Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-12
in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds in the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within ten (10) calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). If nesting birds are observed, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with applicable state and federal Law (i.e., appropriate follow up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction, and noise
barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the CDFW and/or USFWS, as applicable, for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of those agencies. The project biologist shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. If nesting birds are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-2: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
CDFW or USFWS?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.3-3: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on State or federal protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.3-4: Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-13
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Impact 4.3-5: Would the project conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Archaeological/Historical Resources
Mitigation Measure 2: The San Bernardino County Museum Association recommends that at least some level of evaluation of
potential impacts to cultural resources be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist for every proposed project
within the Study Area due to the overall prehistoric and early historic significance of the region.

Mitigation Measure 3: In instances where earth movement uncovers potentially significant artifacts or fossils, work should be curtailed until a qualified specialist is retained to
evaluate the significance of any finds.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Retain a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project applicant shall, meeting Secretary of Interior standards and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, demonstrate that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-14
the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and the archaeologist shall assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1 (refer to Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resource, of this EIR), regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2: If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the draft of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1 (Refer to Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resource, of this EIR). The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Monitoring Treatment Plan accordingly.

Impact 4.4-2: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Archaeological/Historical Resources
Mitigation Measure 2 and Mitigation Measure 3 are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 are applicable.

LS
Impact 4.4-3: Would the project disturb any
human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
S Standard Conditions
SC CUL-1: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-15
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the most likely descendants (MLD) to be consulted regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains. If an MLD cannot be identified, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation regarding the treatment of the remains within 48 hours after gaining access to the remains, the property owner shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Archaeological/Historical Resources
No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3: If human remains of funerary object are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-16
Section 4.5: Energy
Impact 4.5-1: Would the project result in
potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities
Mitigation Measure 5: To assure adequate levels of water conservation, each specific development should be required to install
water conservation measures, such as low-flow
fixtures, drought resistant vegetation and drip irrigation systems.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-2 are applicable.

LS
Impact 4.5-2: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.6: Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-1: Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
the 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 faults or strong
seismic ground shaking?
LS Standard Conditions
SC GEO-1: The Applicant shall submit to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review and approval, a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site by a registered geotechnical engineer.

The investigation shall comply with all applicable state and local code requirements4 and:
a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted
methodologies;
LS

4 Rialto, CA Municipal Code Section 11.12.070 (Ord. 1234 (part), 1995: Ord. 649 §1 (part), 1973: 1965 Code Title XIII, Ch. 11, §7).

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-17
b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that
structures can withstand ground accelerations expected
from known active faults; and
c) Determine the final design parameters for walls,
foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related
improvements;
Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigation in the site- specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the site-specific investigations, provide any additional necessary measures to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all applicable recommendations from the investigation in the structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements.

The City’s registered geotechnical engineer or third-party registered engineer retained to review the geotechnical reports shall review each site-specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical requirements contained in the investigation in the plans submitted for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits.

The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-18
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-2: Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic-related ground failure including
liquefaction?
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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.6-3: Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.6-4: Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.6-5: Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.6-6: 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?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.6-7: Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-19
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1: Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologist, City staff and the Project Applicant determine that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for reducing the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and the Project Applicant shall implement the approval plan.

Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.7-1: Would the project generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could
have a significant impact on the environment?
SU Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Air Quality
SU
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-20
Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 1 through Mitigation Measure 4 are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 and MM TRF-1 (see 4.17 Transportation, below) are applicable.

MM GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project shall install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on-site, or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, that would provide 100 percent of the anticipated electricity demand (i.e., the Title 24 electricity demand and the plug-load, anticipated to be approximately 4.62 kilowatt hours per year [kWh/year] per square foot for warehouse uses, 17.53 kWh/year/sf for office uses, 9.54 kWh/year/sf for automobile care centers, and 38.16 kWh/year/acre for parking lots5).

With anticipated energy consumption at approximately 2.3 million kWh per year, a PV panel array covering approximately one third of the proposed truck terminal roof space would provide sufficient on- site renewable energy generation to offset consumption.6 The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system.

Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption.

MM GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City demonstrating the following:
 The Project shall be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification to meet or exceed

5 The expected electricity demand is based on CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B. 6 Estimated solar generation potential estimated using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatt Calculator: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-21
CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
 The Project shall provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Tier 2 standards in Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the 2022 CALGreen Code.

MM GHG-3 The development shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of tenant occupancy permits, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with City standards for recyclable collection and loading areas. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals. The diversion plan shall also comply with the established solid waste and recycling laws including AB 939 and AB 341.

MM GHG-4: Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City demonstrating that low water use landscaping and water-efficient (e.g., drip irrigation) systems would are installed.

Impact 4.7-2: Would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions?
SU Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1, MM TRF-1 (see 4.17 Transportation, below) and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 are applicable.

SU
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-22
Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1: Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Land Use
Mitigation Measure 3: Any toxic or hazardous wastes which are transported, processed, generated or stored shall be handled
consistent with the regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Department of Health
Services, and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. The transportation of any toxic or hazardous
substances through residential areas shall be prohibited.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Impact 4.8-2: Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.8-3: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.8-4: 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 it
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-23
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Impact 4.8-5: Would the project impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.8-6: Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.8-7: Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-1: Would the project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
LS Standard Conditions
SC HYD-1: The Applicant or his/her designees shall obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). The Applicant or his/her designees shall provide a copy of this permit to the City Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the first grading permit.

SC HYD-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a SWQMP specifically identifying BMPs that will be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction. To ensure compliance, a legal and fiduciary enforcement mechanism in the form of a Storm Water Quality Management Plan Agreement shall be executed with the City of Rialto. This agreement shall additionally be recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Bernardino. The SWQMP shall specify best
management practices specific to the project site, which shall be integrated into the stormwater conveyance plan. The plan shall LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-24
identify specific strategies. (see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for entire text of the mitigation measure).

SC HYD-3: An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, and included with the Project’s grading plan, and implemented for the Project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. The Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: (a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California; and (b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this Project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.9-2: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.9-3i: 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 through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Flood Control
LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-25
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Mitigation Measure 2: Where feasible, the extent of impervious surfaces on individual industrial sites should be limited to minimize the quantity of storm run-off.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.9-3ii: 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 through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.9-3iii: 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 through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.9-3iv: 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 through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-26
Impact 4.9-4: Would the project in flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.10-1: Would the project physically divide
an established community?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.10-2: Would the project cause a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Land Use
Mitigation Measure 1: The site development standards and performance standards contained in Section 4.4.2 of the Specific Plan shall be adhered to in reviewing proposed specific
developments. Adherence to these standards, especially
the specific criteria for industrial uses in proximity to residential and other sensitive uses, will minimize any potential impacts.

Mitigation Measure 3: Any toxic or hazardous wastes which are transported, processed, generated or stored shall be handled
consistent with the regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Department of Health
Services, and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. The transportation of any toxic or hazardous
substances through residential areas shall be prohibited.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-27
Section 4.11 Mineral Resources
Impact 4.11-1: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.11-2: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.12: Noise and Vibration
Impact 4.12-1: 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?
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Environmental Health and Hazards
Mitigation Measure 2: Interior noise levels in residential and office structures shall not exceed 45 dBA.

Mitigation Measure 3: Where necessary noise retardant measures should be incorporated into the design of industrial structures. Such measures include, but are not limited to, berms, noise
attenuation walls, building insulation and the limitation of processing/manufacturing activities to enclosed
buildings.

Mitigation Measure 4: The noise standards promulgated by the local jurisdictions shall be adhered to. Each proposed use shall be reviewed for noise generation potential prior to approval.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-28
Impact 4.12-2: Would the project expose persons
to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.12-3: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Section 4.13: Population and Housing
Impact 4.13-1: Would the project induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.13-2: Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.14: Public Services
Impact 4.14-1: 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
LS Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities
Mitigation Measure 5: All Project specific site plans should be subject to review by the Fire Department in each jurisdiction to determine LS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-29
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection?
whether the Project design includes adequate site access provisions and does not exceed the protection abilities of the various departments.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.14-2: 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 police protection?
LS Standard Conditions
SC PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Rialto Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services.

Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a list of Project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police Department shall review and approve all defensible space design features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process.

SC PS-2: Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and/or action that would permit site disturbance, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Rialto Police Department that a construction security service or equivalent service shall be established at the construction site along with other measures, as identified by the Police Department and the Public Works Department, to be instituted during the grading and construction phase of the Project.

Mitigation Measure
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Impact 4.13-3: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-30
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 schools?
Impact 4.13-4: 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 and other public facilities?
No Impact No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.14: Transportation
Impact 4.15-1: Would the project, conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.15-2: Would the proposed project
conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
SU Standard Conditions
The Project is subject to the City’s citywide traffic impact fee program and will pay applicable DIF fees toward the Riverside Avenue Widening Project. The fees paid by the Project Applicant will be collected by the City and used toward the Riverside Avenue Widening Project, as identified in Measure I of the 2018 Nexus Study Item “Widen Riverside Avenue from South City Limit to Slover Avenue from 4 lanes to 6 lanes”. To the extent that a mitigation measure is included in an existing fee program. The Project’s payment of impact fees can be used to offset the costs of implementing the mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may be required to construct a needed improvement in advance of the City’s receipt of full funding, SU
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-31
in which case the improvement may be subject to a reimbursement agreement, to allow the Project to recoup costs from future development.

SC TRA-1A: South Riverside Avenue at I-10 Eastbound Ramps. The Project Applicant shall contribute on a fair-share basis to costs associated with the widening of South Riverside Avenue. These improvements would be consistent with recommendations set forth in Measure I of the 2018 Nexus Study Item “Widen Riverside Avenue from South City Limit to Slover Avenue from 4 lanes to 6 lanes”.

SC TRA-1B: South Riverside Avenue at Solver Avenue. The Project Applicant shall contribute on a fair-share basis to costs associated with the widening of South Riverside Avenue. These improvements would be consistent with recommendations set forth in Measure I of the 2018 Nexus Study Item “Widen Riverside Avenue from South City Limit to Slover Avenue from 4 lanes to 6 lanes”.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM TRF-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan with TDM measures in coordination with the City of Rialto staff. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

Impact 4.15-3: Would the proposed project
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.15-4: Would the proposed project result
in inadequate emergency access?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-32
Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.16-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC §21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
PRC §5020.1(k) or:
(b) A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

S Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) Cultural Resources Management Department shall be contacted of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by an archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the Project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Project applicant and the Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or Project applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the Project.

LS
Section 4.17: Utilities
Impact 4.17-1: Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage,
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With Mitigation

City of Rialto 1-33
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact 4.17-2: Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.17-3: 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?
LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.17-4: 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.

LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS Impact 4.17-5: Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.

LS No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. LS LS= Less Than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable; S = Significant

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-34
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project). The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 3, §§15000 et seq.).

The City of Rialto (City) is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project” and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for this Project under CEQA (14 CCR §15367).

CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in an EIR p rior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to provide information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision -makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. As the Lead Agency, the City will review and consider this EIR in its decision to approve, revise, or deny the proposed Project.

Pursuant to CEQA, “[t]he purpose of the environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the proposed project, and to indicate the manner in which significant environmental effects can be mitigated or avoided” (PRC §21002.1[a]). An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a project to the extent feasi ble. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full -disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a project that may have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

2.1.1 Type of Environmental Impact Report
The City has determined that a Project EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project . In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Project EIR “examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the devel opment project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the Project including planning, construction, and operation”. This EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse and beneficial impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. This document analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis considers the activities associated with the Project, to determine the short-term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both direct and indirect impacts of the Project, as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the construction and operational components of the Project. Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, discusses the regulatory environment, existing conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation program for the Project.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-2
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 sets forth criteria for determining if a project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide environmental significance. This Project meets the following criteria and therefore is considered regionally significant:
▪ The Project occupies more than 40 acres of land.

2.1.2 Standards of Adequacy Under CEQA
While Sections 15120 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines generally describe the content of an EIR, CEQA does not contain specific, detailed, quantified standards for the content of environmental documents. Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information that enables them to make a decision that intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

2.1.3 Compliance with CEQA
The City of Rialto, which has the principal responsibility for processing and approving the Project, along with other public agencies with direct interest in the Project (e.g., responsible agencies), may use this EIR in their decision -making or permitting processes and will consider the information in this EIR in combination with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. The Lead Agency can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation unless otherwise required by Section 21166 of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, this EIR provides the analysis in support of the Mitigation Program that will, if the Project is approved, be made conditions of approval for the Project and implemented through the CEQA-mandated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

In accordance with CEQA, public agencies are required to make appropriate findings for each potentially significant environmental impact identified in the EIR if it decides to approve a project. If the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives, the Lead Agency (and responsible agencies using this CEQA document for their respective permits or approvals) must decide whether the benefits of the project outweigh any identified significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below a threshold of significance. If the agency decides that the overriding considerations, including project benefits, outweigh the unavoidable impacts, then the agenc y (Lead Agency or responsible agency) is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states the reasons that support its actions.

The Lead Agency’s actions involved in the implementation of the Project are described in Section 3.0, Project Description. Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the Project, or components thereof, including responsible agencies, are also described in the Project Description.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-3

2.2 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This EIR provides a comprehensive evaluation of the reasonably anticipated scope of the proposed Project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision -makers and the general public regarding (1) the objectives and components of the Project; (2) any potentially significant environmental impacts (individual and cumulative) that may be associated with the planning, construction, and operation of the Project ; (3) an appropriate and feasible Mitigation Program; (4) and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or avoid these significant impacts.

In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. The scope of this EIR includes issues identified in consultation w ith the City during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, during the public Scoping Meeting, a nd environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the scoping process.

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Rialto prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to affected agencies and interested parties for a public review period beginning on December 8, 2023. The City has elected to have an extended 45-day scoping period due to the holidays, and the deadline to submit comments on the NOP was January 22, 2024. Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation , summarizes the comments received from agencies/persons during the NOP process and provides a reference, as applicable, to the section(s) of this EIR where the issues are addressed. Table 2-1 identifies areas of controversy/unresolved issues and issues addressed in the EIR. The NOP and comment letters are provided in Appendix A of this EIR.

2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the CEQA Statute, the Lead Agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. A scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental effects to be analyzed. The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on January 18, 2024, at 6:00 PM. No issues related to the EIR were identified by p articipants at the Scoping Meeting at Rialto City Hall, Council Chambers (150 S. Palm Avenue).

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-4
Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation Commenter Name Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
Regional and Local Agencies
State of California
Department of Justice
Recommendations and Comments:
▪ The project should avoid land use conflicts to sensitive receptors. ▪ Warehouse development can result in various environmental impacts including air quality impacts from diesel trucks and noise impacts as a result of truck and on-site loading activities.

See Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.12, Noise and Vibration, and Section, 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

Interested Parties
Native American Heritage
Commission
▪ Consultation with California Native American tribes affiliated with the Project area is recommended.

See Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Western States Regional
Council of Carpenters
▪ City should require use of local workforce.
▪ City should impose training requirements Project construction activities to prevent to spread of Covid-19 and other infectious diseases.

See Section 4.11, Population and Housing

2.3 EIR SCOPE AND CONTENT
This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project and was prepared following input for the public and the responsible and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process, as discussed below. The contents of this EIR were established based on the findings in the NOP and public and agency input (Table 2-1). Based on the findings of the NOP, a determination was required to address potentially significant environmental effects on the following resources:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Noise
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Services Systems
The City has determined that the EIR for the Project would not require the assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Recreation; and Wildfire. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the San Bernardino County Important Farmland. The project site is not zoned for agriculture. Additionally, the project site does not include forest resources, including timber lands. With respect to Recreation, the project site and surrounding area are zoned for industrial uses. Further, Project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in population, resulting in an increase in use of Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-5
existing recreational facilities. Lastly, this project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, no impacts with respect to the topic of Wildfire would occur.

2.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148, or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review online. Information contained within these documents has been used for various sections in the EIR.
▪ City of Rialto General Plan. December 2010, as amended ▪ Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. 1986, as amended ▪ City of Rialto Zoning Ordinance
▪ City of Rialto Municipal Code

2.5 LEAD AGENCY AND CONTACT PERSONS
The City of Rialto is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR. Inquiries regarding the EIR should be directed to the City.

Lead Agency: City of Rialto
Community Development Department, Planning Division
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Contact: Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
(909) 820-2535
Email: [email protected]

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has been provided to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for comment during a 45-day review period in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by CEQA.

This Draft EIR and the full administrative record for the Project, including all studies, is available for review during normal business hours Monday through Thursday at the City of Rialto Community D evelopment Department. Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices are available at the reference desk of the following library and on the City’s website. ▪ City of Rialto , Community Development Department, Planning Division 150 S. Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376
▪ Rialto Library, 251 W. First Street, Rialto, California 92376 ▪ City website: https://yourrialto.com/314/Current-Projects Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-6
Following the close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, a Final EIR will be prepared to respond to all substantive comments related to environmental issues associated with the Project .

Pursuant to Section 15088.5(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City will request that reviewers limit their comments to the content of the Draft EIR and will respond to all comments related to the disposition of environmental effects made during the Draft EIR public review period. The Final EIR will be available prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing to consider this Draft EIR along with the actions within the City’s review and discretion of approval.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-7

2.7 LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE EIR
AAQS Ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AMSL Average Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor Parcel Number
APS Auxiliary Power System
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best available control technology
BAU business-as-usual
BMP Best Management Practice
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BTU British Thermal Unit
BUOW burrowing owl
CAFE corporate average fuel economy
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Conditional Development Permit
CEC California Energy Commission
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund)
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Commission
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-8
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGC California Geologic Survey
CH4 methane
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPTED Crime Prevention Through environmental Design
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency (hazardous materials) cy cubic yards
CWA Clean Water Act
DAC Disadvantaged Communities
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DEH Department of Environmental Health, San Bernardino County DIF Development Impact Fee
DOC Department of Conservation
DOF Department of Finance
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of California EDD Employment Development Department
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EJ Environmental Justice
EO Executive Order
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-9
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EMMA Emergency Management Mutual Aid
EMFAC Emissions Factor
ESA Endangered Species Act
FCCA Federal Clean Air Act
FE Federally Endangered
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FFSA Federal Fire Safety Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FT Federally Threatened
GHG greenhouse gas
GVWR Gross Vehicle weight rating
GWh gigawatt-hours
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
Hz hertz
IRUWMP Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan
ISR Indirect Source Rule
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq Equivalent noise levels
Lmax Maximum sound level
Lmin Minimum sound level
LOR Laws, Ordinance, and Regulations
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage tank
M-2 General Manufacturing
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-10
MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MHFP Multi-Hazard Functional Plan
MLD most likely descendants
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
mph miles per hour
MPG miles per gallon
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
NAAQS National ambient air quality standards
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIMS National Incident Management System
NMHC Nonmethane Hydrocarbon
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOA Notice of Availability
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-11
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review Program (air pollution health effects) NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NZE Near Zero Emissions
O3 Ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services, State of California
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less)
PM10 Fine particulate matter (10 microns or less)
PPD Precise Plan of Design
ppv peak particle velocity
ppm Parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
UST underground storage tank
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REAP Rain Event Action Plan
RFS2 Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG) RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SB Senate Bill
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SC Standard Condition
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-12
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
sf square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
SRA source receptor area
SSC Species of Special Concern
ST State Threatened
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TMDL total maximum daily load
UBC Uniform Building Code
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
U.S. EPA United State Environmental Protection Act
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOC Volatile organic compound
Wh watt-hours
WAIRE Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-13
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WVWD West Valley Water District
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
YSMN Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
ZE Zero Emissions
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-14
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Project Description is to describe the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project) to allow for meaningful review by reviewing agencies, decision-makers, and interested parties.

Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR §15124) requires that a project description for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contain (1) the precise location and boundaries of a project site; (2) a statement of objectives sought by a project including the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of a project's characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making, a list of the permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or policies. An adequate project description need not be exhaustive but should supply the detail necessary for project evaluation.

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 249 East Santa Ana Avenue, in the City of Rialto (City), San Bernardino County, California. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0258-141-18. The City is largely urbanized and bordered by other developed cities. To the north, the City is bordered by the unincorporated community of Muscoy, the cities of San Bernardino and Colton to the east, the City of Jurupa Valley to the south, and the City of Fontana to the west. Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map and Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map depict the project site in a regional and local context. The approximately 45.7-acre property ranges in elevation from approximately 900 to 955 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and includes a 105-foot California Electric Power Company pole line easement on the southern portion of the property. A 6-foot SCE easement is located on the western portion of the project site and 10-foot and 105-foot SCE pole line easements are located on the southern portion of the project site, along with a 70-foot Southern Sierras Power Company pole line easement.

The project site is an irregularly-shaped property surrounded by existing industrial land uses. Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north and Interstate 215 (I-215) to the east. Local access to the project site is provided via East Santa Ana Avenue along the northern boundary.

3.3 ON-SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site and surrounding area is designated for industrial land uses within the City’s General Plan. The project site features previously disturbed land from previous industrial uses on-site. Adjacent and surrounding land uses include the following:

North East Santa Ana Avenue
Industrial land uses
South Industrial land uses
Santa Ana River
La Loma Hills
East Veolia Water North America Treatment Plant
West Industrial land uses
South Riverside Avenue
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-2
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Source: ArcGIS 2024
2068 ft
11489 ft
5688 ft
10066 ft
Santa Ana River
126
247
247
138
2 18
79 2
210
B a s e
Marine Corps
P e n d l e t o n
Camp
State Park
Chino Hills
Recreation Area
N a t i o n a l
M o u n t a i n s
Santa Monica
National Forest
San Bernardino
Banning
Santa Monica
Redondo Beach
Murrieta
Redlands
Yucaipa
Hemet
Lake Forest
Laguna Niguel
Highland
San Clemente
Perris
Santa Clarita
Lancaster
Thousand Oaks
Simi Valley
Victorville
Palmdale
Riverside
Ontario
Cucamonga
Rancho
Corona
Beach
Huntington
El Monte
Long Beach
Santa Ana
Anaheim
Los Angeles
M o u n t a i n s
G a b r i e l
San
Mo u n t a i n s
Santa Ana
Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map

LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES

RIVERSIDERIVERSIDE

RIALTORIALTO

POMONAPOMONA

LAGUNA BEACHLAGUNA BEACH

LONG BEACHLONG BEACH

SANTA CLARITASANTA CLARITA
15 10
210

PROJECT

LOCATION
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-4
This Page Intentionally Blank

Source: Google Earth Pro, 2023
Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA

PROJECT PROJECT

LOCATIONLOCATION

E SANTA ANA AVEE SANTA ANA AVE

JURUPA AVEJURUPA AVE

S RIVERSIDE AVES RIVERSIDE AVE
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-6
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-7
The project site consists of 45.7 acres of previously disturbed land. The northern portion of the project site is paved and features trailer storage. The project site is located within a predominantly industrial area of the City. Existing industrial uses, including a concrete and asphalt recycling facility and a transport and wooden pallet facility are located north of the project site. A quarry is located south of the project site and a wastewater treatment facility is located east of the site. An automobile storage lot, shipping container storage area, and quarry are located west of the project site. The property is predominantly adjacent to industrial uses.

The project site is located on land previously known as the Rialto Plant (California Mine ID# 91-36-004) and was used for sand and gravel surface mining operations. The disturbance area of the former uses totals the entirety of the project site. Current activities on-site are limited to mining reclamation, which is anticipated to be completed in 2024, prior to the commencement of Project construction. Therefore, given that reclamation activities would be completed prior to Project construction, the analysis assumes a projected future condition (i.e., Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan completion) as the baseline condition.

These reclamation activities include changes to topography, soil disturbance, and other geologic conditions within the proposed project site to justify the use of a future baseline condition.

3.4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

3.4.1 General Plan Designations
The City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan) is the comprehensive planning document governing development in the City, and contains goals, policies, and actions describing the community's vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental protection. The General Plan establishes land use designations for land in the City and policies for the orderly growth and development of the City of Rialto. Among other purposes, the General Plan identifies policies necessary to protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the community in which it serves. Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR includes a discussion of the General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed Project.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. The General Industrial designation allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities. The General Industrial designation permits manufacturing and distribution, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses.1 The land use designation allows for a maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)2 of 1.0. The Project’s proposed uses are allowed under the General Plan designation for the project site.

3.4.2 Zoning Designations
The project site is zoned Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan within the City. The Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) serves as a comprehensive and strategic framework designed to guide the responsible and sustainable development of a designated industrial area. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the growth and enhancement of economic activity, job opportunities, and infrastructure within the corridor, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of natural resources and the overall well-being of the community. By outlining land use regulations, zoning guidelines, and transportation improvements, the Specific Plan seeks to create a cohesive and harmonious environment

1 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/653/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. 2 Floor Area Ratio is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the parcel.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-8
that supports both industrial growth and the quality of life for residents. The Specific Plan aims to establish a thriving and resilient industrial hub that benefits the local economy and maintains a high standard of living for the Rialto community. The project site has a land use designation of General Industrial within the City’s General Plan and is zoned as Heavy Industrial (H IND) within the Specific Plan.

The H IND zone is identified as an industrial land use designation. Permitted uses within the H IND zone include transit and transportation terminals, repairs, and storage facilities.

The project site has a land use designation of General Industrial within the City’s General Plan and is zoned as H IND within the Specific Plan. The H IND zone is identified as an industrial land use designation. Permitted uses within the H IND zone include transit and transportation terminals, repairs, and storage facilities. A Conditional Development Permit would be required for Project development, as a truck terminal is a conditionally permitted use within an industrial land use designation.

3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project. A clearly written statement of objectives would help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid the decision-makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project." The following objectives have been identified for the Project.

Objective 1: Develop the property consistent with the guidelines and policies of the City of Rialto General Plan and more specifically, the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan.

Objective 2: Develop an industrial zoned site with land uses which meet current market demands.

Objective 3: Create revenue-generating uses that provide reliable employment for the long term.

Objective 4: Provide new buildings that are compatible with the surrounding industrial uses.

Objective 5: Develop an industrial use consistent with current zoning in close proximity to designated truck routes and the State highway system to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways.

Objective 6: Redevelop an underutilized property in accordance with Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan.

3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The site plan for the proposed Project is depicted on Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan. As proposed, the Project would allow for the development of a truck terminal, maintenance shop, and associated on-site improvements on an approximately 45.7-acre project site. As shown in Table 3-1: Building Summary, the Project proposes an approximately 172,445 square foot (sf) truck terminal building with 292 bays and approximately 5,890 sf of office space and an approximately 18,700 sf maintenance shop with 8 bays and 890 sf of office space. Approximately 140 employees are anticipated to be employed by Project operations.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-9
Table 3-1: Building Summary
Building
Warehouse/
Maintenance
(sf) Office (sf)
Total Building
(sf)
Automobile
Parking Spaces Tractor
Parking
Trailer
Parking Required Provided
Truck Terminal 166,555 5,890 172,445 109
149 100 679
Maintenance
Shop 17,810 890 18,700 39
Total 148
Source: Section 4 of the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan.

Truck Terminal Building
The proposed truck terminal would be located within the eastern portion of the project site with the building oriented east-to-west. The building would be mostly rectangular with dimensions of approximately 90 feet wide (east-to-west) by 1,790 feet long (north-to-south). As shown in Figure 3-4a and 3-4b: Conceptual Elevations Truck Terminal, the building would be one story and the office entry would be located on the west side of the building. The building would have a maximum height of approximately 24 feet and would include 292 dock doors.

Maintenance Shop
The proposed maintenance shop would be located within the western portion of the project site with the building oriented from north-to-south. The building would be rectangular in configuration with dimensions of approximately 110 feet wide (east-to-west) by 110 feet long (north-to-south). As depicted on Figure 3-4c: Conceptual Elevations Maintenance Shop, the building would be one story with a maximum height of approximately 22 feet. The office entry would be on the east side of the building.

Additionally, the maintenance shop would include two 20,000-gallon diesel storage tanks and one 8,000-gallon diesel exhaust fluid storage tank.

3.6.1 Site Access and Parking
Access to the project site would be provided via one driveway along East Santa Ana Avenue. The Project would provide an emergency access driveway along East Santa Ana Avenue at the northeastern corner of the project site. As shown in Table 3-1, the Project would meet the Specific Plan Parking requirements.

The Project would include a 32-foot-wide driveway within the northwestern portion of the project site, which would provide full-access to the project site. The Project would include an additional emergency only access driveway at the northeastern corner of the project site; the emergency only access driveway would be 26 feet wide.

All automobile and truck trailer parking would be provided on the project site. Table 3-2: Automobile Parking identifies the vehicular parking requirements in the City of Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18.58 that are applicable to the Project.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-10
Table 3-2: Automobile Parking
Use Description Requirement Required Provided
Truck Terminal
Office (5,890 sf) 1 space per 300 sf 20
110
Warehouse (10,000 sf) 1 space per 1,000 sf < 10,000 sf 10 Warehouse (156,555 sf) 1 space per 2,000 sf > 10,000 sf 79 Truck Terminal Warehouse Subtotal: 109
Maintenance Shop
Office (890 sf) 1 space per 300 sf 3
39 Maintenance (17,810 sf) 1 space per 500 sf 36
Maintenance Shop: Subtotal: 39
Total 148 149
Source: Section 4 of the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X
XXXX

XXXXXXXX
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
110'
RAMP
53' TRAILER PARKING
148 SPACES @ 11'x53'
53' TRAILER PARKING
156 SPACES @ 11'x53'

TRACTOR PARKING
100 SPACES @ 10'x25'
SHOP
18,700 SF
8 BAYS + OFFICE
177' 171.5'
44'
53' TRAILER PARKING
160 SPACES @ 11'x53'
75 PROPOSED TERMINAL
172,445 SF
292 DOORS @ 12'O.C.
1789'-6"
90'

AUTO PARKING
149 SPACES @ 9'x18'
73 81 79
78 53' TRAILER PARKING
53 SPACES @ 11'x53'
53 175'175'
100
53' TRAILER PARKING
84 SPACES @ 11'x53'
156
53' TRAILER PARKING
78 SPACES @ 11'x53'
84 122.5'
OFFICE
5,890 SF
OFFICE
890 SF
\\mds-fs1\departments\construction\Misc\Crown Log

PROPOSED CT TE

SANTA ANA A

PLANKEY
ON 1-31-2023 D.

APPROVA DATE

PROJECT

TITLEDRAWING
J.

DRAWN B

FORISSUED
05-16-2019
DATE
CONCEP

SCALESCALECHECK
18-000
DRAWINGNO.PROJECT

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.

ACREAGE: 46 DOCK: (292) DOORS AT 12' OC x 90' WIDE
SHOP: 7 DRIVE-THRU BAYS + OFFICE/PARTS BAY
TRAILER PARKING: (679) 53' SPACES
TRACTOR PARKING: (100) SPACES
EMPLOYEE PARKING: (149) SPACES
\\mds-fs1\departments\construction\Misc\Crown Log \\mds-fs1\departments\construction\Misc\Crown Log Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.

E SANTA ANA AVENUEE SANTA ANA AVENUE

45.7 ACRES
DOCK: (292) DOORS AT 12’ OC X 90’ WIDE
SHOP: 7 DRIVE-THRU BAYS + OFFICE/PARTS BAY
TRAILER PARKING: (679) 53’ SPACES
TRACTOR PARKING: (100) SPACES
EMPLOYEE PARKING: (149) SPACES
Proposed 172,445 sf Warehouse Building
Proposed 18,700 sf Maintenance Shop

LANDSCAPE
469,594 sf throughout the project site
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-12
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-4a: Conceptual Elevations Truck Terminal
Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.
27 28 29 30 31 32 34
POURED

CONCRETE
WALL, TYP.

POURED

CONCRETE ACCESS RAMP
SEE SHEET A.3B

TRANSLUCENT WALL PANEL
12' x 12' O.H. DOOR

METAL WALL PANEL
*NO EXIT STAIR THIS LOCATION ONLY*

METAL WALL PANEL

TRIM GUTTER

TRIM GUTTER
& DOWNSPOUTS

GLASS CURTAIN WALL
POURED

CONCRETE
STAIR
POURED

CONCRETE

WALK RAMP

GALVALUME STANDING

SEAM ROOF

INSULATED METAL

WALL PANEL
42" MILL FINISH ALUM.

HANDRAIL WITH EIGHT (8)

STRANDS STAINLESS

STEEL CABLE IN-FILL
DLM 115x72 DOCK

LEVELERS AND BUMPERS,
TYP.
10' x 10' O.H. DOORS,
TYP.
3533

METAL STAIR AND

LANDING W/
8"Ø BOLLARDS
(PAINTED)
34 33 32 31 30 29 28

GALVALUME STANDING

SEAM ROOF
TRIM GUTTER12"x12" WHITE ALUMINUM DOOR

NUMBER PLATE W/

VINYL ADHESIVE NUMBERS,
TYP.

POURED CONCRETE WALLDLM 115x72 DOCK

LEVELERS AND BUMPERS,
TYP.
10' x 10' O.H. DOORS
@ 12'-0" O.C.,
TYP.

METAL WALL PANEL DOWNSPOUTS ON EA.

COLUMN LINE, TYP.

TRANSLUCENT

WALL PANEL

TRANSLUCENT

WALL PANEL

TRIM GUTTER

METAL WALL PANEL
TYP. (PAINTED)

ONE-PIECE STEEL

DOOR HEADER BY PEMB

MANUFACTURER
TYP. (PAINTED)

ONE-PIECE STEEL

DOOR JAMB BY PEMB

MANUFACTURER

METAL STAIR AND

LANDING W/
8"Ø BOLLARD
(PAINTED)

METAL WALL PANEL

TRIM GUTTER
19181716151413121110

METAL STAIR AND

LANDING W/
8"Ø BOLLARDS
(PAINTED)

TRANSLUCENT WALL PANEL

GALVALUME STANDING

SEAM ROOF TRIM GUTTER
DOWNSPOUTS ON EA.

COLUMN LINE, TYP.
12"x12" WHITE ALUMINUM DOOR

NUMBER PLATE W/

VINYL ADHESIVE NUMBERS,
TYP.

TYP. (PAINTED)

ONE-PIECE STEEL

DOOR HEADER BY PEMB

MANUFACTURER,

METAL WALL PANEL

POURED CONCRETE WALL
TYP. (PAINTED)

ONE-PIECE STEEL

DOOR JAMB BY PEMB

MANUFACTURER,
DLM 115x72 DOCK

LEVELERS AND BUMPERS,
TYP.
10' x 10' O.H. DOORS
@ 12'-0" O.C.,
TYP.

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

DATE ISSUED FOR REV

KEY PLAN

BYDRAWN
J. LOMAS
PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO.

A.3A

CHECK SCALE SCALE

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT

DATE APPROVAL
D.1/25/2023 ONIFER

WEST ELEVATION AT OFFICE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION AT BATTERY CHARGERS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL DOCK ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 A.2 A.3A
2 A.2 A.3A
3 A.2 A.3A
5°
24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 30'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" SEE PLAN30'-0"
30'-0" 30'-0" 24'-0" 30'-0"

PROPOSED TERMINAL
249 SANTA ANA AVE

RIALTO, CA
24'-0"30'-0"24'-0" 24'-0"
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-14
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-4b: Conceptual Elevations Truck Terminal
BC
12"
1/4"
12"
1 2"
12"
1/4" GALVALUME STANDING SEAM
ROOF
12' CLEAR HEIGHT
20' EAVE HEIGHT
4'

POURED CONCRETE

FOUNDATION WALL

PAVEMENT

METAL WALL PANEL
89'-4" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
90' OUT TO OUT OF CONCRETE

POURED CONCRETE

FOUNDATION WALL

PAVEMENT

METAL WALL PANEL

TRIM GUTTER AND

DOWNSPOUT

GALVALUME STANDING

SEAM ROOF

METAL WALL PANEL TO

BOTTOM OF CANOPY BEAM

TRANSLUCENT WALL PANEL

TRIM GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
12"
1 2"

METAL STAIR
SEE SHEET A.6

CONCRETE BOLLARD

PROTECTION

EGRESS DOOR

STEEL PIPE RAILS
B CSIM. SIM.

B
12"
1 2"
12"
1/4"

POURED CONCRETE ACCESS RAMP

METAL WALL PANEL
12' x 12' O.H. DOOR
8" Ø CONCRETE
BOLLARDS @4'-0" O.C.
(PAINTED)
36" 3-RAIL SCH40 GALVANIZED

STEEL PIPE HANDRAIL,

CORE DRILL POSTS
(ZINC PRIME & PAINTED)

FRONT OFFICE
(BEYOND)

CONTINUOUS TRIM GUTTER
& DOWNSPOUTS
@ EA. COLUMN LINE

GALVALUME STANDING

SEAM ROOF

POURED CONCRETE WALL
A

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

DATE ISSUED FOR REV

KEY PLAN

BYDRAWN
J. LOMAS
PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO.

A.3B

CHECK SCALE SCALE

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT

DATE APPROVAL
D.1/25/2023 ONIFER

NORTH ELEVATION - TYPICAL DOCK END WALL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 A.2 A.3B

NORTH ELEVATION - RAMP
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 A.2 A.3B
4'-0"
3'-0"
3'-6"5°

PROPOSED TERMINAL
249 SANTA ANA AVE

RIALTO, CA
Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-16
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-4c: Conceptual Elevations Maintenance Shop
Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.

First Floor
0"
Mezzanine
10' - 8"
29 8 6 5 4 1
Eave
22' - 0"
10 UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY
16' - 0"
20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 30'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-8" 12'-4" 6 1/2"
4'-0"3'-4"10'-8"
3'-4" 4'-0"
7 20'-0"
3 20'-0"
170'-0" 33'-0"
First Floor
0"
CD B
Eave
22' - 0"40'-0
1/2" 30'-4"
40'-0
1/2"
27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6"
AE
27'-6"
110'-0"
First Floor
0"
CD B
Eave
22' - 0"
27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6"
AE
27'-6"
110'-0"
2 986541 10
20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"30'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-8"12'-4"
6 1/2"
7 20'-0"
3 20'-0"
170'-0"33'-0"
First Floor
0"
Mezzanine
10' - 8"
Eave
22' - 0"

UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY
16' - 0"

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

PROPOSED SHOP

SANTA ANA AVE

RIALTO, CA
ONIFER3/3/21 D.

APPROVALDATE

PROJECT

TITLEDRAWING

SCALESCALECHECK
A.2
NO.DRAWINGNO.PROJECT
LOMASJ.

DRAWN BY

PLANKEY

REVFORISSUEDDATE
BAY 8BAY 7BAY 6BAY 4BAY 3BAY 2BAY 1

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 A.1 A.2

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 A.1 A.2

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 A.1 A.2

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 A.1 A.2

FUEL CANOPY
FUEL CANOPY BAY 1BAY 2BAY 3BAY 4BAY 5BAY 6BAY 7BAY 8
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-18
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-19
As identified in Table 3-2, the Specific Plan requires 109 parking spaces for the proposed truck terminal building and 39 parking spaces for the proposed maintenance shop for a total of 148 required parking spaces. The Project would provide a total of 149 passenger vehicle parking spaces. As shown in Figure 3-3, vehicular parking would be located within the northwestern portion of the project site. Project truck trailer parking and loading dock requirements are identified in Table 3-3: Truck Terminal Loading.

Compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 18.58.030 (O) would require 5 loading docks on-site. The Project proposes 292 loading docks within the proposed truck terminal. The proposed maintenance shop would include 8 bays.

Table 3-3: Truck Terminal Loading
Type Requirement Required Provided
Truck Terminal Building
Loading Docks 4 spaces for uses of 160,000 sf – 240,000 sf 4 292 Maintenance Shop
Loading Docks 1 space for uses of 10,000 sf – 40,000 sf 1 8 Source: City of Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.030.

3.6.2 Building Design, Landscaping, and Lighting
The conceptual architectural design for the Project includes metal wall panels, a glass curtain, and galvalume standing seam roofs. As shown in Figure 3-4a and 4b: Conceptual Elevations – Truck Terminal and Figure 3-5: 3D Color Renderings, the exterior elevations would be shades of brown.

The truck terminal would be set back more than 44 feet from the property line along East Santa Ana Avenue. The Specific Plan does not require side or rear setbacks; however, the Project would include a landscaped perimeter, including the 105-foot pole line easement on the southern portion of the property. A 6-foot Southern California Edison (SCE) easement is located on the western portion of the project site and 10-foot and 105-foot SCE pole line easements are located on the southern portion of the project site, along with a 70-foot Southern Sierras Power Company pole line easement. Additionally, A 6-foot SCE easement is located on the western portion of the project site and 10-foot and 105-foot SCE pole line easements are located on the southern portion of the project site, along with a 70-foot Southern Sierras Power Company pole line easement. Of the 45.7-acre project site, approximately

10.8 acres (or approximately 23.6 percent) of the project site would be landscaped. As shown on Figure 3-5a: 3D Color Renderings and Figure 3-5b: 3D Coloring Renderings, landscaping would be provided along the Project boundaries and within the passenger vehicle parking area. The landscaped area would comply with the water efficient landscape requirements as set forth in Chapter 12.50.060 of the Rialto Municipal Code, including the use of automatic irrigation systems and appropriate use and grouping pf plants to foster long-term landscape water conservation. Additionally, the Project would provide sidewalks along the south side of East Santa Ana Avenue and the northwestern boundary to the proposed full-access driveway. The Project would include a retaining wall along the eastern boundary to screen views of the parking area from the adjacent parcels.

Site lighting would be used to provide adequate lighting for circulation, safety, and security. Night lighting would be provided seven days a week. Outdoor lighting for the parking areas would be provided consistent with the requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and Specific Plan. Lighting levels would not exceed 1.0 candle/foot measured at ground level throughout the parking areas.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-20
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-5a: 3D Color Renderings
Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-22
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 3-5b: 3D Color Renderings
Source: Crown Enterprises, Inc.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-24
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-25

3.6.3 Infrastructure and Off-Site Improvements
East Santa Ana Avenue
The Project would include improvements to East Santa Ana Avenue along the frontage of the project site, to South Riverside Avenue. The Project would require full depth reconstruction along East Santa Ana Avenue, including mill and overlay. Improvements to East Santa Ana Avenue would include curb gutter, and streetlights on the southern side of East Santa Ana Avenue. In addition, the Project would include sidewalks along the Project frontage on East Santa Ana Avenue.

Water Service
The City would provide the domestic water to the project site from an existing municipal water main located within East Santa Ana Avenue. The Project proposes water connections for domestic water, fire protection, and landscape irrigation.

Drainage and Water Quality Treatment
The developer would be responsible for drainage and water quality treatment before discharging into the City's existing storm drainage infrastructure located within East Santa Ana Avenue. The Project proposes conveyance of storm drain to underground detention basins located at the center of the project site, and modular wetland treatment on-site.

Wastewater Collection and Disposal
The City has an existing sanitary sewer mainline located within East Santa Ana Avenue. The Project proposes sewer service connections to the existing sanitary sewer mainline.

Dry Utilities and Services
Along the project site boundary on East Santa Ana Avenue, there are existing utility poles that contain electrical power, communications, and cable television lines. This Project proposes to convert the above-ground utility poles to below-ground along the Project frontage on East Santa Ana Avenue.

3.7 CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Project construction is anticipated to begin in 2024 with a construction duration of approximately 18 months. Construction would occur in a single phase. Construction of the Project would require the following activities: site preparation, grading, paving, building construction/infrastructure installation, and architectural coatings. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of soils and Project materials would be imported during grading activities.

3.8 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR
Pursuant to Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is primarily an informational document intended to inform the public agency decision-makers and the general public of the potentially significant environmental effects of a project. Prior to taking action on the proposed Project, the City must consider the information in this EIR and certify the Final EIR.

The City of Rialto, as lead agency for the Project, has discretionary authority over the primary approvals.

The Applicant has requested the consideration of the following discretionary actions.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-26

3.8.1 City of Rialto
 Certification of the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Final Environmental Impact Report  Precise Plan of Design (PPD) (PPD 2023-0006): The proposed Project includes the review of a PPD for one truck terminal and one maintenance shop totaling approximately 191,145 sf. The total site area is approximately 45.7 acres.
 Conditional Development Permit (CDP) (2023-0007): The Project includes a CDP for the development of a truck terminal, which is considered a conditionally permitted use in industrial zones within the City.

In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project would be subject to other discretionary and ministerial actions by the City as part of Project implementation. Additional City approvals include but are not limited to haul route permits, site development permits, grading permits, use permits, sign permits, and building permits.

3.8.2 Responsible Agencies
 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Construction General Permit.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Assessment Methodology
This section discusses the potential environmental impacts that would result with implementation of the proposed Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project). The following environmental topics are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
 Aesthetics  Land Use and Planning
 Air Quality  Mineral Resources
 Biological Resources  Noise
 Cultural Resources  Population and Housing
 Energy  Public Services
 Geology and Soils  Transportation
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Tribal Cultural Resources
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Utilities and Service Systems  Hydrology and Water Quality
Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128, “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The City determined that the Project would have no impact on the following CEQA environmental topics:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Recreation, and Wildfires. As such, these topics are not addressed in the EIR.

4.0.2 Environmental Setting
This environmental setting provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the Project and describes the existing physical environmental conditions on the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant. The existing conditions are the on- site physical environmental conditions at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1). For purposes of this analysis, the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the City of Rialto, as Lead Agency, determines whether an impact is significant. The project site was previously used for mining operations. The disturbance area of the former uses totals the entirety of the project site. Current activities on-site are limited to mining reclamation, which is anticipated to be completed in 2024, prior to the commencement of Project construction. Therefore, given that reclamation activities would be completed prior to Project construction, the analysis assumes a projected future condition (i.e., Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan completion) as the baseline condition. These reclamation activities include changes to topography, soil disturbance, and other geologic conditions within the project site to justify the use of a future baseline condition.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-2

4.0.3 Environmental Analysis
As described in detail in Section 2, Introduction, this EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR in accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This Project EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the Project. The analysis contained within this Project EIR provides environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Rialto as part of the Project’s implementation.

Thresholds of Significance
As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2), thresholds of significance assist a lead agency in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that a project's impacts are less than significant. The significance determinations are based on a number of factors as explained in each impact section. These thresholds are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, 2010 Rialto General Plan policies, ordinances, generally accepted professional standards, and quantified thresholds established by the City of Rialto or other agencies (such as pollutant emission thresholds adopted by the Air Quality Management District).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This subsection describes changes that could potentially result to the existing physical environment should the Project be implemented. In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency will consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by a project (CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)). A significant impact on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions in the area affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself is not considered a significant impact on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The following is an explanation of the significance determinations used in this EIR:
 No Impact: Due to the nature of the Project or location of the project site, the Project would not have any measurable impact on the environment. For example, underground facilities do not have the potential for long-term visual impacts.
 Less Than Significant: An impact that is adverse but that does not exceed the defined thresholds of significance. Although an impact may occur, it will not be at a significant level based on applicable standards and thresholds. For example, construction-related air emissions that fall below the standards are less than significant and do not require mitigation.  Less Than Significant With Mitigation: An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and would or could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Standard Conditions and Requirements, and Mitigation Measures are recommended to prevent the impact, eliminate the impact, or reduce it to a level that is considered less than significant. For example, Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-3
potentially significant impacts to unknown resources can be mitigated to less than significant with monitoring during ground disturbing construction activities.  Significant and Unavoidable: This determination is made for a potentially significant impact where there is no feasible mitigation available, or the recommended mitigation measures are not sufficient enough to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. To approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve a project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines §15093(a)).

Mitigation
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002, 15021, and 15126.4, mitigation measures are required (as feasible) when significant impacts are identified. If a mitigation measure itself would cause a significant impact, in addition to the impact caused by a project, that impact is also discussed, although at a lesser level of detail than a project impact (pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(D)). “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments” (pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(2)), and “mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements” (pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(4)).

4.0.4 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Requirements
Under the State CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts” (14 CCR §15130(a)(1)). Therefore, an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if the incremental effect of a project, combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR §15130(a)). Such incremental effects are to be “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (14 CCR §15064(h)(1)).

Together, these projects compose the cumulative scenario which forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis.

Cumulative impacts analysis should highlight actions that are closely related either in time or location to the project being considered. Both the severity of impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence are to be reflected in the discussion, “…but the discussion need not provide as great a level of detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact” (14 CCR §15130(b)).

The cumulative analysis must be in sufficient detail to be useful in deciding whether, or how, to alter a project to lessen cumulative impacts.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-4
There are two commonly used approaches for establishing the cumulative impact setting or scenario. One approach is to use a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” (14 CCR §15130(b)(1)(A)). The other is to use a “summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect” (14 CCR §15130(b)(1)(B)). This EIR uses the summary approach of projections based on the buildout assumptions contained in the 2010 General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2008071100); however, a Cumulative Projects List, is also used as applicable.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology
The area within which a cumulative effect can occur varies by resource. For example, air quality impacts generally affect a large area (such as the regional Air Basin), while traffic impacts are typically more localized. The analysis of cumulative effects considers a number of variables, including geographic (spatial) limits, time (temporal) limits, and the characteristics of the resource being evaluated. The geographic scope of each analysis is based on the topography surrounding the project site and the natural boundaries of the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of the a project. For this reason, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts is identified for each resource area in the respective environmental topical sections of this EIR.

Cumulative List
The cumulative study area varies from one environmental topic to another depending upon the nature of impacts related to the topic. For example, cumulative aesthetic considerations encompass only the surrounding areas with direct views of the project site, while air quality is a regional issue that is analyzed on a broader scale, and greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed on an even broader scale. To determine the Project’s potential cumulative impacts, this EIR includes the use of a list of past, present, and future projects obtained from the City of Rialto San Bernardino County prior to the issuance of the EIR’s Notice of Preparation as shown in Table 4.0-1: Cumulative Projects List.

The cumulative impacts analyses are provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.17. These analyses describe the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of the Project together with the cumulative projects listed in the table. Not all related projects would contribute to significant cumulative impacts for each topical area. For example, not all related projects would have visual impacts. The cumulative impact analyses in each topical area provides an evaluation of the cumulative projects and how these would contribute to cumulative impacts. Some of the impacts are very site-specific and would not compound the impacts associated with the Project. In other cases, short-term impacts would not contribute to cumulative impacts because the construction of the cumulative project and the development of the Project would not occur in the same time period or be near to each other.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-5
Table 4.0-1: Cumulative Projects List
Project # Location Land Use Quantity Unit
City of Rialto
1 Rialto Village
Free Standing Discount Superstore 198,000 SF
Tire Store 9,861 SF
Shopping Center (>150k) 25,436 SF
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru 5,484 SF
2 South Santa Ana Avenue, East Santa
Ana Avenue Warehousing 370,000 SF
3 NWC of South Riverside Avenue and
East Santa Ana Avenue Warehousing 527,900 SF
4 SEC of South Riverside Avenue and
East Santa Ana Avenue Convenience Store/ Gasoline Station 16 SF 5 Lilac Avenue Warehouse Warehousing 47,460 SF
6 SC Fuels (19839 Santa Ana Avenue) Warehousing 48,302 SF 7 Flyers Energy Addition Warehousing 9,350 SF
8 Angelus Black – Concrete Block Manufacturing 178,475 SF 9 Rialto Industrial Building Warehousing 82,000 SF
10 Birtcher Logistics Center Warehousing 492,410 SF
11 2720 Willow Avenue Warehouse Warehousing 118,450 SF
County of San Bernardino
12 Cedar / Slover Retail
Convenience Store / Gasoline
Station 12 FP
Self-Service Car Wash 1
Wash
Stall
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive Thru 9,907 SF
13 Cactus and Slover Warehouse Warehousing 257,855 SF
SF = Square Feet, FP = Fueling Positions
Source: Appendix O

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-6
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Introduction
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the scenic vistas, visual resources, and aesthetic qualities present on and nearby the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project) while assessing the potential impact the Project could have on those resources. The pre-development conditions of the project site and surrounding area was used as the baseline which to compare potential impacts associated with the Project. Applicable regulations provide further context regarding the Project area’s visual character.

4.1.2 Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) are expected to have a high concern for scenery and landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at industrial sites generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is also affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (e.g., high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence). Visual resources, as they relate to tribal cultural resources, include tribal cultural landscapes which may be defined temporally (with regard to time) or geographically (such as by natural features such as a stream, boulder or outcrop) and through oral traditions and cultural practices. For more information on tribal cultural resources, see Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

The same feature can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance between the observer and the viewed object. When a viewer is closer to a viewed object in the landscape, greater detail is visible, and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality because of its form or scale (relative size of the object in relation to the viewer). When the same object is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible but overall forms of terrain and vegetation are evident, and the horizon and skyline are dominant. In the middle ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetation patterns (e.g., the background).

The following terms and concepts are used in the discussion below to describe and assess the aesthetic setting and potential Project impacts.

Scenic Vista. As described in the City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan), scenic vistas can generally be defined as natural landscapes that form views of unique flora, geologic, or other natural features that are generally free from urban intrusions. Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains and hills, large, uninterrupted open spaces, and waterbodies.1 Scenic vistas are often designated, signed, and accessible

1 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/653/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-2
to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency.

Scenic Resources. Typical examples of natural scenic resources include rock outcroppings, trees, and prominent ridgelines, but scenic resources can occur naturally or be man-made, such as historic or architecturally distinctive buildings.

Scenic Highway. Refers to any highway designated as a scenic highway by an agency of the city, county, or State.

Sensitive Receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including distance and viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities.

The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational, residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer activities can range from a circumstance that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are considered to have low sensitivity.

Viewshed. A viewshed can be defined as the area within view from a defined observation point or a visually sensitive area that is visible from a defined observation point.2 A project’s viewshed is the surrounding geographic area from which the project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view a project site.

Visual Character. Visual character typically consists of the landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics.

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the natural scenic beauty of California’s highways and corridors through special conservation treatment.

Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public rights-of-way that transverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Caltrans designates a scenic highway by evaluating how much of the natural landscape a traveler sees and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor. No officially designated scenic highways are located in the project site or within the City of Rialto

2 American Planning Association. (2004). A Planner’s Dictionary. Page 444. Accessed August 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-3
(City). The nearest designated scenic highway is State Route 38 (Rim of the World Scenic Byway), located approximately 34 miles east of the project site.3
California Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. The CBC, as amended and adopted by each local jurisdiction, regulates the design of all new buildings within the State of California. Part 6 of Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. The 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan 2010
Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply, of the City’s General Plan provides guidance to promote the City’s goals for current and future development related to Land Use, Community Design, Open Space and Conservation. Relevant General Plan policies for aesthetics are identified below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.

Goal 2-14: Protect scenic vistas and scenic resources.

Policy 2-14.1: Protect views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Policy 2-14.2: Protect views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Policy 2-14.3: Ensure use of building materials that do not produce glare, such as polished metals or reflective windows.

Goal 2-18: Protect Rialto’s small-town character.

Policy 2-18.1: Require all new development and renovations within residential neighborhoods to be consistent with the existing scale, massing, and landscaping of that neighborhood.

Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan
The Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) was adopted in July 1986. The Specific Plan encompasses 4,285 acres within the cities of Colton and Rialto, and the counties of San Bernadino and Riverside.4 The Specific Plan area is bound by Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north, Rancho Avenue to the east, and the Santa Ana River to the southeast, and unincorporated San Bernadino County to the west.

The purpose of the Specific Plan is to serve as a master plan for future economic development. The Specific

3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2023). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

Accessed July 2023.
4 City of Rialto. (1986). Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/specificplans/amsp.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-4
Plan area is comprised of various land uses, including industrial uses, agricultural land, residential uses, and vacant land. The project site is zoned General Manufacturing (M-2) in the Specific Plan.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 18 of the Rialto Municipal Code functions as the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the permitted land uses on all parcels in the City through assigned land use designations and associated land use regulations and development standards. The purpose of Title 18 is also to promote the consistent aesthetic character of the City and balance that character with continued development. Title 18 also contains provisions to manage light and glare levels in the City. In coordination with the General Plan and the Specific Plan, Title 18 presents the following guidelines to promote appropriate land use and City design:
 lessen congestion in the streets;
 secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers;
 promote health and the general welfare;
 provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land;  avoid undue concentration of population; and
 facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.

4.1.4 Environmental Setting
The project site consists of approximately 45.7 acres of previously disturbed land. The northern portion of the project site is paved and features trailer storage. On-site elevations range from approximately 900 to 955 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A 105-foot California Electric Power Company pole line easement is located on the southern portion of the property. Adjacent properties include industrial uses and vacant land. In addition, the Santa Ana River is approximately 0.7 miles south of the project site. Current activities on-site are limited to mining reclamation, which is anticipated to be completed in 2024, prior to the commencement of Project construction. Therefore, given that reclamation activities would be completed prior to Project construction, the analysis assumes a projected future condition (i.e., Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan completion) as the baseline condition. These reclamation activities include changes to topography, soil disturbance, and other geologic conditions within the proposed project site to justify the use of a future baseline condition.

Scenic Vistas
The General Plan identifies the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains as scenic vistas, views of which are visible from certain parts of the City. The San Gabriel Mountains are approximately 10 miles northwest of the project site and the San Bernardino Mountains are approximately 14 miles east of the project site.

Both the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains are visible from the project site in the distance.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-5
Scenic Resources
The General Plan identifies examples of scenic resources as including rock outcroppings, trees, and prominent ridgelines as well as architecturally distinctive or historic buildings. The City’s General Plan identifies Box Spring Mountains, La Loma and Jurupa Hills, Lytle Creek, and the Santa Ana River as scenic resources. Lytle Creek is approximately 4.1 miles north of the project site and the Santa Ana River is approximately 0.6 miles east of the project site. Neither resource is visible from the project site due to intervening topography and development. Box Spring Mountains are approximately 7 miles southeast of the project site, but views of these mountains are obscured by intervening urban development. The La Loma Hills are approximately 0.9 miles southeast of the project site and the Jurupa Hills are approximately

3.1 miles west of the project site. The Jurupa Hills are visible from the project site.

Light and Glare
Light and glare in the project site area are typical of that found in urban environments. Sources of light and potential glare in the area include adjacent industrial uses. Stationary source lighting in the area is generated from building interiors and exterior sources (e.g., building illumination, security lighting, and parking lot lighting) associated with uses adjacent to the project site. The area is also influenced by light and glare from vehicle headlights and streetlights. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not contain any lighting or sources of potential glare.

4.1.5 Methodology
The analysis of visual quality of the Project is based on the land use plan and conceptual landscape plan, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description. The assessment of aesthetic/visual changes is based on the evaluation of the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and other regulatory requirements, and the evaluation of the proposed site development in comparison to existing conditions. Aesthetics may be defined as visual qualities within a given field of view, and may include such considerations as size, shape, color, contextual and general composition and the relationships between these elements; the potential aesthetic impacts of a project can be evaluated by considering such factors as scale and mass, landscaping, and setbacks.

The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds below, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. In addition to the design characteristics of future development, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

This analysis of impacts on aesthetic resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects-based significance criteria/threshold’s application. For each criterion, the analyses address both temporary (construction) and operational impacts, as applicable. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project components that share similar characteristics/geography.

The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-6

4.1.6 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for aesthetic impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact of a project could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, the project has a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

4.1.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.1-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located on vacant land with a Heavy Industrial (H IND) land use designation in the Specific Plan. The project site is located adjacent to existing industrial land uses and vacant land. The project site is not located within an area designated by the City as a scenic vista. As described in General Plan Policy 2-14.1 and 2-14.2, the General Plan encourages the protection of scenic resources and views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, and the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by limiting building heights. Views of these resources from the area surrounding the project site are already limited and interrupted.

Views of a scenic vista can be affected by the development of buildings and structures which may block visibility at different angles. Upon completion of Project development, the distant views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains from uses south of the project site may be partially obstructed, and views of the La Loma Hills may be partially obstructed when viewed from north of the project site; however, those views are currently partially obstructed by intervening urban development.

The Project would include the construction of an approximately 172,445 sf truck terminal and an approximately 18,700 sf maintenance shop. The proposed truck terminal would be approximately 24 feet in height and 90 feet in width, and the proposed maintenance shop would be approximately 22 feet in height and 110 feet in width. As such, Project implementation would partially obstruct views of designated scenic vistas; however, those views are currently partially obstructed by existing urban development. The Project would include a retaining wall along the eastern boundary, screening views of the parking areas from adjacent parcels. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is residential land uses located approximately 2,800 feet to the southwest. Compliance with the City’s design standards for the Project would minimize potential impacts to scenic vistas to a less than significant level.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-7
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.1-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Level of Significance: No Impact
The nearest designated state scenic highway to the project site is SR-38 (Rim of the World Scenic Byway), located approximately 34 miles east, and the nearest eligible state scenic highway to the project site is the portion of SR-38 located between State Route 10 (SR-10) and State Route 18 (SR-18), approximately

10.2 miles east of the project site.5 Due to distance and intervening topography, Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.1-3: Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would include the construction of a truck terminal on an approximately 45.7-acre project site.

The project site is zoned H IND within the Specific Plan and is adjacent to existing industrial uses.

Additionally, permitted uses within a Heavy Industrial land use includes transit and transportation terminals, and repair and storage facilities. As such, the proposed truck terminal would be consistent with the Heavy Industrial zone.

Table 4.1-1: Development Standard Consistency Summary identifies the development standards applicable to the Project and the Project’s consistency with the standards identified in Section 4.2 of the Specific Plan

5 Caltrans. (2023). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed July 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-8
for development on sites with Heavy Industrial land use designations. The development standards have been incorporated into the Project design to ensure full compliance with the Specific Plan development standards to minimize impacts related to aesthetics, light, or glare.

Table 4.1-1: Development Standard Consistency Summary
Development Standard Heavy Industrial Land Use Project Maximum Height None 24
Minimum Lot Size 0.3 acres 45.7 acres
Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft 2,234.5 feet
Front Setbacks 25 feet 44 feet
Side Setbacks None 15 feet
Rear Setbacks None 20 feet
Landscape Minimum 20 ft along public street frontages The Project would include 10.8 acres (23.6% of the project
site) of landscaping
Source: City of Rialto. (1987). Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/563/Agua-Mansa-Specific-Plan. Accessed August 2023.

Information regarding project site design, necessary permits, and land use regulations are provided in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR. Additionally, although the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning designation for the project site, as required by Section 18.106.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project would require a Conditional Development Permit (CDP), which is required for Project implementation because the proposed truck terminal is considered a conditionally permitted use in industrial zones within the City.

Therefore, the Project would comply with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.1-4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The project site is in an urbanized area of the City, which includes nighttime lighting associated with industrial land uses including parking lot lighting and security lighting as well as street lighting and vehicle Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-9
lights traveling at night. The nearest light-sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet to the southwest of the project site. The project site would be developed on a vacant property in an urbanized area. Developed and urbanized areas often have higher levels of light and glare than rural or undeveloped areas. New sources of lighting on the project site would include parking lot illumination and various security lights around the property and from inside the proposed maintenance shop. The Specific Plan Performance Standards require that lighting shall reflect away from adjoining property or any public way. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward to minimize excess light spillover on surrounding properties.

General Plan Policy 2-14.3 requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare, such as polished metals or reflective windows. The Project would comply with General Plan Policy 2-14.3 as well as the development standards for lighting identified in Section 4.2 of the Specific Plan, and therefore would preclude significant impacts from the project site related to light and glare.

As discussed above, the Project vicinity includes existing nighttime lighting from surrounding sources including vehicle headlights, streetlights, and existing industrial land uses. The lighting used for the project site would be consistent with the existing sources of nighttime lighting in the area from the surrounding uses such as parking lot lighting and security lighting. Accordingly, compliance with the Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance would result in a less than significant increase in light and glare in the area.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of aesthetic resource impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development according to the related projects; see Table 4.0-1: Cumulative Projects List As concluded above, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors must be considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the project site and surrounding areas. The context in which a project is being viewed will also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may actually be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. If most of an area is or is becoming more urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surrounding may be relatively less since it would not stand out in contrast as much. In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the proposed elements of the cumulative projects would need to be seen together or in proximity to each other. If the projects were not near each other, the viewer would not perceive them in the same scene.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-10
The project site is bordered by existing development to the north, east and west. Vacant properties to the south of the project site are within the Specific Plan area and are zoned for industrial use. Similar to the Project, development to the south of the project site would alter the visual character of the area.

However, current development and future development in the area would be required to conform with the applicable Specific Plans and the Municipal Code, which would require compliance with development standards that would further minimize impacts to views and the visual character of the area.

With respect to nighttime illumination, nighttime lighting effects may be considered in a regional context because of the potential for night glow that can extend beyond the boundaries of a site. Therefore, with respect to night lighting, the Project is considered in context to the forecasted growth for the area and with cumulative projects in the area that may contribute to the increased nighttime lighting. Because the Project would be required to comply with lighting requirements to preclude glare and light spillage, the Project’s contribution to nighttime lighting would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s incremental effects involving scenic vistas, consistency with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and light and glare are not cumulatively considerable.

4.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics. No mitigation is required.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY

4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates potential impacts that will be generated by construction and operation of the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project). The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, and local air pollutant regulations. The Air Quality Assessment and Health Risk Assessment are summarized in this EIR section and provided as Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively, of this EIR.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine particulate matters 10 microns or less and

2.5 microns or less (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (pb). Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The United States EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of federal notification, the United States EPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The United States EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Federal Emissions Standards for On-Road Trucks
To reduce emissions from on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks, the United States EPA established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The United States EPA promulgated the final and cleanest standards with the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule. The PM emission standard of 0.01 gram per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) is required for new vehicles beginning with model year 2007. Also, the NOX and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standards of 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.14 g/hp- hr, respectively, were phased in together between 2007 and 2010 on a percent of sales basis: 50 percent from 2007 to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-2
Emission Standards for Off-Road Diesel Engines
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, the United States EPA established a series of cleaner emission standards for new off-road diesel engines. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. Tier 4 standards, which generally require add-on emission control equipment to attain them, were phased in from 2008 to 2015.

State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) administers air quality policies for the State of California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford- Carrell Act. Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards identifies the CCAQS and NAAQS standards. The State standards are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m 3) 0.070 ppm 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m 3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m 3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m 3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3) 0.10 ppm11 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m 3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m 3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 24-Hour 50 µg/m 3 150 µg/m 3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9 24-Hour NA 35 µg/m 3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m 3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m 3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m 3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m 3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m 3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (0.15 µg/m 3) NA Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m 3) NA ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available.

1. California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24- hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-3
Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.

2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24- hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3.

3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

4. NAAQS are set by the United States EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.

5. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than

0.070 ppm. United States. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area.

6. The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the United States EPA on June 15, 2005.

7. In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10.

8. The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006.

9. On June 2, 2010, the United States EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following United States EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

10. In December 2012, United States EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the United States EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.

11. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.

12. National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: Appendix B
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the United States EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc., are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The identification of diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline1. CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010,

1 California Air Resources Control Board (CARB). (2000). Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed May 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-4
further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer health effects2. The DRRP includes regulations for cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in-use diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.

Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California.

The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier trucks were retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and replacement for older trucks began on January 1, 2015. Beginning on January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses are required to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to most privately and federally-owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and there are several extensions for low-mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner vehicles, and other situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles. The driver of any vehicle subject to this ATCM is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel- fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).

CARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks, beginning in 2008, requires that new 2008 and subsequent model-year heavy-duty diesel engines be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.

Section 2485 and Section 2449 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations limits diesel-fueled motor vehicle and off-road idling to no more than five minutes. Section 2485 limits idling for diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed to operate on publicly maintained highways and streets within California. Section 2449 limits idling for off-road diesel-fueled fleets.

CalEnviroScreen
OEHHA has developed CalEnviroScreen 4.0, which is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic

2 CARB. (2023). Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

Accessed May 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-5
information to produce scores for every census tract in the State. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

According to CalEnviroScreen, the project site and the nearest residences to the east are located within Census Tract 6071004004, which is within the 96th percentile.3 It should be noted that the CalEnviroScreen scores are relative to other census tracts and are not an expression of health risk, and do not provide quantitative information on increases in cumulative impacts for specific sites or projects.

Further, as a comparative screening tool, the results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to public health or the environment.

Senate Bill 535
Senate Bill (SB) 535 directs 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (i.e., funds from the AB 32 cap-and-trade program) to go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities (DACs) (as identified by the OEHHA mapping). These funds must be used for programs that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funding programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions would also potentially reduce exposure to other emissions including TACs. Based on OEHHA mapping, the project site is located within a SB 535 designated disadvantaged community (Census Tract 6071004004)4. SB 535 does not include project specific requirements or prohibit developments within designated communities.

CARB Advances Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
 Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.  Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

3 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2023). CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results (October 2021 Update). https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. Accessed September 2023. 4 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2023). SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. Accessed September 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-6
Executive Order N-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order (EO) N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.

Regional and Local Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.

SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. Specifically, the 2016 AQMP covers the following federal standards: 1979 1-hour O3 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

On October 1, 2015, the United States EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost- effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co- Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-7
benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Localized Significance Thresholds [LSTs] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.

The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and federal standards.

The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
 Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
 Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-8
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
 Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.  Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) – Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021 to reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures.

Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-9
Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Serious) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: Appendix B
Air Toxics Control Plan
The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-10
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
The SCAQMD conducted an in-depth analysis of the toxic air contaminants and their resulting health risks for all of Southern California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES V) (August 2021) shows that carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB, based on the average concentrations at the 10 monitoring sites, is approximately 40 percent lower than the monitored average in MATES IV and 84 percent lower than the average in MATES II.

MATES V also evaluated the population-weighted cancer risk within Environmental Justice (EJ) communities using the SB 5357 definition of disadvantaged communities. Between MATES IV and MATES V, air toxics cancer risk decreased by 57 percent in Environmental Justice (EJ) communities overall compared to a 53 percent reduction in non-EJ communities.

MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks associated with the SCAB emissions. Therefore, MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to TACs is 424 in one million basin wide. In comparison, the MATES IV basin average risk was 897 per million. These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are near the Project site. However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 450 million of the Project area. DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all other TAC sources. DPM accounts for a majority of the total risk shown in MATES V in this area.

Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR)
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted Rule 2305 in 2021 to reduce NOX and PM emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse.

These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-11
Rialto General Plan 2010
The City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan) identifies goals that will improve air quality within the City in Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply. Goals and policies that relate to air quality impacts include the following:

Goal 2-9 Protect residential, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses from the impacts associated with industrial and trucking-related land uses, as well as commercial and retail uses.

Policy 2-9.1 Require mitigation and utilize other techniques to protect residential development and other sensitive land uses near industrial land uses or within identified health risk areas from excessive noise, hazardous materials and waste releases, toxic air pollutant concentrations, and other impacts.

Policy 2-9.2 Require all industrial development to front on an improved street with appropriate front yard setbacks, landscaping, and façade and entrance treatments.

Goal 2-35 Reduce air pollution emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the City.

Policy 2-35.2 Require that new development projects incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

Policy 2-35.3 Establish a balanced land use pattern, and facilitate developments that provide jobs for City residents in order to reduce vehicle trips citywide.

Policy 2-35.4 Require new development and significant redevelopment proposals to incorporate sufficient design and operational controls to prevent release of noxious odors beyond the limits of the development site.

Goal 2-36 Reduce the amount of fugitive dust released into the atmosphere.

Policy 2-36.1 Put conditions on discretionary permits to require fugitive dust controls.

Policy 2-36.3 Enforce regulations that do not allow vehicles to transport aggregate or similar material upon a roadway unless the material is stabilized or covered.

4.2.3 Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
CARB divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features.

The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.5 Air quality in this area is determined by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

5 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (1993). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed September 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-12
The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.

Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.

Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter.

Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by State and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are primary criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-13
with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate
Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-
burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles
and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or lung
disease. Impairs visibility.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Motor vehicle exhaust industrial emissions,
gasoline storage and transport, solvents,
paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron and steel.

Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen
to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other
sources that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to
global warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metals processing is the
major source of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of lead in air are
generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood,
bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect
the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures,
mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.

Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated
with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses
and young children, resulting in learning
deficits and lowered IQ.

1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Source: Appendix B
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-14
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short-term (acute) or long-term (i.e. chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e. injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.

CARB identified DPM as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light- headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing ambient air quality levels, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Rubidoux – Mission Boulevard Monitoring Station (located approximately 4.4 miles to the southwest). Local air quality data from 2019 to 2021 are provided in Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality standards for each year.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-15
Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant1 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.123 0.143 0.117
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.096 0.115 0.097
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 24 46 20
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 59 82 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.51 1.72 2.10
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 56.0 66.4 52.0
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 132.5 142.1 76.5 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 182.4 137.7 114.3
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20
µg/m3) 40.9 -- 33.2
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 110 115 75
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 55.7 59.9 82.1
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 57.6 61.9 82.1
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 5 12 11
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Rubidoux - Mission Boulevard Monitoring Station at 5888 Mission Boulevard, Riverside, California 92509 (CARB# 33144), which is the closet monitoring station that measures O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.

Source: Appendix B
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet to the southwest of the project site.

4.2.4 Methodology
This analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-16
quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod. This analysis assumes an Opening Year of 2024; however, emission factors for construction would decrease over time as emissions regulations become more stringent and equipment fleets turnover. Should construction commence at a later date than what was assumed in the model, the emissions presented herein is conservative.

Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage and off-site electrify generation), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The Project vehicle trip generation was obtained from the Traffic Study for the 249 Santa Ana Avenue Truck Terminal Project in the City of Rialto (Traffic Study; Appendix O), prepared by Kimley-Horn (April 2023). According to the Traffic Study, the Project would generate 951 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 574 daily truck trips.

As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

4.2.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are from the City of Rialto Environmental Checklist. The Project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard.  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-17
SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.

According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction-Related Operational-Related Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: Appendix B
Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the project site are above the State and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as in attainment under the 1-hour and 8- hour standards.

Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent state or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day. The City of Rialto is located within SCAQMD SRA 34. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet (853 meters) to the southwest of the Project site. LSTs associated with the 500-meter threshold are provided in Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations for informational purposes and to demonstrate that the thresholds increase as acreages increase.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-18
Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 652/652 21,708/21,708 196/47 98/24
2 Acres 684/684 23,304/23,304 205/50 104/25
5 Acres 778/778 27,680/27,680 229/55 120/29
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Note: Based on a receptor distance of 500 meters in SRA 34.

Source: Appendix B

4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.2-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs. The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.

The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMPs are defined by the following indicators:
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.  Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-19
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown below in Table

4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions, the Project-generated construction emissions would not exceed construction emission standards. However, as shown in Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions, the Project- generated mitigated operational emissions would exceed operational emission standards. Therefore, Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project proposes a truck terminal and maintenance shop in accordance with the City’s General Plan. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. The General Industrial designation allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities. The General Industrial designation permits manufacturing and distribution, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses.6 The designation allows for a maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)7 of 1.0. The Project’s proposed uses are allowed under the General Plan designation for the project site.

The Specific Plan serves as a comprehensive and strategic framework designed to guide the responsible and sustainable development of a designated industrial area. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial (H IND). Permitted uses within the Heavy Industrial land use zone include transit and transportation terminals, repairs, and storage facilities. The Project’s proposed uses are permitted under the Specific Plan.

The population and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the AQMPs, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections. Thus, no impact would occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.

Project implementation would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. The Project would incorporate Agua Mansa Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2, which recommends that individual industrial users take all reasonable steps to encourage employees to car-pool rather than utilizing one vehicle per employee, and Mitigation Measure 4, which requires dust control measures during construction. Similar to Agua Mansa Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2, Project Mitigation Measure (MM) TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce single-occupancy commute trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Project MM AIR-1 requires that all outdoor cargo handling equipment are zero emission, that each building include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment, and that all standard emergency generators meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards. Although these mitigation measures would reduce emissions by the greatest extent feasible, Project emission levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations

6 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan.https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.

Accessed August 2023.
7 Floor Area Ratio is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the parcel.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-20
in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation measures.

The Project would incorporate Agua Mansa Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measures 2 and 4, Project MM AIR-1, and Project MM TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation) to reduce the intensity of Project impacts. However, with the incorporation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: Climate and Air Quality Mitigation Measures 1-4 are applicable. Mitigation Measure 1 and 3 are included above, under Impact

4.2-2; Mitigation Measures 2 and 4 are below:

Mitigation Measure 2: Individual industrial users should take all reasonable steps to encourage employees to car-pool rather than utilizing one vehicle per employee. Typical measures which can be taken by employers include:
a. Designation of preferential parking areas which may be used only by employees engaged in car-pooling.
b. Employers should be encouraged to institute van-pooing programs to reduce the number of vehicles driven by employees.

Mitigation Measure 4: To minimize dust during construction activities, periodic soil wetting should be utilized.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
 All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
 All standard emergency generators shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-21
Impact 4.2-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e. ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Construction activities associated with the Project are estimated to be completed within 18 months.

Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions.

Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 1 (2024) 3.76 42.94 36.45 0.10 6.94 4.15
Year 2 (2025) 52.16 19.33 27.91 0.04 1.79 0.98
Maximum Emissions 53.48 42.94 36.45 0.10 6.94 4.15
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied.

Source: Appendix B.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Additionally, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LOR) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-22
403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and Agua Mansa Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4 requires periodic soil wetting, although unmitigated emissions for PM2.5 and PM10 are not exceeding SCAQMD’s thresholds. The Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and identified in LOR AQ-1. Table 4.2-7 shows the Project’s unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds and construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g. landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off- road equipment. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8:

Operational Emissions. The operational emissions sources are described below.  Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment.  Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.  Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. o Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Study and have been incorporated into CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD.

Per the Traffic Study, the Project would generate 951 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 574 daily truck trips.
 Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. Although the Project is a truck terminal facility, it has been assumed that off-road equipment would be utilized as a worst-case analysis. It was conservatively assumed that the Project would include 4 diesel forklifts and one diesel yard trucks per SCAQMD data.8
 Emergency Backup Generators. As the Project is a truck terminal facility with warehouse space, it is conservatively assumed that backup generators would be used in the event of a power failure.

Generators would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, emissions associated with one emergency backup generator was included to be conservative. Emissions from an emergency backup generator was calculated separately from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B. However, CalEEMod default emissions rates were used. If backup generators are

8 SCAQMD. (2014). High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results. Accessed September 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-23
required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to installation. Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.

Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions1,2
Area 6.37 0.07 8.61 0.00 0.02 0.01
Energy 0.06 1.15 0.96 0.01 0.09 0.09
Mobile – Trucks 1.04 71.32 35.18 0.63 21.26 6.39
Mobile – Passenger
Cars 1.06 0.83 15.20 0.04 4.15 1.06
Off-Road2 3.96 33.43 48.62 0.09 2.09 1.92
Emergency
Generators 1.69 4.71 4.30 0.01 0.25 0.25
Total Emissions 14.19 111.51 112.87 0.78 27.85 9.72
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions1,2
Area 6.37 0.07 8.61 0.00 0.02 0.01
Energy 0.06 1.15 0.96 0.01 0.09 0.09
Mobile – Trucks 1.04 71.32 35.18 0.63 21.26 6.39
Mobile – Passenger
Cars 1.06 0.83 15.20 0.04 4.15 1.06
Off-Road3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency
Generators3 1.69 0.83 4.30 0.01 0.03 0.03
Total Emissions 8.48 72.22 58.99 0.67 25.43 7.46
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No Yes No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Note: Total values are from CalEEMod and may not add up 100% due to rounding.

1. The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst-case scenario.

2. Off-road emissions include one yard truck and four forklifts. Emissions were calculated with CARB OFFROAD 1.0.2.

3. Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to AIR-1 (unmitigated emissions assume diesel off-road equipment [i.e., forklifts and yard trucks]).

Source: Appendix B
As shown in Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions, unmitigated operational (i.e., area, energy, mobile, off- road, and emergency generators) emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of NOX. The majority of the Project’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources and cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold. Emissions from motor vehicles are Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-24
controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. However, numerous mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

The Project would incorporate MM AIR-1 to reduce operational emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 requires that all outdoor cargo handling equipment be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators must be Tier 4 certified. Additionally, the Agua Mansa Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2 recommends that employers take steps such as preferential parking to encourage car-pooling and van-pooling. Further, MM TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation) requires the preparation of a TDM plan to reduce single-occupancy commute trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Table 4.2-8 shows that despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Construction Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. The SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary.9 The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4.2-7, mitigated construction-related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality.

Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Operational Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the

9 SCAQMD. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf. Accessed September 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-25
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4.2-8, operational emissions (primarily mobile source emissions) would exceed the SCAQMD threshold despite the implementation of mitigation. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. LORs and implementation of MM AIR-1 and MM TRF-1 would reduce emissions, as summarized above. While the Project has some control over mobile source efficiencies, the majority of the mobile source emissions are beyond the Project’s control.

Therefore, no additional feasible mitigation measures beyond Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2, as well as MM AIR-1 are available to further reduce emissions, and cumulative long-term impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) are existing requirements that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical LORs include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because LORs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures.

LOR AQ-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.  All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
 All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
 Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

LOR AQ-2: Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-26
of 50 grams per liter or less. It should be noted that 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-8 requires the volatile organic compound rating to be reduced to 10 g/L or less during construction.

LOR AQ-3: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

LOR AQ-4: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 12.50 of the City’s Municipal Code).

LOR AQ-5: In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

LOR AQ-6: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.  Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
 To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: Air Quality Mitigation Measures 1-4 are applicable. Mitigation Measure 2 and 4 are included above, under Impact

4.2-1; Mitigation Measures 1 and 3 are below:

Mitigation Measure 1: Local bus lines should be encouraged to extend service into the Study Area to discourage the use of private automobiles by employees. Bus shelters and bus stops should be constructed as dictated by ridership demand.

Mitigation Measure 3: The local governmental entities should enforce emission standards on equipment used during the construction and operation of industrial facilities.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-27
Project Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is included above, under Impact 4.2-1 and Mitigation Measure TRF-1 is included in Section 4.17, Transportation.

Impact 4.2-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Localized Construction Significance Analysis
When the air quality analysis was conducted for the Project, the nearest sensitive receptor was a single- family residential use located approximately 1,350 feet to the west of the project site. That identified single-family use has since been demolished and the closest sensitive receptor is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet to the southwest of the project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance.

The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-9: Equipment- Specific Site Preparation Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size.

Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.

Table 4.2-9: Equipment-Specific Site Preparation Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour
Day
Operating
Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 4 0.5 8 2
Graders 0 0.5 8 0
Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Scrapers 0 1.0 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: Appendix B
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on- site” emissions outputs were considered. This evaluation reflects the results of analysis based on a sensitive receptor located 2,800 feet (853 meters) southwest of the project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Accordingly, LSTs for receptors located at 500 meters were conservatively utilized in this analysis. Table 4.2-10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of unmitigated localized emissions during Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-28
each construction phase. Table 4.2-10 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Therefore, localized construction emissions would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation (2024) 35.95 32.93 6.71 4.10
Grading (2024) 34.29 30.17 3.85 2.28
Building Construction (2024) 11.22 13.12 0.50 0.46
Building Construction (2025) 10.44 13.04 0.43 0.40
Paving (2025) 7.45 9.98 0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating (2025) 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Building Construction + Paving (2025) 17.90 23.02 0.78 0.72 Building Construction + Architectural
Coating (2025) 11.33 14.18 0.46 0.42
Maximum Daily Emissions 35.95 32.93 6.71 4.10
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 3.5 acres at
500 meters)
731 25,492 217 112
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: Appendix B
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g. warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes development of an industrial use, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet (853 meters) to the southwest of the project site and the LST thresholds for 500 meters were utilized in this analysis. Additionally, the maximum LST threshold (5-acre) was utilized as the project site encompasses 45.7 acres.

The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively include all on-site Project- related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts, yard trucks, and generators), and three percent of the Project-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site.10 Table 4.2-11 shows that the maximum unmitigated daily emissions of these pollutants during Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, localized operational emissions would be less than significant.

10 The on-site one-way trip length is conservatively anticipated to be up to one mile, which is approximately three percent of the

33.2-mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-29
Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions 36.81 59.70 2.96 2.05 SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 500 meters)
778 27,680 55 29
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: Appendix B
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
Emissions from Project construction and operation would vary by time of day, month, and season, and the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources driving to and from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people travelling to and from the project site.

Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3. The Project would not generate 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O3-related health impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant (refer to Table 4.2-11 and Table 4.2-12: Unmitigated Carcinogenic Risk Assessment). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the United States EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Although it may be misleading and unreliable to attempt to specifically and numerically quantify the Project’s health risks, this analysis provides extensive information concerning the Project's potential health risks. While the Project is expected to exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily operational thresholds for NOX, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the Project and within the SCAB. The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-30
concentration of emissions in the air at a particular receptor (e.g., parts per million by volume of air, or micrograms per cubic meter of air).

The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emission thresholds were established primarily in conjunction with federal permitting “major source” thresholds. If emissions were below these “de minimis” emission rates, then the proposed Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS.11 While based on the status of an air basin level of attainment of the health-based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mass emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher ground level concentrations, or more frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS.

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.

Table 4.2-3 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects. Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making. Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project-level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associated with the Project cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the Project.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. According to trip count data included in the Traffic Study, existing daily volumes in the Project vicinity are 33,990 trips along South Riverside Avenue and 1,430 trips along East Santa Ana Avenue. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections as the Project would result in 951 daily trips. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

11 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). Frequent Questions about General Conformity. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-31
Carcinogenic Hazard
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) including DPM resulting Project implementation. CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on- and off-road diesel engines. When the air quality analysis was conducted for the Project, the nearest sensitive receptor was a single-family residential use located approximately 1,350 feet to the west of the project site, beyond the 1,000-foot HRA buffer distance recommended by CARB. That identified single-family use has since been demolished and the closest sensitive receptor is a single-family residential use located approximately 2,800 feet (853 meters) to the southwest of the project site, which is further from the project site and well beyond the 1,000-foot HRA buffer distance recommended by CARB. Thus, the analysis of DPM performed using the EPA-approved AERMOD model results in findings that are conservative and identify impacts greater than what would result from the proposed Project. As shown in Table 4.2-12, combined construction and operation activities of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold for both residential and worker receptors. The Project would implement MM AIR- 1 which requires zero emission forklifts and yard trucks and Tier 4 certified emergency generators, and MM TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation) which requires the preparation of a TDM plan to reduce single- occupancy commute trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation. With implementation of MM AIR-1 and MM TRF-1, operational risk at residential and worker receptors would be 1.34 in one million and 0.71 in one million, respectively, and combined construction and operational risk at residential and worker receptors would be 1.10 in one million and 0.84 in one million, respectively. Therefore, the Project’s cancer risk during construction, operations, and combined construction and operations would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 10 in one million incremental threshold and impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-32
Table 4.2-12: Unmitigated Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)1, 2
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
Unmitigated
Construction
Residential 0.15 10 No
Worker 0.25 No
Operations
Residential 382.81 10 Yes
Worker 2,940.84 Yes
Combined Construction + Operations
Residential 273.02 10 Yes
Worker 2,764.64 Yes
Mitigated1
Operations
Residential 1.34 10 No
Worker 0.71 No
Combined Construction + Operations
Residential 1.10 10 No
Worker 0.84 No

1. The mitigated exposure scenario accounts for implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment.

Mitigation Measure AIR-6 requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators to be Tier 4 certified.

2. The reported annual pollutant concentration is at the closest maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) for residential and workers to the project site.

Source: Appendix B
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. As shown in Table

4.2-13: Chronic Hazard Assessment, The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Project construction would be 0.0001 at the residential receptors and 0.0032 for worker receptors. Additionally, the highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with mitigated DPM emissions from Project operations would be 0.0004 at the residential receptors and 0.0005 at worker receptors. Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-33
Table 4.2-13: Chronic Hazard Assessment
Exposure Scenario Annual Concentration (μg/m3)1 Chronic Hazard Construction
Residential 0.0007 0.0001
Worker 0.0159 0.0032
Operations2
Residential 0.0018 0.0004
Worker 0.0027 0.0005
SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No

1. The reported pollutant concentration is at the closest receptor (maximally exposed individual receptor).

2. Represents mitigated concentrations pursuant to Mitigation Measure AIR-1.

Source: Appendix B
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is included above, under Impact 4.2-1 and Mitigation Measure TRF-1 is included in Section 4.17, Transportation.

Impact 4.2-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

Odors may be generated during construction activities such as equipment diesel exhaust, architectural coatings volatile organic compounds, and paving activities. However, these odors would be temporary are Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-34
not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. Project construction-related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants (Table 4.2-10). Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-35
Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Operational Impacts
Operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx of 55 maximum pounds per day. To reduce air quality emissions, the Project would implement Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2, Project Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and Project Mitigation Measure TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation). However, impacts would remain significant with mitigation incorporated.

With mitigation, NOx emissions would be reduced from 111.51 to 72.22 maximum pounds per day, which exceeds the threshold of 55 maximum pounds per day. As such, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

4.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality. The Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission standards of 55 for NOx with mitigation. To reduce the significance of air quality impacts, the Project would implement Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Air Quality Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 and Project mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and MM TRF-1 (see Section 4.17, Transportation). However, implementation of applicable mitigation would not reduce operational emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold. The Project would be inconsistent with the SCAQMD AQMP and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-36
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-1

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Introduction
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates potential impacts related to biological resources in the Project area. The analysis in this section is based in part on the Biological Technical Report prepared for the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project) by Rocks Biological Consulting (June 2024) which is included as Appendix D of this EIR.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides for the listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and the designation of critical habitat for these listed species. The FESA regulates the “taking” of any endangered fish or wildlife species, per Section 9 of the FESA. As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowner is required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to assess potential impacts on listed species (including plants) or the critical habitat of a listed species, pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the FESA. The USFWS is required to determine the extent a project would impact a particular species. If USFWS determines that a project is likely to potentially impact a species, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified.

Following consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion, USFWS may issue an incidental take statement which allows for the take of a species if it is incidental to another authorized activity and will not adversely affect the existence of the species. Section 10 of the FESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to non-federal parties in conjunction with the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP). Section 7 of the FESA provides for permitting of projects where interagency cooperation is necessary to ensure that a federal action/decision does not jeopardize the existence of a listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Section 703 et seq.) is a federal statute that implements treaties with several countries on the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The number of bird species covered by the MBTA is extensive and is listed at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.13.

USFWS enforces the MBTA, which prohibits “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird, or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Section 401 et seq.) prohibits discharge of any material into navigable waters, or tributaries thereof, of the United States without a permit. The act also makes it a misdemeanor to excavate, fill, or alter the course, condition, or capacity of any port, harbor, or channel; or to dam navigable streams without a permit.

Many activities originally covered by the Rivers and Harbors Act are now regulated under the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), discussed below. However, the 1899 act retains Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-2
relevance and created the structure under which the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) oversees CWA Section 404 permitting.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands), which includes those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register [FR] 37104, June 29, 2015). The USACE, with oversight from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The USACE would require a Standard Individual Permit for more than minimal impacts to waters of the United States as determined by the USACE. Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit or Regional General Permit.

A water quality certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), divisions of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the Section 401 certification process in California.

The RWQCB is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity that may result in the discharge to waters of the United States will not violate water quality standards.” Water Quality Certification must be based on the finding that a proposed discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA.

State Regulations
State of California Endangered Species Act and Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the State. California also lists species of special concern (SSC) based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. CESA defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” CESA defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the CFGC has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-3
already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the CFGC. Unlike FESA, CESA does not list invertebrate species.

Sections 2080 through 2085 of CESA address the take of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “no person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under CESA, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the State to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

CFGC Sections 1901 and 1913 provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for assessing development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. State-listed species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 Permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (CFGC Section 2800 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in Southern California. The NCCP program was established “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was established in 1970 as California’s counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC Section 4321 et seq.). This statute requires State and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts related to their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, where feasible.

A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a "project." A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity that must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the CFGC, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider.

CDFW jurisdiction does not extend to tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to an applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-4
fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and an applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3800, 4700, 5050, and 5515 Within California, fish, wildlife, and native plant resources are protected and managed by CDFW. The California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the CFGC address protected species:

Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and Section 5515 (fish). In addition, the protection of birds of prey is provided for in Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the CFGC.

California Desert Native Plant Act (California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 80001– 80201)
The California Desert Native Plants Act prohibits the removal of certain species of California desert native plants on public and privately owned lands without a valid permit from the sheriff or commissioner of the county where collecting would occur. This act applies within the boundaries of Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The SWRCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, the State is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the CWA is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

Regional and Local Regulations
County of San Bernardino Land Use Services, Planning Division According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the County of San Bernardino’s Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is listed as an SSC by CDFW.

Rialto General Plan 2010
The primary role of Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply, of the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) is to direct the use of the City of Rialto’s (City) land resources in the most equitable and productive manner possible, with the aim of providing a high quality of life for residents and the overall community. The General Plan notes that Rialto is predominately developed but some areas remain substantially Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-5
undisturbed. Most undisturbed areas are in the northern portion of the City. The General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element indicates that the City will continue to protect local biological resources through careful land designation of resource areas, and by requiring development projects proximate to wildlife corridors to incorporate mitigation measures to minimize impacts to such biological resources.

Relevant General Plan policies for biological resources are noted below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.

Goal 2-39 Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.

Policy 2-39.2 Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.

Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan
The Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) serves as the zoning ordinance for properties within the Specific Plan area. Within the Specific Plan, project site has a land use designation of Heavy Industrial (H IND). The Specific Plan states that the majority of land within the Specific Plan area has been previously disturbed. The vegetative community within the Specific Plan area consists of Coastal Sage Scrub. Additionally, undisturbed riparian habitat is present along the bank of the Santa Ana River.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 18 of the Rialto Municipal Code functions as the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the permitted land uses on all parcels in the City through assigned land use designations and associated land use regulations and development standards. The project site is zoned Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan and has a land use designation of Heavy Industrial within the Specific Plan. As discussed above, the development guidelines for Heavy Industrial land use are identified in the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan.

4.3.3 Environmental Setting
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and animals, as designated by the USFWS, CDFW, and, with respect to plant species, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Biological resources also include waters of the United States and the State of California, as regulated by the USACE and RWQCB, and streambed resources regulated by CDFW.

Vegetation
The vegetation mapping was conducted within a 61.6-acre survey area, which includes the approximately

45.7-acre project site and a 100-foot survey buffer. The survey area consists of developed land (16.8 acres), disturbed habitat (13.4 acres), mulefat scrub (0.1 acres, non-native grassland (20.5 acres), Riversidean sage scrub (3 acres), Riversidean upland sage scrub (5.5 acres), and tamarisk scrub (2.1 acres).

The vegetation communities/land uses that occur within the project site are described below and depicted in Figure 4.3-1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources.

Brittle Brush Scrub. Brittle bush scrub is a monotypic form of sage scrub dominated by brittle bush (Encelia farinosa) in the shrub strata. The brittle bush scrub within the survey area supports small to medium sized woody shrubs dominated by brittle bush with open space between the shrub cover (Figure 4.3-1).

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-6
This vegetation community is ranked as G5/S4, meaning it is globally secure and “uncommon but not rare” in California; there is “some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.” Due to its CNPS ranking, CDFW does not consider brittle bush scrub habitat as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Brittle Brush Scrub – Disturbed. Brittle bush scrub – disturbed is composed of the same vegetation as brittle bush scrub; however, the small to medium-sized woody shrubs are sparser and the open space is disturbed with litter and/or non-native vegetation (Figure 4.3-1).

This vegetation community is ranked as G5/S4, meaning it is globally secure and “uncommon but not rare” in California; there is “some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.” Due to its CNPS ranking, CDFW does not consider brittle bush scrub - disturbed habitat as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

California Sagebrush – (Purple Sage) Scrub. The California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub occurs in the southeast corner of the survey area and is composed of one to two-tiered shrub layers less than five meters tall. This vegetation community is co-dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and brittle bush (Figure 4.3-1).

This vegetation community is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is secure globally and throughout the state.

Due to its CNPS ranking, CDFW does not consider California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub habitat as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

California Sagebrush – (Purple Sage) Scrub – Disturbed. The California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub – disturbed is composed of the same vegetation layers as its undisturbed community; however, the small to medium-sized woody shrubs are sparser and the open space is disturbed with litter and/or non-native vegetation. This vegetation community occurs along the western portion of the survey area (Figure 4.3-1).

This vegetation community is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is secure globally and throughout the state.

Due to its CNPS ranking, CDFW does not consider California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub habitat as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Developed. Developed land within the project site supports little to no native vegetation and is comprised of human-made structures (buildings, pavement, fencing, etc.). The area mapped as developed within the survey area is an active truck park with graded bare ground surfaces.

Developed habitat is not recognized by CDFW; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed. Disturbed habitat on-site is dominated by non-native species such as castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum). There are a few scattered native species throughout the disturbed habitat such as doveweed (Croton setiger), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthacarpa), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber); however, they are isolated occurrences and do not function as separate vegetation communities or land cover types. The trash and footpaths observed throughout the project site suggest frequent disturbance, and previous earth-moving activities have resulted in earthen mounds piled in the eastern portion of the project site.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-7
Disturbed land is not recognized by CDFW; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Mulefat scrub. The mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) scrub within the project site occur in two small areas in the western portion of the survey area. The southern portion of mulefat thickets occurs adjacent to tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) scrub but all mulefat scrub on-site are otherwise isolated from any other areas of riparian habitat and are surrounded by upland vegetation. Mulefat is an evergreen shrub with willow-like leaves. Mulefat scrub occurs in both seasonally or intermittently flooded habitat, and stands are variable depending on the amount of inundation and scouring. Stands usually form open shrublands or thickets in riparian corridors and along lake margins.

Mulefat scrub is ranked as G4/S4. The ranking indicates that globally and statewide the alliance is considered apparently secure and “uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors” therefore, CDFW does not consider this vegetation community to be special- status under CEQA.

Upland Mustards or Star Thistle Fields. Upland mustards within the survey area supports stands of short- pod mustard amongst lower numbers of other non-native species including foxtail brome (Bromus rubens), ripgut brome, tocalote, and Russian thistle. Upland mustard habitat occurs in the southern half of the survey area. These areas were likely historically disturbed and subsequently colonized by ruderal mustard species.

CDFW does not consider any of semi-natural stands, including upland mustards, as special-status biological resources under CEQA.

Tamarisk scrub. Tamarisk thickets occur in the northern portion of the survey area. Tamarisk species are long-lived shrubs or trees with extensive and deep root systems. This species consumes large quantities of water and have invaded the native vegetation in riparian areas where they develop dense, monospecific stands across floodplains and wetlands throughout the western United States (CNPS 2022).

This vegetation community can also occur in areas that receive an increased amount of runoff from surrounding land uses. Tamarisk thickets have a rank of High under the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2006) and are not recognized by CDFW as a special-status vegetation community.

4.3.4 Methodology
Vegetation mapping, a general biological survey, and habitat assessments for special-status species were conducted for the survey area. The vegetation mapping, general biological survey, and habitat assessments were conducted within an approximately 61.6-acre survey area, which includes the approximately 45.7-acre project site and a 100-foot survey buffer.

Additionally, a constraints-level aquatic resources assessment was conducted for the survey area followed by a formal aquatic resources delineation to determine is the features on-site could be considered jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, under the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, and under the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFGC. Additionally, the project site was assessed for its functionality as a regional and local wildlife corridor.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-8
Database Research
Prior to conducting the field survey, existing information regarding biological resources present or potentially present within the survey area was obtained through a review of pertinent literature and databases, including, but not limited to:
 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2022a)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022)
 USFWS Special-Status Species Database (USFWS 2022a)
 USFWS IPaC Database (USFWS 2022b)
 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database (USFWS 2022c)  USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Database (USGS 2022)  CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Database (CDFW 2022b)  Crown Enterprises Cross Dock Project Biotic Resources Report (RBC 2017) The CNDDB and USFWS queries were conducted for the project site plus a one-mile radius. The CNPS Electronic Inventory search was conducted for the San Bernardino South USGS 7.5’ quadrangle containing the project site and the eight surrounding USGS 7.5’ quadrangles, within the project site’s elevation range of 700 to 1,100 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The potential for special-status species to occur within the survey area was refined by considering the habitat affinities of each species, field habitat assessments, vegetation mapping, and knowledge of local biological resources. Additionally, the potential for occurrence tables created for the Project include all federally and state-listed species, federal and state candidate species for listing, other state-designated special-status species that have been reported within one mile of the project site (CNDDB and USFWS special-status species databases), federally listed species identified as having potential to occur based on their known or expected ranges (IPaC), as well as all species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) that occur within the nine quadrangle search.

Vegetation Mapping and General Biological Surveys
On October 14, 2021 Rocks Biological Consulting biologists Ian Hirschler and Hannah Swarthout conducted vegetation mapping by walking throughout the project site and mapping vegetation communities on aerial photographs.

Habitats were classified based on the dominant and characteristic plant species in accordance with vegetation community classifications outlined in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. The vegetation communities were also cross walked with A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition, and the equivalent classification is provided in Table 4.3-3: Summary of Vegetation Communities/Land Covers within the Survey Area, below.

Rocks Biological Consulting conducted a general biological survey for plants and wildlife concurrently with vegetation mapping. Photos taken during the general biological survey are provided in Appendix D. Plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in a field notebook. Plant Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-9
species that could not be identified were brought to the laboratory for identification using the dichotomous keys in the Jepson Manual. A list of the vascular plant species observed in the survey area is presented in Appendix D.

A list of the wildlife species observed in the survey area is presented in Appendix D. Twilight/nighttime surveys were not conducted, therefore crepuscular and nocturnal animals are likely under-represented in the project species list; however, habitat assessments were performed for all special-status species to ensure that any potentially present rare species are adequately addressed.

Aquatic Resources Delineation
A formal aquatic resources delineation on November 2, 2022 by Rocks Biological Consulting regulatory specialists Sarah Krejca and Kelsey Woldt, to identify areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFGC. The review area included only the project site.

Staff evaluated all areas with depressions, drainage patterns, wetland vegetation, and/or riparian vegetation within the review area for potential jurisdictional status, with focus on the presence of defined channels and/or wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, soils, and hydrology.

Wildlife Corridors
Rocks Biological Consulting assessed the project site for its potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. A wildlife corridor can be defined as a physical feature that links wildlife habitat, often consisting of native vegetation that joins two or more larger areas of similar wildlife habitat. Corridors enable migration, colonization, and genetic diversity through interbreeding and are therefore critical for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations. Corridors can consist of large, linear stretches of connected habitat (such as riparian vegetation) or as a sequence of stepping-stones across the landscape (discontinuous areas of habitat such as wetlands and ornamental vegetation), or corridors can be larger habitat areas with known or likely importance to local fauna.

Regional corridors are defined as those linking two or more large patches of habitat, and local corridors are defined as those allowing resident animals to access critical resources (food, cover, and water) in a smaller area that might otherwise be isolated by urban development. A viable wildlife migration corridor consists of more than an unobstructed path between habitat areas. Appropriate vegetation communities must be present to provide food and cover for both transient species and resident populations of less mobile animals. There must also be a sufficient lack of stressors and threats within and adjacent to the corridor for species to use it successfully.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-10
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 4.3-1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Santa Ana Ave
EF-2
EF-1
WDP 4
WDP 3
WDP 2
WDP 1
ODP 2
ODP 1
ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
2 0 150 300
Feet
N
Biological and Aquatic Resources

SANTA ANA TERMINAL
Project Boundary
Survey Area 1
OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP)
Wetland Data Form Point (WDP)
Culvert
Erosional Feature 2
Vegetation
Mulefat Thickets
Tamarisk Thickets
Brittle Bush Scrub
Brittle Bush Scrub - Disturbed
California Sagebrush -
(Purple Sage) Scrub
California Sagebrush -
(Purple Sage) Scrub - Disturbed
Upland Mustards or
Star Thistle Fields
Disturbed
Developed
1 Only the area within the Project Boundary
was assessed during the 2022 aquatic
resources delineation.
2 All observed erosional features are not
anticipated to be jurisdictional per the
Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW.

Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2021
E
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-12
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 4.3-2a: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
pocketed free-tailed bat
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Los Angeles pocket mouse
least Bell's vireo
Crotch bumble bee least Bell's vireo
California glossy snake western mastiff bat
California glossy snake
Los Angeles pocket mouse
coast horned lizard
coastal whiptail
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
steelhead - southern California DPS
arroyo chub
Santa Ana sucker
California glossy snake
Santa Ana sucker
coastal California gnatcatcher
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
burrowing owl
arroyo chub
Southern California legless lizard
Southern California legless lizard
Bell's sage sparrow
burrowing owl
orange-throated whiptail
burrowing owl
Bell's sage sparrow
Southern California legless lizard
San Diego banded gecko
San Diego banded gecko
orange-throated whiptail
orange-throated whiptailorange-throated whiptail
Southern California legless lizard
marsh sandwort
mesa horkelia
Parish's bush-mallow
Pringle's monardella
mesa horkelia
salt marsh bird's-beak
Santa Ana River woollystar
Santa Ana River woollystar
Santa Ana River woollystar
Project Boundary
1-mile Buffer
CNDDB Plant Species Locations
CNDDB Wildlife Species Locations ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3A
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
N
CNDDB Plants and Wildlife

SANTA ANA TERMINAL
Base Map: Esri Topographic Map
Source: CDFW
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-14
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project
Rialto, CA
Figure 4.3-2b: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Project Boundary
1-mile Buffer
Critical Habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Santa Ana Sucker
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
USFWS Species Locations
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Least Bell's Vireo
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
Santa Ana River Woolly-star
Santa Ana Sucker ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
3B
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
N
USFWS Plants, Wildlife
and Critical Habitat

SANTA ANA TERMINAL
Base Map: Esri Topographic Map
Source: USFWS
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-16
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-17
Based on database review results, habitat assessments and select focused species surveys, no CRPR listed plant or wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur on the project site. One CDFW species of special concern, the burrowing owl, and one CDFW watch list species, the horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), were observed on the project site. Table 4.3-1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence, identifies the potential for special-status species to occur on the site. No federal- or state-listed endangered species were detected or have a moderate or high potential for occurrence on-site.

Table 4.3-1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status* Habitat Description
Potential for Occurrence
on Project Site
PLANTS
Gambel’s water cress
(Nasturtium gambelii)

FE, ST,
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Blooms April – October.

Marshes and swamps.

Elevation 15-1,085 feet.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Marsh sandwort (Arenia
paludicola)

FE, ST,
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial herb. Blooms May –
August. Freshwater marsh.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Mesa horkelia (Horkelia
cuneata var. puberula)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Blooms
February-September. Maritime
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub.

Elevation 230-2,657 feet.

None. The Disturbed scrub
habitat and soils on-site
are not suitable for this
species.

Parish’s bush-mallow
(Malacothamnus
parishii)
CRPR 1A Perennial deciduous shrub.

Blooms June-July. Chaparral
and coastal scrub. Elevation
1,000-1,495 feet.

None. This perennial
shrub would have been
observed if present.

Parish’s gooseberry
(Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii)
CRPR 1A Perennial deciduous shrub.

Blooms February – April.

Riparian woodland. Elevation
215 – 985 feet.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Peruvian dodder
(Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa)
CRPR 2B.2 Parasitic annual vine. Blooms
July – October. Marshes and
swamps. Elevation 50-920
feet.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Pringle’s
monardella
(Monardella
pringlei)
CRPR 1A Annual herb. Blooms May-June.

Coastal scrub (sandy).

Elevation 985-1,310 feet.

Very low. Disturbed scrub
habitat on-site is
marginally suitable for this
species.

Salt marsh bird’s beak
(Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. maritimum)
FE, SE, 1B.2 Annual herb. Coastal dunes
and coastal salt marshes and
swamps. 0-98 feet. Blooming
period: May – October.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Santa Ana River
woolystar (Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum)
FE, SE, 1B.1 Perennial herb. Blooms April-September.

Chaparral and
coastal alluvial fan scrub.

Elevation 298-2,000 feet.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-18
Table 4.3-1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status* Habitat Description
Potential for Occurrence
on Project Site

INVERTEBRATES
Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus abdominalis)
FE Found in sandy areas composed of Delhi fine
sands, stabilized by sparse native vegetation.

None. No suitable Delhi
fine sands soils present on
site. Historically mapped
Delhi fine sands soils are
now eroded, compacted,
and over-vegetated.

FISH
Arroyo chub (Gila
orcuttii)
SSC Found in slow-flowing or backwater areas of
streams or rivers with mud or sand
substrates.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Santa Ana sucker
(Catostomus santaanae)
FT Found in small permanent streams. None. No suitable habitat present on-site.

Steelhead – Southern
California DPS
(Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 10)
FE Inhabits small to moderately large, well-
oxygenated, shallow rivers with gravel
bottoms.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

REPTILES
California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSC Found in arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral habitats. Prefers
habitats containing open areas and loose
soils for burrowing.

Low. Disturbed scrub
habitat on-site is
marginally suitable for this
species.

Coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC A variety of rocky, sandy, dry, habitat
including sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands
on friable loose soil.

Low. Disturbed scrub
habitat on-site is
marginally suitable, and
species typically occurs
closer to the coast.

Southern California
legless lizard (Anniella
stebbinsi)
SSC Found in a variety of habitats including
coastal dunes, sandy washes, and alluvial
fans, containing moist, loose soils.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

BIRDS
Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
SSC Found in grasslands and open scrub from
coast to foothills. Strongly associated with
California ground squirrel and other fossorial
mammal burrows.

Low-moderate. Very few
suitable burrows observed
on-site; however, this
species is known to occur
within the general area
and frequently inhabits
disturbed areas.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
FT; SSC Found in sage scrub and adjacent chaparral
habitats often containing buckwheat or
sagebrush.

Low. Disturbed scrub
habitat on-site is relatively
small and isolated from
larger landscapes of
natural habitat.

Least Bell's vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus)
FE (when
nesting);
Riparian woodland with understory of dense
young willows or mulefat and willow canopy.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-19
Table 4.3-1: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status* Habitat Description
Potential for Occurrence
on Project Site
SE (when
nesting)
Nests often places along internal or external
edges of riparian thickets.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis)
FT; SE Exclusively inhabits large continuous riparian
areas, typically near streambeds or other
bodies of water.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

MAMMALS
Los Angeles pocket
mouse (Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
SSC Found in low elevation grassland, alluvial
sage scrub and coastal sage scrub on sandy
soils.

Low. Scrub habitat on site
does not occur on sandy
soils suitable for this
species.

Pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops
femorosaccus)
SSC Rugged cliffs, rocky outcrops and slopes in
desert scrub and pinyon-juniper woodlands.

None. No suitable habitat
present on-site.

FE – Federally Endangered (USFWS); FT – Federally Threatened (USFWS); SE – State Endangered (CDFW); SSC – Species of Special Concern (CDFW)
*CRPR – California Rare Plant Rank
1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 – Review List: Plants about which more information is needed 4 – Plants of limited distribution
Threat Ranks

0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 – Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 – Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
Source: Appendix D
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Although no focused wildlife surveys were conducted, no federally or state-listed as threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed during the general field survey.

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly
The Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) is a federally endangered species under the FESA. It is one of are more than 30 species of Rhaphiomidas distributed across the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. As with all species of Rhaphiomidas, DSFLF are associated with arid, sandy habitats. It is only found in the Colton Dunes of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, with most occupied DSFLF habitat located within a limited area of southwestern San Bernardino County. The life history of the DSFLF is largely unknown, but the loose, sandy soils of the Delhi Sands appear to be required for oviposition.

Larval stages develop completely underground and may remain subterranean for several years to emerge as adults in the summer. It is unknown what neonatal and larval flies eat or what subterranean conditions are required. Adults are most active during the warmest, sunniest parts of the day, and both males and females likely extract nectar from Eriogonum fasciculatum and other plants.

Though habitat loss is still the primary threat to the fly, the primary causes for the loss have shifted from degrading lands to a more permanent loss due to urban development. There are still various soil- Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-20
disturbing activities (i.e., disking, agriculture, development, off-road vehicles, dumping) causing degradation of DSFLF habitat as well as direct mortality of eggs, larvae, and pupae.

Delhi fine sands were historically mapped within the project site and DSFLF has been documented within one mile of the project site (Figure 4.3-2a: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife and Figure

4.3-2b: Existing On-Site Special Status Plants and Wildlife Species). However, the mapped Delhi fine sands in the southwestern section of the project site have been impacted by previous grading, the dumping of fill dirt, and trash, and the increase of non-native grasses and other invasive species. On February 13, 2024, RBC senior biologist Ian Hirschler and Amanda Swaller of the USFWS conducted a follow-up habitat assessment of the previously mapped Delhi fine sands on site. On February 23, 2024, the USFWS provided concurrence with RBC’s assessment that there is no suitable habitat on site for DSFLF, and as such the species has no potential to occur on site.

Other Special-Status Wildlife Species
Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
Burrowing owl (BUOW) is a CDFW SSC at nesting sites and is federally protected by the MBTA. In California, suitable habitat for the burrowing owl is generally characterized by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils, such as naturally occurring grassland, shrub steppe, and desert habitats. BUOW may also occur within agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lows, and pastures containing suitable vegetation structure and useable burrows with foraging habitat in proximity. BUOW usually use burrows dug by California ground squirrel and round-tailed ground squirrel and dens or holes dig by other fossorial species including badger and fox.

No BUOW of sign were documented in the survey area during the general biological survey and no California ground squirrels were documented on-site. However, multiple burrows/debris piles suitable for BUOW were observed throughout the survey that did not appear to be active but have the potential to support BUOW. Additionally, according to the San Bernadino County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone; therefore, BUOW has a low to moderate potential to occur on-site.

This analysis of impacts on biological resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects-based significance criteria/threshold’s application, outlined above.

For each criterion, the analyses address both temporary (construction) and operational impacts, as applicable. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

4.3.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-21
 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.  Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.3-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Candidate and Sensitive Plants and Wildlife Species
In the state of California, CNPS is a statewide resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California’s sensitive plant species. The CRPR system is recognized by the CDFW and essentially serves as an early warning list of potential candidate species for threatened and endangered status. As shown in Table 4.3-1, one candidate species, Pringle’s monardella (Monardella pringlei) has a very low potential to occur on-site, as habitat on-site is marginally suitable for this species.

Special-Status Plants
The Project will impact 42.4 acres of vegetation communities/land covers. No special-status plant species were observed within the project site with a moderate or high potential to occur. As such, Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species.

Special-Status Wildlife
Due to the heavily disturbed nature of the previously mapped Delhi fine sands on site, DSFLF has no potential to occur within the project site. Therefore, impacts on DSFLF are not anticipated.

Although the burrowing owl was not observed within the project site during the 2021 biological surveys, the species has the potential to occur on-site. As such, the Project would implement MM BIO-1A and MM BIO-1B, which would require pre-construction surveys and implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan in the event avoidance is not possible. Additionally, the Project would implement MM BIO-2, which would require the removal of habitat that support nests located within the project site, to occur outside of breeding season.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-22
With the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1A through MM BIO-2, impacts to special status species would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1A Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for BUOW within suitable habitat to determine presence/absence of the species. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW protocol within 30 days of site disturbance to determine whether the burrowing owl is present at the site. Pre-construction surveys shall include suitable BUOW habitat within the Project footprint and within 500 feet of the Project footprint (or within an appropriate buffer as required in the most recent guidelines and where legal access to conduct the survey exists). If BUOW are not detected during the clearance survey, no additional mitigation is required.

If BUOW is located, occupied BUOW burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or the juveniles from the occurred burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival. A 500-foot non-disturbance buffer (where no work activities may be conducted) shall be maintained between Project activities and nesting BUOW during the nesting season, unless otherwise authorized by CDFW.

If BUOW is detected during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or confirmed to not be nesting, a 160-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be maintained between the Project activities and occupied burrow(s). Alternatively, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan may be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW. Once approved, the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan would be implemented to relocate non-breeding BUOW from the project site. The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall detail methods and guidance for passive relocation of BUOW from the project site, provide monitoring and management of the replacement burrow sites reporting requirements, and ensure that a minimum of two suitable, unoccupied burrows are available off-site for every burrowing owl or pair of burrowing owls to be passively relocated. Compensatory mitigation of habitat would be required if occupied burrows or territories occur within the permanent impact footprints. Ratios typically include a minimum of 19.5 acres per nesting burrow lost; however, habitat compensation shall be approved by CDFW and detailed in the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-23
MM BIO-1B If avoidance is not possible, either directly or indirectly, a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW. Once approved, the Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan would be implemented to relocate non-breeding burrowing owls form the project site. the Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall detail methods for passive relocation of BUOW from the project site, provide guidance for the monitoring and management of the replacement burrow sites and associated reporting requirements, and ensure that a minimum of two suitable, unoccupied burrows are available off-site for every burrowing owl of pair of burrowing owls to be passively relocated. Compensatory mitigation of habitat would be required if occupied burrows of territories occur within the permanent impact footprint. Habitat compensation shall be approved by CDFW and detailed in the Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan.

MM BIO-2 To avoid direct impacts on raptors and/or native/migratory birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (generally February 1 to September 15). If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds in the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within ten (10) calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). If nesting birds are observed, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with applicable state and federal Law (i.e., appropriate follow up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction, and noise barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the CDFW and/or USFWS, as applicable, for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of those agencies. The Project biologist shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. If nesting birds are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would impact 42.4 acres of vegetation communities/land covers. The Project would result in impacts to non-native grassland, disturbed habitat, and developed land. The Project would impact nine vegetation communities as identified in Table 4.3-2: Potential Project Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Uses, including brittle bush scrub, California sagebrush, and mulefat thickets.

However, these native vegetation communities are not considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW. Therefore, impacts on native communities would be less than significant.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-24
Table 4.3-2: Potential Project Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Uses Vegetation (Holland)1 Vegetation2 Global/State Rank Survey Area (acres) Developed Developed/Disturbed No Rank 16.8
Disturbed Habitat Developed/Disturbed No Rank 13.5
Mulefat Scrub Mulefat Thickets G5/S5 0.1
Non-native grassland Upland Mustards or Star
Thistle Fields
No Rank 20.5
Riversidean Sage Scrub Brittle Bush Scrub G5/S4 0.6
Riversidean Sage Scrub –
Disturbed
Brittle Bush Scrub –
Disturbed
G5/S4 2.4
Riversidean Upland Sage Scrub California Sagebrush –
(Purple Sage) Scrub
G5/S5 1.1
Riversidean Upland Sage Scrub
– Disturbed
California Sagebrush –
(Purple Sage) – Disturbed
G5/S5 4.4
Tamarisk Scrub Tamarisk Thickets No Rank 2.1
Total 6.16

1. Vegetation communities recognized by Holland

2. Vegetation Crosswalked to MCV2
Source: Appendix D
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact
Project implementation is not anticipated to impact jurisdictional aquatic resources as no riparian areas, vernal pools, or other jurisdictional aquatic resources occur on the project site based on the initial aquatic resource assessment. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-25
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site is not located within a known migratory wildlife corridor nor serves as wildlife nursery site. Due to the lack of regional connectivity to adjacent wildlife habitats, the Project area does not serve as a wildlife corridor; therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to wildlife corridors.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As previously discussed, the project site is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. As such, pre- construction surveys for burrowing owl should be conducted to determine the presence/absence within the project site. The Project would comply with the proposed avoidance and minimization measures included in the Biological Technical Report. Additionally, the project site is not located within an active HCP area or a NCCP area. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As such, with Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-26
the incorporation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within an active HCP or NCCP. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of biological resource impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development according to the related projects; see Table 4.0-1: Cumulative Projects List. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. With mitigation, the Project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. As discussed in this section, the project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-27
Additionally, the project site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project site is not located within a designated protected area, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biological resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

4.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-28
This Page Intentionally Blank
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-1

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Introduction
This section provides contextual background information on resources on or near the project site for the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project), including the area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. The extent to which development of the Project could impact existing historic or prehistoric resources is evaluated. The analysis in this section is based in part on the Cultural Resources Study Findings Memo (Cultural Resources Memo) prepared by ASM Affiliates in January 2022, which is included as Appendix E of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 16064.5 refers to “historical resources” as being a resource listed in or eligible for listing as a significant resource in state or local registers of historical resources, or by determination of a lead agency which is supported by substantial evidence. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1(k), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074 (sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objectives with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) are addressed in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR. Paleontological resources are addressed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the federal government, acting through the United States Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, maintains an inventory of historic and archaeological resources — referred to as the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) — that are worthy of preservation based on meeting certain criteria. The NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed action affects a property that is included or may be eligible for inclusion, on the NRHP. The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA.

The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 Section 60.2). To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance) is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following four established criteria:

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-2
 Criterion A: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
 Criterion B: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;  Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Eligible properties meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property.

State Regulations
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
In 1992, Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 was signed into law establishing the CRHR. The CRHR is an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. Eligibility for the CRHR is determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation in a formal review process in which a resource is proposed for listing. A resource deemed eligible for the NRHP is typically deemed eligible for the CRHR. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included in the CRHR, including California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the NRHP, as well as State Landmarks and State Points of Interest. The CRHR is maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation’s State Historic Preservation Officer.

For a historic resource to be listed, the resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

California Public Resources Code
The PRC establishes the definition and criteria for historical resources. “Historical resources,” according to PRC Section 5020.1(j), “includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annuals of California.” Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “generally, a resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-3
CEQA has established statutory requirements for the formal review and analysis of projects that fall under its jurisdiction. CEQA maintains that any property listed in, determined, or found eligible for listing in the CRHR is considered to be a “historical resource” and shall be considered historically significant. Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.”
Impacts to cultural resources are considered significant if a project (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource that contributes to its significance; and/or (3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.

The Lead Agency must concurrently determine whether a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource (as defined in PRC Section 21083.2[b]) and, if so, must make reasonable efforts to permit the resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbed. An archaeological resource must be determined to be “unique” or “historic” for an impact to the resource to be considered significant. Section 21083.2(g) of CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be demonstrated that without merely adding to the existing body of archaeological knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If a resource is neither unique nor historical, the effects of a project on that resource will not be considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(C)(4)).

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan 2010
Project relevant Rialto General Plan (General Plan) policies for cultural resources are addressed below.

Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.

Goal 7-1 Preserve Rialto’s significant historical resources as a source of community identity, stability, aesthetic character, and social value.

Policy 7-1.1 Protect the architectural, historical, agricultural, open space, environmental, and archaeological resources in Rialto.

Policy 7-1.2 Identify, through appropriate research and surveys, the historical resources in Rialto through documentation and photography.

Goal 7-3 Identify, document, and protect significant archaeological resources in Rialto.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-4
Policy 7-3.1 Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all projects in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.

Policy 7-3.2 Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.

Policy 7-3.4 Actively pursue a comprehensive survey program to identify, document, and protect prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and sites containing Native American human remains.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Chapter 2.20 of the Municipal Code establishes the Historical Preservation Commission. The commission is authorized to make recommendations, decisions and determinations concerning the designation, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of these historical, and cultural resources which contribute to the culture and aesthetic values of the City. Government Code Section 37361 empowers cities to adopt regulations and incentives for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of such places, buildings, structures and other objects. The adoption of reasonable and fair regulations is necessary as a means of recognition, documentation, preservation and maintenance of resources of cultural, aesthetic, or historical significance. Such regulation serves as a means to integrate the preservation of resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development process, and to identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses. Chapter 2.20 is intended to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan.

4.4.3 Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The City is located approximately 40 miles east of the City of Los Angeles, situated at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The project site is located within the southeastern portion of the City. Elevations of the project site range from approximately 900 to 955 feet above mean seal level (amsl). The City is largely urbanized and surrounded by other developed cities; the surrounding area is similarly highly urbanized.

The project site currently features vacant, previously disturbed land. In addition, the project site is located on land previously known as the Rialto Plant (California Mine ID# 91-36-004). The State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted to establish State policy for the reclamation of mined lands and the conduct of surface mining operations throughout the State. As such, prior to the commencement of construction for the Project, the Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan) must be implemented. Upon completion of implementation of the Reclamation Plan, the project site would have undergone mass grading and the project site would be relatively flat.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-5
Prehistoric Setting
Paleoindian (Pre-6000 B.C.)
Paleoindian assemblages, referred to as the San Dieguito Complex by Kowta include large stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithic tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of ground stone tools. These tools suggest a reliance on hunting rather than gathering.

In general, hunting-related tools are more common during this period and are replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene. However, evidence for Paleoindian habitation across southern California is rare. As the climate changed after the Pleistocene, the interior of southern California became dryer and inhabitants responded by exploiting a wider range of plant and animal species; this cultural period is often referred to as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition.

Milling Stone Horizon (6000 B.C. – 1000 B.C.)
The Milling Stone Horizon is characterized by the presence of hand stones, milling stones, choppers, and scrapers. These tools are thought to be associated with seed gathering and processing, as well as limited hunting activities. As such, the artifacts from this period show a major shift in the exploitation of natural resources from the hunting of large animals to a higher reliance on vegetable food sources and the hunting of smaller animals. Kowta attributed this shift to climatic change as warmer and dryer conditions prevailed. This period was marked by an increased diversification of exploited resources and economic specialization. Populations became more sedentary, often around the coastal bays and estuaries. It is believed that extensive estuarine silting caused a decline in the resources along the coast and major settlement moved inland along the river valleys within southern California. Trade between southern California area and the greater western region has been identified during this time period.

Sayles Complex (1000 B.C. – A.D. 1000)
Characteristic of the Sayles Complex (1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000) are an abundance of milling stones, hand stones, percussion-flaked core and flake tools, plano-convex scrapers and scraper planes, choppers, and hammerstones. Also present are cogstones, quartz crystals, and a variety of projectile points. Although there is a wide range of artifacts associated with the Sayles Complex, is it most commonly known for the abundance of scraper planes found in artifact collections during this time period and their use in the preparation of agave and yucca for fibers and food.

Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 750 – 1750)
Like much of southern California, this horizon in the general project site is characterized by the presence of small projectile points associated with the use of bow and arrow. Steatite containers, asphaltum items, mortars and pestles, and bedrock mortars are also common artifacts. The use of bow and arrow technology and ceramics was adopted in southern California after A.D. 500 and A.D. 1000, respectively.

Across southern California, mortuary practices switched from inhumations to cremations. Use of acorns as a major food staple allowed for surpluses of storable food. It is believed that social complexity increased during this time period. In general, populations focused on smaller food resources that occurred in greater quantities and the dietary importance of large mammals further declined.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-6
Protohistoric/Ethnographic
The project site is within the ethnohistoric territory of the Gabrielino Indians, and along the border of the territory of the Serrano within the mountains. There is some disagreement regarding whether the Gabrielino or Serrano lived in the vicinity of the project site within the San Bernardino Valley during the ethnohistoric period). Both the Gabrielino and the Serrano spoke a variation of the Takic language subfamily part of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

Gabrielino
The name “Gabrielino” derived from this group’s association with the San Gabriel Valley and the Mission San Gabriel de Archangel. However, in 1769, prior to Spanish contact, their territory included the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers, spanning most of the Los Angeles basin.

Their southern border was at Aliso Creek, with Topanga Creek bounding their territory at the north. The project site is along the eastern border of Gabrielino territory near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Both permanent villages and satellite communities, occupied seasonally, were in use across their territory.

Within the interior of Gabrielino territory, the predominant food resources were acorns, sage, yucca, cacti and other plants, deer, small rodents, and other small animals. Bow and arrow were used in hunting larger animals, while snares, traps, nets, and clubs were used for smaller animals. Material culture included the use of flaked lithic tools along with mortars, metates, wooden items, baskets, and items made of shell and bone. Kroeber reports that pottery was used by the Gabrielino during the mission period but was not used prior and is not often found in archaeological sites. Many commonly used items were highly decorated by the Gabrielino, often using shell inlaid in asphaltum, rare minerals, carving, and paints.

The Gabrielino commonly used steatite which was acquired from Santa Catalina Island. Steatite was used for cooking vessels, baking slabs, mortars and pestles, beads, and decorative, ornamental, and ceremonial items. Steatite items that were used ceremonially, especially to drink tolache from, were inlaid with shell.

The Gabrielino lived in domed circular structures with a thatched roof. Much of the Gabrielino social structure was destroyed prior to the ethnographic period and remains unknown. It is believed that the Gabrielino had a hierarchical system of social classes. Villages were politically autonomous and were led by members of a dominant lineage. In addition to the political leadership, a shaman also had power over the village and was responsible for the management of ceremonies and the spiritual world. Trade with neighboring groups, especially the Serrano, Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, and Mohave was common. The Gabrielino exported steatite items in reciprocal trade relationships.

Serrano
Serrano territory encompassed the area east of the Gabrielino, generally across the San Bernardino Mountains. However, the boundaries of their territory are not as reliably defined due to a lack of historic records and a more mobile settlement pattern than the Gabrielino. The territory roughly encompassed the base of the San Bernardino Mountains from the Cajon Pass, approximately 5 miles east of the project site, north to present-day Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley. The name Serrano derived from the Spanish word for highland or mountain and is used to refer to the linguistic group in the Takic family. The Serrano people can be further divided into the Kitanemuk, who lived around Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-7
Tejon and Paso creeks, the Alliklik within the vicinity of the Santa Clara River, and the Vanyume along the Mohave River.

The Serrano were organized loosely into exogamous clans; however, their social structure is not well known. Each clan had a hereditary leader called a kika and a hereditary assistant chief that had ceremonial functions called a paha. Other spiritual leaders also had positions of power in the clan.

Serrano subsistence practices was largely based around gathering, hunting, and fishing. Depending on the environment, common food stables included acorns, piñon nuts, honey, mesquite, yucca, cactus, and chia seeds. Deer, mountain sheep, antelope, rabbits, other small rodents, and birds were also commonly hunted. Like the Gabrielino, bows and arrows were used to hunt for large game and curved throwing sticks, traps, snares, and deadfalls were used for smaller game.

Due to a lack of reliable year-round water sources, the Serrano lived in smaller villages than was common in the Gabrielino territory. They also largely lived in circular houses with a thatched roof; however, many of their daily activities took place within ramadas, which provided shade and blocked the wind. The house was primarily used for sleeping and storage only. The Serrano made tools from shell, wood, bone, stone, pottery, and plant fibers.

Historic Setting
In 1769, Spanish explorers established Mission San Gabriel in what is presently eastern Los Angeles County. The area that is now known as Rialto was under Spanish rule as part of the Mission San Gabriel lands until 1822, when Mexico gained its independence from Spain. After independence, Mexican land grants further divided the land into ranchos. Rancho San Bernardino (37,700 acres), granted to the Lugo family, encompassed present-day Rialto. In 1848, the United States took over the Mexican rancho land in California.

The project site is situated north of the historic community of Agua Mansa (Spanish for gentle waters), which originated from a large land grant owned by Juan Bandini which was located near the modern city of Riverside, called Rancho Jurupa. A portion of this land was donated to Spanish-speaking settlers from New Mexico and they named it Agua Mansa. The original settlement extended from Slover Mountain to the vicinity of the Riverside-San Bernardino county line. The Agua Mansa settlers subsisted on animal husbandry and farming, and at first were relatively successful. However, in 1862, a disastrous flood destroyed most of the community. New homes were built, but Agua Mansa never regained its former prosperity. The residents eventually lost control of the land to large property owners through court battles late in the nineteenth century.

Typical of many San Bernardino County towns, the area that would one day become Rialto was a fertile agricultural area, due to the warm, dry climate. The beginnings of southern California’s citrus culture can be traced to the Mission San Gabriel; an orange grove encompassing 6 acres was planted on mission lands in 1804. In 1841, William Wolfskill used seedlings from the San Gabriel orchard to plant his own larger orchard. Wolfskill is credited with establishing citrus commercially. Small ranching operations were established in the Rialto area in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1887, the first railroad connection was established, and the land that now comprises Rialto was purchased by the Semi Tropic Land and Water Company. The company named the community Rialto and began development in the area. Shortly thereafter, a group of midwestern Methodists immigrated to Rialto and furthered its development. By the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-8
late nineteenth century, Rialto was a typical small southern California agricultural community for which citrus was the main crop. In 1893, the community contained approximately 35 homes with 250 residents, a few local businesses, and a three-story Hotel del Rialto. The first citrus packing house was built in 1894, and a citrus association was established.

Rialto was officially incorporated in 1911 by the Chamber of Commerce, with 1,500 residents and 40 businesses comprising the small town. The area on South Riverside Avenue between Santa Fe station and First Street housed most businesses. Those businesses included the bank, four real estate agencies, a few grocery stores, two meat markets, two department stores, two barbershops, a weekly newspaper (Rialto Record), two garages, and two telephone companies. On the southeast corner of South Riverside Avenue and First Street stood the J. H. Crowder Building occupied by a grocery store, which has since been demolished. On the west side of South Riverside Avenue stood the offices of the Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company. The First National Bank of Rialto opened its new building in February 1908 on the northwest corner of Riverside and Rialto avenues. In 1913, Rialto’s Light and Power Company was sold to California Electric Power Company.

Citrus agriculture was the most important industry to Rialto in the twentieth century. Connections to improved transportation resulted in steady growth, as the small agricultural community was able to expand the markets for their local product. In addition to the Santa Fe railroad connection, in 1914 Los Angeles’ Pacific Electric Railway completed the San Bernardino Line through the City of Rialto. Improved transportation through Rialto not only included the rail line but also the repaving of Foothill Boulevard (the main east-west transportation route) in 1913, which eventually became part of United States Highway 66, better known as the transnational Route 66. With these improved transportation connections, small local agricultural operations developed into a robust citrus packing industry with at least seven citrus packing houses located along the Santa Fe railroad tracks. A fire in the 1920s destroyed many of the buildings in downtown Rialto.

As a result of post-World War II expansion and the general population boom in southern California, Rialto also became a bedroom/commuter community to larger cities in the county and region. Between 1950 and 1980, the population of Rialto grew tenfold from 3,156 to 330,500. Today, with a population of around 100,000, only a few acres of the original citrus land are in active use, and Rialto is supported by several large retail distribution centers.

4.4.4 Methodology and Results
An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historic Resources Inventory by ASM and included the project site and a one-mile radius around the site (Appendix E). The search included a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. Historic aerial photographs and historic USGS topographic maps of the project site were consulted.

A field survey was conducted on April 10, 2017, by ASM Senior Archaeologist, Sherri Andrews, and Assistant Archaeologist, Molly Earp-Escobar. Field methods consisted of a pedestrian survey of accessible areas on the project site using transects spaced at 15-meter intervals.

Two records searches were conducted for this Project by the SCCIC. The initial 2017 records search results identified 60 previous cultural resource studies that had been conducted within a 0.5-mile radius around Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-9
the project site. Two of the previous studies, SB-0058 and SB-009, crossed the southern portion of the project site. A supplemental records search was conducted in 2021 that encompassed a one-mile radius to determine if any additional reports or resources had been developed or documented since the time of the 2017 records search. This search resulted in the addition of 27 studies within the search radius, two of which, SB-03603 and SB-04334, were linear projects that passed along the northern portion of the project site. Additional information regarding the previous cultural resources reports is included in Appendix E.

The 2017 records search results indicated that a total of 13 cultural resources had been previously recorded within 0.5 miles of the project site. Three of the 13 were prehistoric, with the remaining 10 being historic, two of which were single-family residences. One of the prehistoric sites, SBR-1572, was recorded directly within the project site, with the other two prehistoric resources located to the east and the south.

Prehistoric site SBR-1576, an extensive habitation site, is located approximately 0.35 miles to the east of the project site, on the same landform but separated from the project site by the wastewater treatment plant that borders the project site on the east. The 2021 records search resulted in the identification of 19 additional resources. Additional information regarding previously identified cultural resources is included in Appendix E.

Historical Research
Historic aerials from 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012 were analyzed on historicaerials.com, as were historic topographic maps dated 1896, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1926, 1929, 1938, 1943, 1946, 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1974, and 1981.

No structures or land use is depicted in proximity to the project site on any of the topographic maps from 1896 through 1946; however, one large and three smaller structures appear just to the northwest of the project site starting with the 1955 map. One additional structure just northeast of the larger structure appears on the 1969 map and all five structures appear through the 1974 map. On the 1981 map, the three structures at the northwest corner are no longer depicted. At no point did any structures appear directly within the project site.

The aerial photo from 1938 appears to show that the southern portion of the land had been used for agriculture, with the northwest corner ‘outlined’ by disturbance. The three structures at the northwest corner are already extant in the 1948 photo, but the larger structure to the east does not appear until the 1959 image. The structures at the northwest corner had already been removed as of the 1978 image. The smaller structure to the northeast of the large structure may appear on the 1967 aerial, but the image is rather blurry. It does appear from 1968 through 2012. The majority of the project site itself appears to have undergone various types of disturbances over the course of the years.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search On April 6, 2017, ASM sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search their Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine whether their files contained any information relating to the presence of Native American cultural resources within the project site. Response from the NAHC was received on April 10, 2017, indicating that no such resources were found as a result of the SLF search. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-10
resources within the project site. A list of 25 tribal contacts who may have interest in the project site was provided with the NAHC response; this response and contact list is provided in Appendix E.

Pedestrian Survey Results
The project site is characterized by a large amount of disturbance from quarrying and related grading activities at the north end and a large basin at the south end. Virtually no undisturbed land surfaces remain within the project site. A small area that appears less disturbed on aerial photographs in the southwest corner of the project site was also revealed to be graded and disturbed. Two small clusters of modern refuse were found in this area near the south edge of the project site. Large amounts of twisted metal and some discarded equipment apparently related to quarrying activities were found in other portions of the parcel. There are many large vegetated ‘hills’ in the northern half of the parcel that are actually large push piles or piles of dirt displaced from the basin that characterizes the southern half of the project site.

Prehistoric site SBR-1542 was documented in 1956 within the central portion of the project site. It was described as “charcoal pits five to eight feet below present surface exposed in gravel pit operations” that had subsequently been destroyed by quarrying. No evidence of this site was visible during the current survey, nor were any other previously undocumented resources encountered.

4.4.5 Thresholds of Significance
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as significance criteria in this section. A project would have a significant environmental impact if it:
 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.4-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact 4.4-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The records search identified 87 previous studies that had been conducted within a one-mile radius of the project site. Four previous cultural resources reports intersect the project site. Studies SB-03603 and SB- 04334 intersect the northern portion of the project site, and studies SB-0058 and SB-009 intersect the southern portion of the project site.

The records search conducted for the Project found 32 cultural resources that have been previously recorded within a one-mile radius of the project site (Appendix E). Two previously identified cultural Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-11
resources are located within 0.5 miles of the project site. Site SBR-1572 is located within the project site and site SBR-1756 is located approximately 0.35 miles to the east of the project site.

According to the Cultural Resources Memo, the results to the records search indicate a high archaeological sensitivity for the project site. However, no cultural resources were identified within the project site during the current survey; as such, no historical resources were identified within the project site or surrounding area that would require further consideration under CEQA. Project construction would occur following implementation of the Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan, which would include mass grading and additional measures to stabilize the project site. Mass grading would include approximately 1,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and approximately 840,000 cy of fill. Following mass grading, the project site would be relatively flat. Although historic aerial photographs and topographic maps indicate a significant amount of previous disturbance to the project site and a lack of historical habitation, the proximity of a potentially significant prehistoric site as well as the previously documented presence of a buried site within the project site indicate that there is a potential for unknown cultural resources to occur within the project site. Although the project site has been disturbed as a result of mass grading and implementation of the Rialto Plan Reclamation Plan, Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 are proposed to address the discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction activities. In the event unknown cultural resources are unearthed during Project implementation, work within a 60-foot buffer would cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find (MM CUL-1) and a Monitoring and Treatment Plan would be implemented in the event avoidance of the find cannot be ensured (MM CUL-2). Additionally, the Project would implement Archaeological/Historical Resource Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 of the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) EIR. With incorporation of mitigation, potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: Archaeological/Historical Resources
Mitigation Measure 2: The San Bernardino County Museum Association recommends that at least some level of evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist for every proposed project within the Study Area due to the overall prehistoric and early historic significance of the region.

Mitigation Measure 3: In instances where earth movement uncovers potentially significant artifacts or fossils, work should be curtailed until a qualified specialist is retained to evaluate the significance of any finds.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Retain a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project applicant shall, meeting Secretary of Interior standards and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, demonstrate that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to respond on an as-needed basis to address Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-12
unanticipated archaeological discoveries. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and the archaeologist shall assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1 (refer to Section

4.16, Tribal Cultural Resource, of this EIR), regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2: If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the draft of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1 (Refer to Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resource, of this EIR). The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Monitoring Treatment Plan accordingly.

Impact 4.4-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the project site. Despite the applicable regulatory framework and the relatively low likelihood of discovery, it remains possible that the Project would discover human remains during subsurface activities, which could then result in the remains being inadvertently damaged. To reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level, Standard Condition (SC) CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 would be implemented. Compliance with existing laws and the protocols described in the Mitigation Program would reduce potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC CUL-1: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the most Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-13
likely descendants (MLD) to be consulted regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains. If an MLD cannot be identified, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation regarding the treatment of the remains within 48 hours after gaining access to the remains, the property owner shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3: If human remains or funerary object are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project.

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
The project site contains no known historical or archaeological resources. Despite the site-specific nature of the resources, mitigation required for the identification and protection of unknown or undocumented resources would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. On a cumulative level, data recovered from a site, combined with data from other sites in the region, would allow for the examination and evaluation of the diversity of human activities in the region. As a result, development of the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources.

4.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this EIR, potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a level less than significant level.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-14
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY

4.5.1 Introduction
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the existing setting as it relates to energy conservation, identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements, and presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project). Energy calculations for the Project are included in Appendix F.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110 -140) was signed into law by former President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture and storage. Under the EISA, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) program was expanded in several key ways:
▪ Expanded the RFS2 program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; ▪ Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; ▪ Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each; and
▪ Required United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

The RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector.

The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.

State Regulations
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code) Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Ti tle 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-2
The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on Janua ry 1, 2017. On May 9, 2018, the CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2023.

The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient and nonresi dential buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy eff icient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features.

The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings are about 7 percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use about 53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 standards (2022 Energy Code). Among other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code includes updated standards in three major areas:
▪ New electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail, and grocery stores.
▪ The promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the conversion from natural gas to electricity.
▪ The expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses including high-rise multifamily residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices, (including medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants , schools, and civic uses (including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers).

The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code is the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, which took effect Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-3
January 1, 2023. Projects whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.1
California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2011 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill 1109, adopted in 2007, also serves as a framework for lig hting efficiency. This bill requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards as a means to reduce average Statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50 percent from the 2 007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018. According to the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, lighting comprises approximately one -fourth of California’s electricity use while non -residential sector exterior lighting (parking lot, area, walkway, and security lighting) usage comprises 1.4 percent of California’s total electricity use, much of which occurs during limited occupancy periods.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 pe rcent by 2017. The CPUC subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then -Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent rene wable energy by 2020. In September 2009, then‐Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S‐21‐09, which directs the California Air Resources Board under its AB 32 authority to en act regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the Stat e’s load-serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then -Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised SB 350’s goal, revising it to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to hav e an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon - free electricity target.

1 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2023). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs- and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-4
Regional and Local Regulations
City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan
The City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (Rialto CAP)2 outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (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; and ▪ Adopt building and maintenance standards that reflect the regional best practices in reducing urban heat island effect.

Rialto General Plan 2010
The City of Rialto (City) developed and adopted the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) to include goals, policies and actions that, when implemented, provide the vision and framework for the physical development of the City. The goals and polic ies identified below include conservation techniques to reduce energy use and minimize depletion of energy resources . Chapter 2 of the General Plan describes the conservation goals and policies that the City of Rialto has identified for implementation to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community.

Goal 2-30 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2.30.1 Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Policy 2-30.2 Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy -efficient design elements, as appropriate.

Policy 2-30.3 Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment.

Goal 2-31 Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-31.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

4.5.3 Environmental Setting
Energy consumption is analyzed in this technical memorandum due to the potential direct and indirect environmental Project impacts. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources and emissions of pollutants during both construction and long-term operational phases.

2 City of Rialto. (2021). Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan, https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1761/Rialto- Climate-Adaptation-Draft-Plan-July-2021. Accessed May 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-5
Electricity Services
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City through State -regulated public utility contracts. Over the past 15 years, California’s electricity generation has undergone a transition.

Historically, California has relied heavily on oil- and gas-fired plants to generate electricity. Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system has become more reliant on renewable energy sources (e.g., cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, b iomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants). Unlike petroleum production, electricity generation is not usually tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great distances via the electrical grid. The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatts (MW). Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit, minus the amount of energy the unit consumes. Generation is typically measured in megawatt -hours (MWh), kilowatt -hours (kWh), or gigawatt-hours (GWh).

Natural Gas Services
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the Project area. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the Earth’s surface and is composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other foss il fuels (e.g., oil and coal). In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants fired by natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. California’s natural gas-fired electric generation increased by two percent in 2021, accounting for 50 percent of in-State generation.3
The City’s ongoing development review process provides opportunities for privately owned utility companies to review, comment, and to provide input on all development proposals. The input facilitates a detailed project review by service purveyors to assess the potential demands for utility services on a project-by-project basis. The ability of utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project is evaluated during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by contract to up date energy systems to meet any additional demand.

Energy Consumption
Energy consumption is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy consumption in California was 7,202.6 trillion BTUs in 2021 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available).4 Of California’s total annual energy consumption in 2021, the breakdown by sector is 37.8 percent transportation, 23.2 percent industrial, 19.0 percent commercial, and 20.0 percent residential. 5

3 CEC. (2021). 2021 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california- electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-
generation#:~:text=Total%20generation%20for%20California%20was,from%2090%2C208%20GWh%20in%2020.

Accessed April 2024.
4 United States Energy Information Administration (2020). Table F33: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html. Accessed April 2024. 5 United States Energy Information Administration. (2021). California State Profile and Energy Estimates, California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-6
Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences, commercial, and industrial uses, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2022, California’s taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) accounted for 13,629,998,406 gallons of gasoline.6
The County’s electricity consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022. As indicated in Table 4.5-1, the County’s energy consumption has steadily increased between 2012 and 2022.

Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2012 14,308
2013 14,315
2014 14,680
2015 14,685
2016 14,902
2017 15,237
2018 15,325
2019 15,259
2020 15,910
2021 16,169
2022 16,630
Source: Appendix F
The County’s natural gas consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5 -2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012 -2022. As shown in Table 4.5-2, the County’s natural gas consumption relatively increased from 2012 to 2022.

Table 4.5-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2012 489
2013 511
2014 469
2015 485
2016 494
2017 493
2018 500
2019 547
2020 527
2021 561
2022 562
Source: Appendix F

6 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (2022). 2022 – Motor Vehicle Fuel 10 Year Reports, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-7
The County’s automotive fuel consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012 -2022. As shown in Table 4.5-3, the County’s on -road automotive fuel consumption relatively increased from 2012 to 2019, decreased in 2020, and increased again in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption generally increased since 2012.

Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012 -2022 Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(Construction Equipment) (gallons)
2012 823,824,155 221,468,396
2013 823,575,913 231,100,540
2014 833,908,390 233,757,358
2015 862,282,542 236,687,334
2016 886,951,688 251,535,041
2017 894,270,493 263,723,118
2018 894,127,745 259,783,109
2019 894,821,914 261,139,639
2020 763,765,305 265,477,739
2021 869,262,611 272,787,528
2022 867,249,837 276,240,473
Source: Appendix F

4.5.4 Methodology
This section analyzes energy use on three sources of energy that are relevant to the Project, including electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development, as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of the Project’s electricity and natural gas use is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of CalEEMod are included in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment ( Appendix B), prepared by Kimley -Horn (2023). Modeling related to Project energy use was based primarily on the default settings in CalEEMod. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CalEEMod outputs for the Project and CARB Emissions Factor (EMFAC) 202 1 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. This analysis assumes an Opening Year of 2024; however, emission f actors for construction would decrease over time as emissions regulations become more stringent and equipment fleets turnover. Should construction commence at a later date than what was assumed in the model, the emissions presented herein is conservative.

4.5.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for Energy were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would:
▪ Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. ▪ Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-8

4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.5-1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unneces sary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction-Related Energy
The energy associated with Project construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for dust control; diesel fuel from on -road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off -road construction diesel equipment; and gasoline fuel from on -road worke r commute trips. Because construction activities typically do not require natural gas, it is not included in the following discussion. The methodology for each category is discussed below. This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix F. Energy consumption associated with the Project is summarized in Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction.

Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction
Project Source
Total Construction
Energy4
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Electricity Use
Water1 0.0049 GWh 16,630 GWh <0.00003%
Diesel Use
On-Road Construction Trips2 32,907 gallons
280,907,070 gallons

0.0117%
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 55,955 gallons 0.0199% Construction Diesel Total 88,863 gallons 0.0316%
Gasoline Use
On-Road Construction Trips 9,250 gallons 846,846,001 gallons 0.0011%

1. Construction water use based on acres disturbed per day during grading and site preparation and estimated water use per acre.

2. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 in San Bernardino County for construction year 2024.

3. Construction fuel use was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.

4. Total Construction Energy is the combined energy usage over approximately 18 months of construction.

Source: Appendix F
Electricity
Water for Construction Dust Control . Electricity use associated with water use for construction dust control is calculated based on total water use and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and treatment of water. The total number of gallons of water used is calculated based on acreage disturbed during grading and site preparation, as well as the daily watering rate per acre disturbed. ▪ The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 4.2 of Appendix C of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/. ▪ The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from the Air and Waste Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual (1992).

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-9
The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. As summarized in Table 4.5-4, the total electricity demand associated with water use for construction dust control would be approximately 0.0049 GWh over the duration of construction.

Petroleum Fuel
On-Road Diesel Construction Trips . The diesel fuel associated with on -road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon (MPG). VMT for the entire construction period is calculated based on the number of trips multiplied by the trip lengths for each phase shown in CalEEMod. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. In summary, the total diesel fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 32,907 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.5-4.

Off-Road Diesel Construction Equipment. Similarly, the construction diesel fuel associated with the off - road construction equipment is calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The total diesel fuel associated with off -road construction equip ment is approximately 55,955 gallons for duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.5-4.

On-Road Gasoline Construction Trips. The gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in MPG using the same methodo logy as the construction on-road trip diesel fuel calculation discussed above. The total gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 9,250 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.5-4.

In total, construction of the Project would use approximately 0.0049 GWh of electricity, 9,250 gallons of gasoline, and 88,863 gallons of diesel. In 2022, San Bernardino County used 16,630 GWh of electricity.

Project construction electricity use would represent less than 0.0001 percent of the current electricity use in San Bernardino County.

In 2024, the year Project construction is anticipated to commence, San Bernardino County is anticipated to use approximately 846,846,001 gallons of gasoline and approximately 280,907,070 gallons of diesel fuel. During construction, gasoline fuel consumption would constitute 0.0011 percent of average annual gasoline usage in the County and diesel fuel consumption would constitute 0.0316 percent of average annual diesel used in the County. Based on the Project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to annual County use, the Project would not substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources.

New capacity or additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be required.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption.7 As such, it is expected that existing and

7 BP Global. (2021). Statistical Review of World Energy. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business- sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-10
planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction demand.

SCE’s total energy sales are projected to be 101,958 GWh of electricity in 2024. 8 Therefore, the Project’s construction-related annual electricity consumption of 0.0049 GWh would represent less than 0.0001 percent of SCE’s projected annual sales. Thus, it is anticipated that SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electrici ty supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

Furthermore, there are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy -efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. In addition, some energy conservation would occur d uring construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

The Project would have construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such as from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in- use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices. Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materia ls composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non -recycled materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manu factured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the costs of business.

As described above, the Project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by less than one percent. It should be noted that the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and Appendix F criteria require the Project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction

8 CEC. (2023). CED 2021 Baseline Forecast – SCE High Demand Case. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-11
fuel demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Additionally, use of construction fuel would be temporary and would cease once the Project is fully developed. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

As stated above, there are no unusual characteristics that necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel use associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Operational Energy
The energy consumption associated with Project operations would occur from building energy (electricity and natural gas) use, water use, and transportation -related fuel use. The Project is anticipated to be operational in 2026. The Project’s annual energy use during operations is shown in Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations. The methodology for each category is discussed below.

Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations
Project Source
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
San
Bernardino
County
Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Project
Annual
Energy
Consumption
San
Bernardino
County
Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Unmitigated Mitigated
Electricity Use
Area1,3 2.3497 GWh
16,630 GWh

0.0141% 0 GWh
16,630 GWh

0.0000%
Water1 0.3222 GWh 0.0020% 0.3060 GWh 0.0018%
Total
Electricity 2.6719 GWh 0.0161% 0.3060 GWh 0.0018%
Natural Gas Use
Area1,3 42,663
therms
562,123,065
therms 0.0076% 42,663
therms
562,123,065
therms 0.0076%
Diesel Use
Mobile2 1,105,527
gallons
281,589,289
gallons 0.3926% 1,105,527
gallons
281,589,289
gallons 0.3926%
Gasoline Use
Mobile2 100,051
gallons
811,280,390
gallons 0.0123% 100,051
gallons
811,280,390
gallons 0.0123%

1. The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on Project-specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults.

2. Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet-average fuel consumption (in gallons per mile) from EMFAC2021 for operational year 2026.

3. Mitigated energy consumption includes implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG -1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions and Mitigation Measure GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards (refer to the Projects Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment).

Source: Appendix F.

Petroleum Fuel. The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT calculated for the analyses within CalEEMod and average fuel efficiency from the EMFAC model. As summarized in Table 4.5-5, the Project’s total unmitigated gasoline and diesel fuel would be approximately 1,105,527 gallons per year and 100,051 gallons per year, respectively.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-12
Electricity. The electricity use during Project operation is based on CalEEMod defaults. The Project’s total unmitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 2.6719 GWh of electricity on-site per year; refer to Table 4.5-5. The electricity associated with operational water use is estimated based on the annual water use and the energy intensity factor is the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. Project area water use is based on th e CalEEMod default rates. The Project would use approximately 49 million gallons annually of water which would require approximately

0.3222 GWh per year for conveyance and treatment. The Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Appendix I) includes Mitigation Measures (MM) GHG-1 and GHG-2, which would also reduce electricity consumption. As discussed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions and MM GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards. With implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the total mitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 0.3060 GWh per year. Additionally, the Project would implement Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 5 of the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR, which would require the Project to incorporate water conservation measures such as low-flow fixtures and installation of drought resistant vegetation and drip irrigation systems.

Natural Gas. The methodology used to calculate the natural gas use associated with the Project is based on CalEEMod default rates. The Project’s total unmitigated natural gas consumption would be approximately 42,663 therms per year; refer to Table 4.5-5.

As shown in Table 4.5-5, the Project’s electricity, natural gas, and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is minimal (less than one percent). For the reasons described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require si gnificant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. Thus, the Project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project operations or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. Therefore, impacts associated with operational energy use would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 5: To assure adequate levels of water conservation, each specific development should be required to install water conservation measures, such as low -flow fixtures, drought resistant vegetation and drip irrigation systems.

Project Mitigation Measures
Additional details regarding Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-2 are included in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-13
Impact 4.5-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
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.

Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have: (a) sensor -based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and (b) efficient process equipment— improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.

Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.

The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occ ur. Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the Project would result in the use of energy, but not in a wasteful manner. The use of energy would not be substantial in comparison to Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-14
statewide electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand. As discussed above, the project-related construction electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.0001 percent of SCE generated electricity. Therefore, the Project’s construction electricity consumption would be negligible relative to SCE’s generated electricity and ele ctricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

SCE would review the Project’s estimated electricity consumption in order to ensure that the estimated power requirement would be part of the total load growth forecast for their service area and accounted for in the planned growth of the power system. The Project’s natural gas consumption would be approximately 42,663 therms per year. It should be noted that the planning projections of SCE and SoCalGas consider planned development for their service areas and are in and of themselves providing for cumulativ e growth. Therefore, it is likely that the cumulative growth associated with the related projects is already accounted for in the planning of future supplies to cover projected demand.

Furthermore, transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 year s of worldwide consumption. 9 As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s construction and operational demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required. Additionally, the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.

The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, State, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy use.

Potential land use impacts are site -specific and require evaluation on a case -by-case basis. As noted above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

4.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would incorporate MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-2, to reduce impacts associated with petroleum during construction activities. Implementation of MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

9 BP Global (2021). Statistical Review of World Energy. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business- sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-1

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6.1 Introduction
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to geology and soils; identifies applicable regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts on geology and soils; a nd identifies measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts. Information used to prepare this section include the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnical Investigation) , prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc . and the Paleontological Resources Search Results, prepare d by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, which are provided as Appendix G and Appendix H to this EIR.1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code (PRC), Sections 2621–2630, regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. Th e Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act categorizes faults as active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre‐Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well defined” by detailed site‐specific geologic explorations to determine whether building setbacks should be established.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, PRC Sections 2690–2699, directs the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS) to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land‐use planning and perm itting processes. The act requires that site-specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95 -124) established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Program) which is coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Geological Survey ( USGS), the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The purpose of the Program is to establish measures for earthquake hazards reduction and promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction measures by federal, State, and local governments; national standards and model code organizations; architects and

1 The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project was prepared in 2016. As such, the project site has undergone minor changes over the years. However, the nature of the Project has not changed significantly since the preparation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, and no additional impacts are anticipated to occur.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-2
engineers; building owners; and others with a role in planning and constructing buildings, structures, and lifelines through (1) grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance; (2) development of standards, guidelines, and voluntary co nsensus codes for earthquake hazards reduction for buildings, structures, and lifelines; and (3) development and maintenance of a repository of information, including technical data, on seismic risk and hazards reduction. The Program is intended to improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines through interdisciplinary research that involves engineering, natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions sciences.

Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99‐08‐DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided they:
▪ Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from mov ing off-site into receiving waters;
▪ Eliminate or reduce non‐storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
▪ Perform inspections of all BMPs.

The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non‐visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the construction site discharges directly to a water body list ed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Increased compliance tasks under the adopted 2009 Construction General Permit include project risk evaluation, effluent monitoring, receiving water monitoring, electronic data submission of the SWPPP and all other permit registration documents, and a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP), which must be designed to protect all exposed portions of a project site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event. The SWPPP would also include an Erosion Control Plan that would identify specific measures to control on -site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading.

The Erosion Control Plan would be included with a project’s grading plan and would be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources
The Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources outlines methods for assessing potential impacts to fossils and mitigating impacts from development. Impact mitigation includes pre-project survey and salvage, monitoring and screen washing during excavation to salvage fossils, conservation and inventory, and final reports and specimen curation.

Measures for adequate protection or salvage of significant paleontological resources are applied to areas determined to contain rock units that have either a high or undetermined potential for containing Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-3
significant fossils. Specific mitigation measures generally need not be developed for areas of low paleontological potential. Developers (public and private) and contractors should be made aware, however, that if there is not an on -site monitor it will be necessary to contact a qualified professional paleontologist if fossils are unearthed in the course of excavation. This contingency should be planned for in advance. In order to save time and project delays, in the advance planning phases of a project , the developer should contact a qualified professional paleontologist and arrange for the salvage of any unanticipated fossils. The paleontologist will then salvage the fossils and assess the necessity for further mitigation measures, if applicable. Decisions regarding the intensity of the paleontological resource impact mitigation program will be made by the project paleontologist on the basis of the significance of the paleontological resources, and their biostratigraphic, biochronologic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, and taxonomic attributes, not on the ability of a project proponent to fund the paleontological resource impact mitigation program.

All phases of mitigation must be supervised by a qualified professional paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontological collecting permits and repository agreements. All field teams will be supervised by a paleontologist qualified to deal with t he significant resources that might be encountered. The lead agency must assure compliance with the measures developed to mitigate impacts of excavation. To assure compliance at the start of a project, a statement that confirms a site’s paleontological potential, confirms the repository agreement with an established public institution, and describes the program for impact mitigation, must be deposited with the lead agency and contractor(s) before any ground disturbance begins. In many cases, it will be nece ssary to conduct a salvage program prior to grading to prevent damage to known paleontological resources and to avoid delays to construction schedules. The impact mitigation program must include preparation, identification, cataloging, and curation of any salvaged specimens. All field notes, photographs, stratigraphic sections, and other data associated with the recovery of the specimens must be deposited with the institution receiving the specimens. Since it is not professionally acceptable to salvage spec imens without preparation and curation of specimens and associated data, costs for this phase of the program must be included in the project budget. The mitigation program must be reviewed and accepted by the lead agency. If a mitigation program is initiat ed early during the course of project planning, construction delays due to paleontological salvage activities can be minimized or even completely avoided.

State Regulations
2022 California Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) is based on the 2021 International Building Code (IBC). The purpose of the CBC is to establish uniform standards for the construction and maintenance of buildings, electrical systems, plumbing systems, mechanical sys tems, and fire and life safety systems. The CBC is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code and establishes minimum requirements for a building’s structural strength and stability to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare and are updated every three years. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-4
California Health and Safety Code
Section 19100 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code establishes the State’s regulations for earthquake protection. This section of the code requires structural designs to be capable of resisting likely stresses produced by phenomena such as strong winds and earthquakes.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
2020 California Penal Code Part 1- Of Crimes and Punishments Title 14 – Malicious Mischief Section 622½ states “Every person, not the owner thereof, who willfully injures, disfigures, defaces, or destroys any object or thing of archeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private lands or within any public park or place, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Requirements for paleontological resource management are included in PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which state:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human ag ency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

These statutes prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, local agenc ies are required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 also establishes the removal of paleontological resources as a misdemeanor and requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (State, county, city, and district) lands.

California Public Resource Code 5097.52020
California Public Resources Code Division 5 – Parks and Monuments Chapter 1.7 – Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites Section 5097.5 states:

A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by hum an agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 requires the CGS to identify and map areas that are prone to earthquake hazards, including liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and ground shaking.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-5
The SHMA was implemented with the purpose of reducing and mitigating the potential threat of seismic hazards to the public.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan 2010
The Rialto General Plan (General Plan) Safety and Noise Element notes that the City of Rialto (City) emphasizes a proactive approach to planning which involves mitigating hazards present in the environment that may adversely affect property and threaten lives. Rialto recognizes the importance of providing a safe living environment for its residents. The City identifies policies to help minimize the effects of hazards.

Goal-5-1 Minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare associated with geotechnical hazards.

Policy 5-1.1 Require geotechnical investigations by certified engineering geologist or other qualified professionals for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and collapsible or expansive soils. Particular attention should be p aid to areas within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Policy 5-1.2 Require all construction to be in conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (CBC), and to be consistent with the Municipal Code as it provides for earthquake resistant design, excavation and grading.

City of Rialto Municipal Code – Title 15: Building and Construction Title 15 of the Rialto Municipal Code identifies the City’s building and construction requirements and permitting process, including provisions related to seismic safety, soil erosion ,excavation, and grading.

4.6.3 Environmental Setting
Project Setting
The approximately 45.7-acre project site features previously disturbed land. Site elevations range from 900 to 955 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Geotechnical Investigation notes that the project site previously featured sand and gravel mining operations . Current activities on -site are limited to mining reclamation, which is anticipated to be completed in 2024, prior to the commencement of Project construction. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the maximum amount of cut below original grade of the project site is approximately 50 feet, located within the north-central portion of the project site. Therefore, given that reclamation activities would be completed prior to Project construction, the analysis assumes a projected future condition (i.e., Rialto Plant Reclamation Plan completion) as the baseline condition. These reclamation activities includ e changes to topography, soil disturbance, and other geologic conditions within the project site to justify the use of a future baseline condition.

Geologic Setting
The project site is near the northwestern boundary of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consists of a series of topographical Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-6
features moving northwesterly that abuts the Transverse Ranges Province. Within the Transverse Ranges Province are the San Jacinto Mountains to the east and Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest of the project site.

Undocumented Fill
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, undocumented fill materials reach thickness of 43 feet, but may occur deeper. Undocumented fill materials present within the project site consist of sandy silt, silty sand, and gravelly sand. Man -made materials (i.e., broken or ground concrete and asphalt) are located within the north-central and eastern portions of the project site.

Alluvium
Alluvium is encountered beneath the undocumented fill materials. The alluvial materials within the project site generally consist of poorly to well graded sands . Alluvial materials located near the surface are damp and in a loose to medium dense state, becoming medium dense to dense at fairly shallow depths below contact with the overlying undocumented fill.

Groundwater
As described in the Geotechnical Investigation, exploratory tranches or borings that were drilled to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet below ground surface, did not encounter groundwater . Additionally, the groundwater investigation prepared for the project site determined the historic depth to groundwater within the project site ranges from 70 feet to 100 feet below the ground surface (Appendix G).

Faulting and Seismicity
No active or potentially active faults are known to intersect the project site. The nearest fault to the project site is the San Jacinto fault zone, located approximately 3.7 miles to the northeast of the project site. The San Jacinto fault zone is a sub-parallel branch of the San Andreas fault zone, extending from the northwestern San Bernadino area. The San Jacinto fault zone is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude of 6.5 or more. Active and potentially active faults proximate to the project site are identified on Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity.

Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Approximate Distance
from Truck Terminal
(miles) Direction From Site
Probable Moment
Magnitudes (MW)
San Jacinto 3.7 Northeast 6.5
Cucamonga 9.7 North 7.0
San Andreas 9.8 Northeast 7.5
Lake Elsinore 20.5 Southeast 6.5 to 7.5
Source: Appendix G
Surface Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is the surface displacement that occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault rupture and displacement almost always follows preexisting faults, Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-7
which are zones of weakness; however, not all earthquakes result in surface rupture (i.e., earthquakes that occur on blind thrusts do not result in surface fault rupture. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep). In addition to damage caused by ground shaking from an earthquake, fault rupture is also damaging to buildings and other structures due to the differential displacement and deformation of the ground surface that occurs from the fault offset. This leads t o damage or collapse of structures across this zone. Fault rupture displacements in large earthquakes can range from several feet to greater than 15 feet. Surface fault rupture would not occur at the project site due to no known active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, including Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Ground Shaking
An earthquake is classified by the amount of energy released, which traditionally has been quantified using the Richter scale (M L). However, seismologists most commonly use the Moment Magnitude (M W) scale because it provides a more accurate measurement of the size of major and great earthquakes. For earthquakes of less than M W 7.0, the Moment and Richter Magnitude scales are nearly identical. For earthquake magnitudes greater than M W 7.0, readings on the Moment Magnitude scale are slightly greater than a corresponding Richter Magnitude.

The intensity of the seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between a site and the epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding a site. Earthquakes occurring on faults closest to a project site would most likely generate the largest ground motion. However, in the case of the project site, there are no known active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, including Alq uist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low plasticity.

The liquefaction process typically occurs at depths less than 50 feet below the ground surface, although liquefaction can occur at deeper intervals, given the right conditions. The most susceptible zone occurs at depths shallower than 30 feet below the ground surface.

For liquefaction to occur, there must be proper soil type, soil saturation, and cyclic accelerations of sufficient magnitude to progressively increase the water pressures within the soil mass. Non-cohesive soil shear strength is developed by the point -to-point contact of the soil grains. As the water pressures increase in the void spaces surrounding the soil grains, soil particles become supported more by water than point-to-point contact. When water pressures increase sufficiently, soil grains lose the str ength to hold to each other and the soils begin to liquefy.

Liquefaction can lead to several types of ground failure, depending on slope conditions and the geological and hydrological settings. The four most common types of ground failure are: (1) lateral spreads, (2) flow failures, (3) ground oscillation, and (4) loss of bearing strength.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-8
The project site is not located within a designated liquefaction zone. 2 Additionally, because the groundwater at the project site lies greater than 50 feet below the ground surface, the potential for liquefaction to occur is considered low.

Landslides
Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that may include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope are the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock, the geometry of the slope (height and steepness), and rainfall. The presence of historic landslide deposits is a good indicator of future landslides. Landslides are commonly triggered by unusually high rainfall and the resulting soil saturation, by earthquakes, or a combination of these conditions. Due to the low relief of the project site and surrounding area, the potential for landslides to occur is considered low. Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated landslide zone.3
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading generally is a phenomenon where blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil moves downslope on a liquefied substrate of large areal extent. For lateral spreading to occur, a sloping site with an open face within or at some distance from the site typically exists and there is a potential for liquefaction to occur near the base of the open face. Because the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site is low, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered low.

Soil Expansion
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. In general, expansive soils shrink and harden when dried, and swell and soften when wetted. Such changes can cause distress to building foundations and structures, slab s on grade, pavements, and other surface improvements. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) web soil survey, soils present within the project site consist of Delhi fine sand and Quarries and Pits soils. 4 These soils are not considered to be expansive, and thus have a low expansion potential.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the Earth and its past ecological settings. The potenti al for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area.

The City’s General Plan does not identify areas of paleontological sensitivity within the City. A paleontological records search was conducted for the Project by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in October 2023. Results of the records search request indicated three known fossil localities located within the same sedimentary deposits that occ ur within the Project area. The three

2 DOC. (2023). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed September 2023.
3 Ibid,
4 USDA. (2023). Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-9
closest localities to the project site are described below in Table 4.6-2: Paleontological Resources within the Project Vicinity. No known fossil localities are located within the project site.

Table 4.6-2: Paleontological Resources within the Project Vicinity Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth

LACM VP
4619
Wineville Avenue,
Eastvale, CA
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Mammoth (Mammuthus) 100 feet bgs

LACM VP
7811
West of Orchard
Park, Chino Valley
Unknown formation
(eolian, tan silt.;
Pleistocene)
Whip snake (Masticophis) 9 – 11 feet bgs

LACM VP
1208
3 miles southwest
of Crucero
Unnamed formation
(Pleistocene lake beds)
Horse (Equs conversidens),
Equiade camel (Camelops)
Unknown
Source: Appendix H

4.6.4 Methodology
The technical analyses supporting the geotechnical impact conclusions in the following section were completed by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning geology and soils. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s poten tially significant environmental impacts.

4.6.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for geology and soils were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact of a project would be considered significant if it would meet one of the following criteria:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-10
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.6-1: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the 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 faults or strong seismic ground shaking?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
There are no known active or potentially active faults at the project site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the USGS. Since there are no known active faults crossing the project site, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low. While there are no known active or potentially active faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones at the project site, there are numerous faults in the region. Rupture of any of these faults or of an unknown fault in the region could cause seismic ground shaking. The closest fault to the project site is the San Jacinto fault, which is located approximately

3.7 miles to the northeast.

Construction of the Project would be required to conform to the most recent seismic design requirements of the CBC and California Health and Safety Code (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading 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. To further reduce potential impacts associated with seismic activity, the Project would implement Standar d Condition (SC) GEO-1, which would require the Project applicant to provide a site -specific, design-level geotechnical investigation for review and approval to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department. Therefore, with the implementation of SC GEO -1, and considering the Project would comply with applicable seismic design requirements and the project site is not traversed by an active fault, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC GEO-1: The Applicant shall submit to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review and approval, a site -specific, design -level geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site by a registered geotechnical Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-11
engineer. The investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements5 and:
a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted methodologies;
b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults; and
c) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related improvements.

Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigation in the site -specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the site -specific investigations, provide any additional necessary measur es to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all applicable recommendations from the investigation in the structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements.

The City’s registered geotechnical engineer or third-party registered engineer retained to review the geotechnical reports shall review each site-specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical re quirements contained in the investigation in the plans submitted for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits.

The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

5 Rialto, CA Municipal Code Section 11.12.070 (Ord. 1234 (part), 1995: Ord. 649 §1 (part), 1973: 1965 Code Title XIII, Ch. 11, §7).

Accessed August 2023.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-12
Impact 4.6-2: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Seismic-Related Ground Failure – Liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within relatively loose sediments where the groundwater is less than 50 feet. As noted in the Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for liquefaction to occur on -site is considered low considering the depth of groundwater is greater than 50 feet and grading of the project site, in accordance with the Reclamation Plan, will remove any loose soils beneath proposed structural areas. Any buildings constructed on the project site would also be required to comply with CBC requirements, which require development projects to perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, and to include engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues as a result of liquefaction.

Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated liquefaction zone. 6 Therefore, impacts from liquefaction are less than significant.

Landslides. Due to the low relief of the project site and surrounding area, the potential for landslides to occur is considered low. The mass grading is anticipated to mitigate existing stability concerns in areas of the existing, over-steepened fill/stockpile areas. Further, the project site is not located within a landslide zone.7 Therefore, impacts associated with landslides are considered less than significant.

Subsidence. The subsidence of soils is characterized by sinking or descending soils that occur as the result of a heavy load being placed on underlying sediments and may be triggered by seismic events. Seismically- induced settlement is dependent on the relative density of the subsurface soils and generally occurs within relatively loose sediments where the groundwater is usually less than 50 feet. Settlements from collapsible soils can be relatively large and damaging to improvements. Because the groundwater at the project site is greater than 50 feet and mass grading of the project site would remove any loose soils beneath the proposed development, the potential for subsidence to occur is considered low . Impacts associated with subsidence are considered less than significant.

Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading consists of the lateral movement of the ground, as a result of the liquefaction of underlying soils. Lateral spreading occurs as a result of ground shaking. As discussed above, the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone. As such, the potential for lateral spreading to occur on-site would be low and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

6 Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed September 2023. 7 Ibid.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-13
Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-3: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Project site elevations range from approximately 900 feet amsl to 955 feet amsl. The project site gently slopes towards the south with drainage occurring mainly as sheet flow. Due to the low relief of the project site and surrounding area, the potential for landslides to occur within the project site is considered low.

Further, the project site is not located in a zone identified as being susceptible to landslides.8 Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-4: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Soil erosion occurs when surface materials are worn away from the earth’s surface due to land disturbance and/or natural factors such as wind and precipitation. The potential for soil erosion is determined by characteristics including texture and content, s urface roughness, vegetation cover, and slope grade and length. Wind erosion typically occurs when fine -grained non-cohesive soils are exposed to high -velocity winds, while water erosion tends to occur when loose soils on moderate to steep slopes are expo sed to high-intensity storm events.

Upon completion of mass grading, the project site would be relatively flat. The near surface natural soils consist predominantly of artificial fill, which is susceptible to erosion by running water. During grading and construction, topsoil would be exposed and the potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur.

During construction, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting process.

8 Ibid.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-14
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, identifies NPDES compliance requirements for the Project. The NPDES permitting process applies to p rojects involving disturbance of one acre or more . These projects are required to prepare and implement a SWPPP that specifies how water quality would be protected during construction activities. The SWPPP would include BMPs to protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Construction BMPs would include, but are not limited to, stabilization of construction entrances, straw wattles on embankments, and sediment filters on existing inlets. These measures would minimize erosion, protect exposed slope areas, control surface water flows over exposed soils, and implement a sediment monitoring plan.

Upon completion of construction, the project site is anticipated to be relatively flat and substantially covered with pavements, buildings, and landscaping, thereby reducing the potential for erosion. With site development, the project site would be primarily impervious surfaces. Pervious areas would be landscaped to prevent soil erosion; the remainder of the project site would be impervious and therefore not subject to soil erosion. Accordingly, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. As a result, impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-5: Would the project b e located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Soils that expand and contract in volume (“shrink-swell” pattern) are considered to be expansive and may cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials.

Fine-grain clay sediments are most likely to exhibit shrink-swell patterns in response to changing moisture levels. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site consists of fill materials, including sandy silt to large pieces of asphalt and concrete, alluvium materials consisting of poorly to well graded sands and gravel. These materials are not considered expansive. As previously discussed , the Project would be stabilized upon the completion of paving and landscaping throughout the project site.

Therefore, impacts from expansive soils are less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-15
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-6: 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project would connect to existing sewer pipeline located within East Santa Ana Avenue. The Project would not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.6-7: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated A paleontological records search was prepared for the Project, which indicates that no known fossil localities are present within the project site. Fossil localities have been identified within the sedimentary deposits within the surrounding area. The project site would feature disturbed land as a result of previous development and implementation of the reclamation plan for the prior Rialto Plant. Additionally, the City’s General Plan does not identify areas with paleontological sensitivity. As such, it is considered unlikely that unknown paleontological resources will be unearthed during Project implementation. However, in the event known paleontological resources are unearthed during Project construction, significant impacts could occur. As such, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. As such, with the implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-16
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1: Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to respond on an as -needed basis to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries.

In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The paleontologist sha ll document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologist, City staff and the Project Applicant determine that avo idance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for reducing the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and the Project Applicant shall implement the approval plan.

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Geology and Soils . Southern California is a seismically active region with a range of geologic and soil conditions. These conditions can vary widely within a limited geographical area due to numerous factors, including differences in landforms and proximity to fault zones, among others. Therefore, while geotechnical impacts may be associated with the cumulative development, by the very nature of the impacts (i.e., landslides and expansive and compressible soils), the constraints are typically site -specific and there is low, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a larger cumulative area, such as citywide development. Additionally, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts on a given project site are site -specific. For example, development within the site or surrounding area would not alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground -shaking, seismic intensity, or soil expansion); therefore, the Project would not affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event on an adjacent site is experienced.

However, Project development and future development in the area may expose more persons to seismic hazards.

In accordance with the thresholds of significance, impacts associated with seismic events and hazards would be considered significant if the effects of an earthquake on a property could not be mitigated by an engineered solution. The significance criteria do not require elimination of the potential for structural damage from seismic hazards. Instead, the criteria require an evaluation of whether the seismic conditions on a site can be overcome through engineering design solutions that would reduce to less than significant the substantial risk of exposing people or structures to loss, injury, or death.

The project site is not in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, landslide, liquefaction, or preliminary fault rupture study area. In addition, the Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-17
codes, which are designed to reduce the exposure of people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death related to geological conditions or seismic events.

Accordingly, the Project’s contribution to any cumulative impact related to the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, ground shaking, or ground failure, as well as unstable geologic units or expa nsive soil, would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Similar to the Project, future projects would be required to follow City of Rialto Building standards, SCAQMD’s requirements for dust control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations pertaining to surface water runoff and water quality (which would require BMPs) for construction projects greater and smaller than one acre of disturbance, which would prevent significant cumulative impacts related to erosion and other geological impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to any cumulat ive impact related to soil erosion would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Paleontology. The potential cumulative impact related to paleontological resources is typically site - specific. The project site does not contain soils conducive for paleontological resources. However, significant impacts to paleontological resources would occur in the event unknown resources were unearthed during Project implementation. As such, the analysis herein determined that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources with the implementation of MM GEO- 1. Therefore, the impacts of the Project related to paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

4.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in significant impacts to paleontological resources in the event unknown paleontological resources are unearthed during Project implementation. The Project would implement MM GEO-1 to reduce potential impacts. With the implementation of MM GEO-1, Project impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-18
This Page Intentionally Blank

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-1

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7.1 Introduction
This section provides a discussion of existing regulations, plans, and policies pertaining to global climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a quantified estimate of GHG emissions that will result from the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project (Project), and an analysis of the significance of the impact of these GHGs. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment is summarized in this EIR section and provided as Appendix I of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which will aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
▪ Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. ▪ Set a target of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium - and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
▪ Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the United States Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Responding to the Court’s ruling, the United States EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO 2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Cour t’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the United States EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the United States EPA’s regulatory actions.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-2
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the United States Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order (EO) 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the United States EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the United States EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, United States EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the United States EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017-2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.

On January 12, 2017, the United States EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the United States EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the United States EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

According to the United States EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the United States EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy -duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021–2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

On September 27, 2019, the United States EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel - Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019.) The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the United States EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two which sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021 -2026. The current United States EPA administration has repealed SAFE Rule Part One, effective January 28, 2022, and is reconsidering Part Two.

As of April 1, 2022, the CAFE standards require an industry -wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026. The new CAFE standards for model year 2024-2026 Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-3
will reduce fuel use by more than 200 billion gallons through 2050, as compared to continuing under the old standards.

Presidential Executive Orders 13990 and 14008
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis". Executive Order 13990 directs federal agencies to immediately review and take action to address the promulgation of federal regulations and other actions that conflict with these important national objectives and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis. Executive Order 13990 directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to review CEQ’s 2020 regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and identify necessary changes or actions to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13990.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad," to declare the Administration’s policy to move quickly to build resilience, both at home and abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifested and will continue to intensify according to current trajectories. In line with these Executive Order directives, CEQ is reviewing the 2020 NEPA regulations and plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to identify necessary revisions in order to comply with the law; meet the environmental, climate change, and environmental justice objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008; ensure full and fair public involvement in the NEPA process; provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders; and promote better decision making consistent with NEPA’s statutory requirements. This phase 1 rulemaking will propose a narrow set of changes to the 2020 NEPA regulations to address these goals.

State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long -term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013.

In the State, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 , was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.

Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-4
by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business -as-usual”).1 The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector - specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.2 Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
▪ Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
▪ Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. ▪ Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
▪ Establishing targets for transportation -related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
▪ Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy -duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009). ▪ Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
▪ The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.

1 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission - generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 –2004 emissions intensities.

Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004.
2 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-5
▪ CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years . The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks.

In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons of CO 2e (MMTCO 2e) to 545 MMTCO 2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business -as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business -as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32.

In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan .3 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping Plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support cl imate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support other federal actions. 2022 CARB Scoping Plan
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (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. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil -fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.

The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.

Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead

3 California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-6
advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.

The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s singl e largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of ne w regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.4 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). 5 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.6
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero -emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero -emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium -and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
▪ Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero -emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. ▪ Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

4 CARB. (2022). Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf.

Accessed April 2024.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-7
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B - 30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planni ng organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO 2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. In 2018, the EPA proposed the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which would roll back fuel economy standards and revoke California’s waiver. However, in December 2021, the NHTSA repealed the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One.

SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated wit h electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents Califo rnia’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.

The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 (2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. Executive Order S-14-08 was enacted on November 17, 2008, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-8
that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10 -23. SBX1-2 (2011) codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B -30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.

AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regul atory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that sev erely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap- and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progre ss on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost -effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off -road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and ai r quality Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-9
management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 8 5 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.

SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.

SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.

AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.

Executive Order S -3-05. Executive Order S -3-05 was issued o n June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
▪ By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
▪ By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
▪ By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel St andard (LCFS) and directed the Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-10
Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exp loring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S -14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S -14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21- 09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S -21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S -21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B -55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewid e targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N -79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero -emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy -duty vehicles will be zero -emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium -and heavy- duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off -road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Californ ia Geologic Energy Management Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-11
Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601 -1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty -three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost -effective measures, to promote the use of energy - and water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Sta ndards Code. The 2022 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption across California. For example, the 2022 Title 24 standards require efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen) . The 2022 CALGreen standards continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.

Regional and Local Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Rule 2305 was adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-12
sources attracted to warehouses. However, Rule 2305 would also reduce GHG emissions. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle mi les traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community.

Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and c harging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The SCAQMD formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting #15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.

With the tiered approach, the Project is compared with 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 thresho ld.

The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO 2e) per year for industrial projects and 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 this threshold was derived using a 90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. 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.). 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.). The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long- Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-13
range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve spe cific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.

Rialto General Plan 2010
Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply , of the City of Rialto’s (City) Rialto General Plan (General Plan) identifies goals related to greenhouse gas emissions within the City. Goals and policies that relate to air quality impacts include the following:

Goals 2-30 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2-30.1 Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Policy 2-30.2 Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy -efficient design elements, as appropriate.

Goal 2-31 Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-31.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

Goal 2-34 Achieve waste recycling levels that meet or exceed State mandates. Achieve maximum waste recycling in all sectors of the community: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and construction.

Policy 2-34.2 Utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in Rialto that is disposed of in landfills.

Policy 2-34.3 Encourage the maximum diversion from landfills of construction and demolition materials through recycling and reuse programs.

Goal 2-38 Mitigate against climate change.

Policy2-38.1 Consult with State agencies, SCAG, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to implement AB32 and SB375 by utilizing incentives to facilitate infill and transit-oriented development.

Policy 2-38.2 Encourage development of transit-oriented and infill development, and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation in Downtown and along Foothill Boulevard.

Policy 2-38.3 Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

City of Rialto Climate Adaption Plan
The City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. Goals include:

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-14
▪ 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.

4.7.3 Environmental Setting
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human -caused emissions of G HGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one d ay), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO 2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human -caused CO 2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human -caused CO 2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere.7 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities.

Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-15
Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human - related sources of N 2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N 2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N 2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off -gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major componen t of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human -related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management.

Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production an d semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbon
s (CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100 -year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.

Source: Appendix I

Santa Ana Truck Terminal Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-16

4.7.4 Methodology
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix B. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off -road equipment usage and on -road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction- related GHG emissions would be generated from off -road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, an d worker vehicles. The Project’s operations -related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g. landscaping maintenance and consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatm ent, and solid waste. The analysis assumes an Opening Year of 2024; however, emission factors for construction would decrease over time as emissions regulations become more stringent and equipment fleets turnover. Should construction commence at a later da te than what was assumed in the model, the emissions presented herein is conservative.

4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally will have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
▪ Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or ▪ Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.