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 Standards Code. The 2022 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-14
emissions associated with energy consumption across California. For example, the 2022 Title 24 standards will 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 Hous ing 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 re source 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.
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 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 S CAQMD. 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 t o 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 W AIRE 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.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (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 do cuments. 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, a 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 exempt from Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-15
CEQA. 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. The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) 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 MTCO2e 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
As the metropolitan planning organization for the region’s six counties and 191 cities, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is mandated by law to develop a long -term regional transportation and sustainability plan every four years. On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal ( 2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [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-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 specific federal air quality standards and is required by State law to lower regional GHG emissions.
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan In response to statewide GHG reduction initiatives, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (formerly SANBAG, now known as San Bernardino Council of Governments or SBCOG), cooperated to compile an inventory of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures to be adopted by the cities partnering within SBCOG. Reduction measures in the GHG Reduction Plan (GHGRP) are targeting GHG goals for the year 2020. Several of the measures and policies mentioned in the GHGRP for the City of Rialto are from the RGP. The policies listed in the GHGRP range from broadly supporting energy efficiency and sustainability to policies closely tied to specific GHG reduction measures. Application of these policies is expected to reduce local GHGs by an estimated 387,998 MTCO2e from “business as usual” levels in 2020.
This would equate to a 28.0 percent reduction in GHGs from the 2008 levels of 1,238,926 MTCO 2e annually.
City of Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto developed and adopted the 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 policies identified below incl ude requirements that would reduce the potential for project -specific impacts related to air quality. Chapter 2 of the General Plan describes the Conservation goals and policies Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-16
that the City of Rialto has identified for implementation to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community.
Goal 2-31 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.
Policy 2.31.1 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 2-31.2 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 2-32 Conserve energy resources.
Policy 2-32.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.
Goal 2-35 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 2-35.2 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 2-35.3 Encourage the maximum diversion from landfills of construction and demolition materials through recycling and reuse programs.
Goal 2-39 Mitigate against climate change.
Policy 2-39.1 Consult with State agencies, SCAG, and the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375 by utilizing incentives to facilitate infill and transit-oriented development.
Policy 2-39.3 Providing enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed -use community, with a v ariety of land use types. The 2010 includes goals to mitigate climate change as a result on implementation of the 2010 RSP.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-17
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) establishes the City’s planning concept, de sign, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of the 2016 RSPA area. Similar to the 2010 RSP, the 2016 RSPA contains goals associated with climate change to reduce impacts as a result of implementation of the 2016 RSPA.
4.6.4 Methodology
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the Project includes the natural and anthropogenic drivers of global cl imate change, including worldwide GHG emissions from human activities which almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximately 27 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2/year to nearly 49 GtCO2/year. As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG emissions' cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix G. 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, and worker vehicles. The Project’s operational -related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste.
Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 man dates a 20 percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations. Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation component. Adjustments were also made for Project design features that would reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project would also be constructed in conformance with CALGreen, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures for indoor plumbing and water efficient irrigation systems.
4.6.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
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 of significance; or Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-18
▪ Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.3 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e industrial threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. During the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group Meeting #15, the SCAQMD noted that it was considering extend ing the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by all lead agencies. This working group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Pla nning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. However, the SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present GHG thresholds for land use projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency to the governing board. During Meeting #8, the Working Group defined industrial uses as productio n, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). Additionally, the SCAQMD GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group has specified that a warehouse is considered to be an industrial project. Furthermore, the Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions (electricity, water use, etc.).
Although the screening threshold for industrial projects is 10,000 MTCO2e per year, this analysis conservatively utilizes 3,000 MTCO2e per year as the Project GHG threshold.
4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.6-1 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project construction would result in direct emissions of GHGs. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is depicted in Table 4.6- 2:
Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
3 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-19
Table 4.6- 2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
Construction 1,266
30-Year Amortized Construction 42
Source: Appendix G
As shown in Table 4.6- 2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions , the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1, 266 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30 -year period, then added to the operational emissions.4 The amortized Project construction emissions would be 42 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on -site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, solid waste generation, and the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project. Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.6-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
4 The amortization period of 30-years is based on the standard assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-20
Table 4.6-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 42 42
Area Source1 9 0
Energy2 981 436
Mobile – Trucks 5,174 5,174
Mobile – Passenger Cars3 737 737
Off-Road – Forklifts4 2,082 86
Off-Road – Yard Trucks4 1,325 97
Emergency Generators4 39 39
Waste5 126 126
Water and Wastewater 302 302
Refrigerants 0 0
Total Project Emissions 10,817 7,039
Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
Notes:
1. MM GHG-4 requires 100 percent electric landscaping equipment, which would reduce area source emissions.
2. MM 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.
3. Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to MM AIR-7 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Appendix B.
Source: Appendix G
Below is a description of the primary sources of operational emissions:
▪ Area Sources. Area source emissions occur from architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products. Landscaping is anticipated to occur throughout the project site.
Additionally, the primary emissions from architectural coatings are volatile organic compounds, which are relatively insignificant as direct GHG emissions. ▪ Energy Consumption. Energy consumption consists of emissions from Project consumption of electricity and natural gas.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-21
▪ Off-Road Equipment. Operational off -road emissions would be generated by off -road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. For this Project it was assumed that the warehouses would include nine forklifts and two yard trucks per SCAQMD data.5 The forklifts and yard trucks GHG emissions were based on CARB OFFROAD emissions data. ▪ Emergency Backup Generators. As the Project warehouse is speculative, it is unknown whether emergency backup generators would be used. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, emissions associated with this equipment were included to be conservative. Emissions from an emergency backup generator for each warehouse building were calculated separately from CalEEMod. However, CalEEMod default emissions rates were used. If backup generators are 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 SCA QMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.
▪ Mobile Sources. Mobiles sources from the Project were calculated with CalEEMod based on the trip generation from the Traffic Study for the Proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Warehouse Project in the City of Rialto (Traffic Study), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and included as Appendix K. According to the Traffic Study, the Project would generate 733 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 293 daily truck trips.
▪ Solid Waste. Solid waste releases GHG emissions in the form of methane when these materials decompose.
▪ Water and Wastewater . GHG emissions from water demand would occur from electricity consumption associated with water conveyance and treatment. ▪ Refrigerants. Air conditioning and refrigerator equipment typically generate GHG emissions. The proposed Project would not include cold storage. Per 17 CCR 95371, new facilities with refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant are prohibited from utilizing refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater as of January 1, 2022. Additionally, the Project is anticipated to utilize R -7176 refrigerants in any potential air conditioning and refrigerator equipment.
As shown in Table 4.6-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 10,817 MTCO2e annually from operations with amortized construction. Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. It should be noted that the majority of the unmitigated GHG emissions (55 percent) are associated with non -construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.
5.SCAQMD. (2014). High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Result s. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality- analysis/business-survey-summary.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 6 R-717 is refrigerant grade anhydrous ammonia, normally used in large industrial refrigeration applications.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-22
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and the Project’s Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B), the Project includes numerous mitigation measures that would also reduce GHG emissions. MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AIR-2 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AIR-3 requires the buildings’ electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. MM AIR-4 requires that all truck access gates and loading docks within the project site shall have a sign posted that requires driv ers to turn off their engines when not in use. Mitigation Measure AIR-5 requires that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include energy efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer Program. MM AIR-6 requires staff to be trained on compliance with CARB regulations. MM AIR-7 requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators to be Tier 4 certified. It should be noted that GHG emissions depicted in Table 4.6-3 conservatively do not include emissions reduction credits from MM AIR-2, MM AIR-3, MM AIR-4, and MM AIR-5.
In addition, the Project would implement MM GHG-1 through GHG-4. MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. It should be noted that GHG emissions shown in Table 4.6 -3 conservatively do not include emissions reduction credits from MM GHG-3. MM GHG-4 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. The Project would also be required to comply with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations ( LOR) GHG-1 through LOR GHG-8 which are required by local, State, or federal regulations or laws.
As shown in Table 4.6-3, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions to 7,039 MTCO2e. The majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are generated by mobile emissions. The TDM program required by MM AIR-2 would reduce GHG emissions from commuting. Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City to address emissions resulting from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. The Project’s mobile and transportation related GHG emissions are a function of two parameters: emissions control technology and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
CARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State.
Regarding the first parameter, California addresses emissions control technology through a variety of legislation and regulatory schemes, including the Sta te’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order S-01-07) (LCFS), a regulatory program designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. The regulatory standards are expressed in terms of the “carbon intensity” of gasoline and diesel fuel and their substitutes. Different types of fuels are evaluated to determine their “life cycle em issions” which include the emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using the fuels. Each fuel is then given a carbon intensity score and compared against a declining carbon intensity benchmark for each year. Providers of transportation fuels must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they supply for use in California meets these declining benchmarks for each annual compliance period.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-23
In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the LCFS, which strengthened the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 to ensure they are in -line with California’s 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32. CARB is also implementing additional transportation sector regulations such as Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Advanced Clean Fleets. This ensures that the transportation sector is meeting its obligations to achieve California’s GHG reduction targets. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations through vehicle manufacturer compliance. The State is also implementing legislation and regulations to address the second parameter affecting transportation related GHG emissions by controlling for VMT. Examples of this include SB 375, which links land use and transportation funding and provides one incentive for regions to achieve reductions in VMT, and SB 743, which discourages VMT increases for passenger car trips above a region-specific benchmark.
The Project’s mitigation measures and LORs address non-mobile emissions to the greatest extent feasible, by designing buildings to provide environmental design features, incorporate energy and water conservation measures, and provide electrical, heating, ventilation, lighting, and power systems that meet CALGreen Standards (MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which exceeds code requirements). Further, the project would be required to divert 75 percent of solid waste from landfills (MM GHG-3) and require landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric (MM GHG-4). The State is addressing the remaining energy -related GHG emissions through SB 100 and SB 1020, which requires 100 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2045. Additionally, SB 905 requires the State to use carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies and AB 1757 requires nature-based sequestration in natural working lands.
As shown in Table 4.6-3, mitigated GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. Therefore, Project -related GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
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 and requirements 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 GHG-1 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.
LOR GHG-2 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
LOR GHG-3 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-24
of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
LOR GHG-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 GHG-5 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.
LOR GHG-6 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.
LOR GHG-7 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.
LOR GHG-8 To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 are further discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality of this SEIR.
MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Tenant Improvements, not building shell, the Project shall install 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 expected building load (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 7), as feasible, based on the maximum net roof area available for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar- ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.
With expected energy consumption at 4.62 kWh/sf, a PV panel array covering approximately one quarter of the proposed roof space would provide sufficient on -site renewable energy generation to offset consumption. The final PV generation facility size
7 The expected electricity demand is based on CalEEMod; refer to Appendix G.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-25
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 energ y storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption. If the Project cannot generate enough renewable energy to cover 100 percent of the building load, renewable energy may be acquired from the local utility.
This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
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 meet or exceed CALGREEN Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by at least 15 percent.
▪ The Project shall provide conduits 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 tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all handheld landscaping equipment used on -site shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.
Impact 4.6-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Consistency with the City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan The Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high‐efficiency lighting, high‐efficiency heating, ventilating, and air‐conditioning [HVAC] systems, thermal insulation, double‐glazed windows, water-conserving plumbing fixtures), these Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-26
standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three‐year cycle. The most recent 2022 standards went into effect January 1, 2023. Project construction would be consistent with the Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan goals to reduce GHG emissions.
Further, the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project would also comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction and operation and would not interfere with the State’s AB 32 goals.
Consistency with the 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 c hemical 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 win d 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 a nd instead 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 (ZE) transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single 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 new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include:
▪ Implementing SB 100 (achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045); ▪ Achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and ▪ Implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero -emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks.
Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In -use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation, Clean Off -Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap- and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-27
As shown in Table 4.6-3, approximately 90 percent of the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. The Project would implement various mitigation measures to reduce energy and mobile source emissions including MM GHG -2, which requires CALGreen Tier 2 electric vehicle charging stations.
Additionally, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning the Project’s effect on VMT (Appendix G). It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 84 percent of the Project’s total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to Statewide measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover.
The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.
SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency
On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal ( 2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long -range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations , businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Under Senate Bill (SB) 375, SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals to reduce GHG emissions in the region by eight percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.8 Implementation of the RTP/SCS would add 181,200 new miles of transit revenue service, 4,000 new miles of bike lanes and 869 new miles to the Regional Express Lane Network. Strategic investments in infrastructure and transportation would improve access to e mployment centers and stimulate regional economic growth and opportunity in historically underserved areas. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies to implement transportation projects in a coordinated manner while qualifying for federal and State funding. Connect SoCal also supports local jurisdictions in making informed land use planning and housing development decisions.
The RTP/SCS plans account for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS are also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissi ons reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, increased housing production, improved equity and resilience, the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased transportation safety, support for the region’s vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources. GHG emissions resulting from development - related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the project would inhibit the post -2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.6-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
8 California Air Resources Board, SB 375 Regional Targets. (2024). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable- communities-program/sb-375-regional-targets. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-28
Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table4-6.4, the proposed Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent by the year 2035 or the post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.
Table 4.6-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
2024 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY CONSISTENCY Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network.
Support investments that are well -maintained
and operated, coordinated, resilient and result in
improved safety, improved air quality and
minimized greenhouse gas emissions
N/A. This is not a project -specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Ensure that reliable, accessible, affordable, and
appealing travel options are readily available,
while striving to enhance equity in the offerings
in high-need communities
N/A. This is not a project -specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Support planning for people of all ages, abilities,
and backgrounds
N/A. This is not a project -specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Communities: Develop, connect, and sustain communities that are livable and thriving Create human -centered communities in urban,
suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility
options and reduce travel distances
Consistent. The Project is located in an urban area in
proximity to existing community services. Additionally, the Project is located near existing transit routes and access to Interstate 210 (I-210).
Produce and preserve diverse housing types in an
effort to improve affordability, accessibility, and
opportunities for all households
N/A. The Project does not propose residential uses.
Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow Develop communities that are resilient and can
mitigate, adapt to, and respond to chronic and
acute stresses and disruptions, such as climate
change
Consistent. As discussed in the Project’s Air Quality
Assessment, the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional or localized thresholds. Based on the Friant Ranch decision, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized
significance thresholds (LSTs) would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in no criteria pollutant health impacts. Additionally, the Project’s Health Risk Assessment determined potential health ris ks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. As discussed under Threshold 5.1, above, the Project would Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-29
Table 4.6-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
require all feasible mitigation to reduce GHG emissions. In addition to Mitigation Measures AIR-2 through AIR-7
discussed in Section 4. 2, Air Quality, and the Project’s Air Quality Assessment, the Project would implement MM GHG-1 thorough MM GHG-4. MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. MM GHG-4 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. Therefore, the Project would not result in health impacts and would implement all feasible mitigation to reduce GHG emissions.
Integrate the region’s development pattern and
transportation network to improve air quality,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable
more sustainable use of energy and water
Consistent. While the Project is not a transportation
improvement Project, location of the Project within a
developed area would reduce trip lengths, which would
reduce GHG and air quality emissions. Additionally, the reduction of energy use, improvement of air qualit y, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development are encouraged through the development of alternative
transportation methods, green design techniques for
buildings, and other energy -reducing techniques such as compliance with the provision s of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
Conserve the region’s resources Consistent. The proposed Project is located on vacant land that is not designated for agricultural uses, natural resources, or conservation. Therefore, Project development would not result in a loss of the region’s resources.
Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient, and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
Improve access to jobs and educational resources Consistent. The Project proposes a warehouse development within an urban area, in close proximity to residential uses.
Therefore, the location of the Project would improve access to jobs opportunities.
Advance a resilient and efficient goods
movement system that supports the economic
vitality of the region, attainment of clean air and
quality of life for our communities
Consistent. The Project includes a warehouse use that would support goods movement. As summarized above, the Project would result in less than significant air quality and health risk impacts.
Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: Appendix G
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-30
Conclusion
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan, the CARB Scoping Plan, and SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and would be required to comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s General Plan. The Project would be directly affected by the outcomes (vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards). As such, the Project would not conflict with any other State-level regulations pertaining to GHGs.
As shown in Table 4.6-3, approximately 90 percent of the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan goals described above (including achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 [SB 100], achievin g 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 [Advanced Clean Cars II], and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation [ZEV buses and trucks]). The City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 80 percent of the Project’s total emissions), with the exception of land use decisions that could reduce VMT.
However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures discussed above (including the reduction in fuels’ carbon content, CARB’s Advanced Clean Car Program, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, fuel efficiency standards, etc.), as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. SCAG’s RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035.9
At this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures that have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that Project operations would benefit from applicable measures are enacted to meet State GHG reduction goals. The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.
As discussed above, MM AIR-2 as identified in Section 4. 2, Air Quality , and the Project’s Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B), would reduce mobile source emissions through the implementation of a TDM program. LOR GHG-1 through LOR GHG-8, as required by the California Building Code, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, water -efficient irrigation systems and devices, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhaz ardous construction and demolition waste, facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment, and limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills; and MM GHG-4 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. The Project would also implement 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-14 and MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 as discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and in the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4. As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions.
Impacts would be less than significant. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
9 CARB. (2024). SCAG Releases Draft Connect SoCal 2024, https://scag.ca.gov/press-release/scag-releases-draft-connect-socal- 2024. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-31
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures The 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-14 is further discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality.
Project Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 are further discussed under Impact 4.6-1,above.
4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have a relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory.10 The State CEQA Guidelines generally address GHG emissions as a cumulative impact because of the global nature of climate change. As the California Supreme Court explained, “because of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself”.11 As such, GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non -cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project -related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project as well as other cumulative related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As discussed above, Proje ct-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-14 and MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 in Section 4. 2, Air Quality and the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 and could impede statewide 2030 and 2045 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.
4.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impacts to Impact 4. 6-1. The Project would implement MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 and GHG-1 through MM GHG -4. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce Project GHG emissions to below the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts of Impact 4.6-2 would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
10 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2008). CEQA and Climate Change White Paper. https://www.counties.org/resource-document/capcoa-white-paper-ceqa-and-climate-change. Accessed October 2024.
11 Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments. (2017). 3 Cal.5th 497, 512. Accessed December 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Rialto 4.6-32
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-1
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the potential hazards (other than geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards) associated with the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) that could impact human health and the environment. The analysis in this section is based on the regulatory database search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor website and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker website.
4.7.2 Environmental Setting
Current Use
The project site consists of approximately 35 acres of vacant, undeveloped land. The warehouse development would occur on Planning Areas 126 and 133, which are zoned Public Park and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center. The Project would also include the rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. No on-site operations exist.
Current Use of Adjacent Properties
The project site is in an area of the City of Rialto (City) which includes commercial, warehouse/industrial, and residential uses. Table 4.7-1: Adjacent Properties , lists the land use and the applicable regulatory databases.
Table 4.7-1: Adjacent Properties
Direction Relative
to Project Site Description Database(s)
North Vacant land and industrial uses None
South
Industrial and commercial uses; single family residential uses across Baseline Road None
East
Ayala Drive, Fitzgerald Avenue, and business park, public park, and vacant land zoned for employment east of
Ayala Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue
None
West
Linden Avenue, and industrial uses west of Linden
Avenue None
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-2
Historical Use of Site
A portion of the previous Rialto Municipal Airport, closed in September 2014, was located on a portion of the project site and has been demolished. The portion of the Rialto Municipal Airport located within the project site consisted of runways, taxis, and clearance zones.
As discussed in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the project site include the Rialto Municipal Airport, including the Kinder Morgan jet Fuel Pipeline, and previous agricultural uses. Future development of the project site would likely involve either paving over or covering by building structures , thus minimizing direct contact with any potential remaining concentrations in the soil. Additionally, due to previous site development activities, near surface soils (where residual agricultural chemical concentrations would have most likely been present, if at all) would likely be mixed with fill material or be disturbed during grading.
Also, during development it is common that engineered fill material is placed over underlying soils as part of the grading activities. These additional activities serve to further reduce the potential for exposure to residual agricultural chemicals (if any). Based on these reasons, the former use of agricultural chemicals at the project site is not expected to represent an environmental concern at this time.
Records Review
Regulatory Records Review
The Geotracker website was accessed to review regulatory database information compiled by a variety of federal and State regulatory agencies. Two nearby facility cases were listed within a 0.25 miles radius of the project site and are summarized in Table 4.7-1, below.
Table 4.7-2: Facility Case Listings Within 0.25 Mile Radius Property Address/Location Summary of Information
Rialto Municipal
Airport Property
1451 N orth Linden
Avenue
This facility is associated with the former Rialto Airport. The site has been determined, through prior environmental assessments, to have soil impacted with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in gasoline range (TPHg), Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PSAHs). Excavation activities to remove the impacted soil were conducted at the site between January 12 and February 5, 2016 by Westech. Each of the identified areas of concern (AOCs) were excavated, as proposed in the Cleanup Plan. A total of 5,315 cubic yards (CY) of soil were excavated and stockpiled at the designated locations on site. A total 370 CY (535 tons) of soil from the Sand Drag area were excavated and transported offsite to the Philadelphia Recycling Mine in Mira Loma, California for disposal. Review of a No Further Action letter for this facility indicated that excavated soils from the Rialto Municipal Airport investigation were temporarily staged south of the subject site (north of the project site) pending their later burial in a cell beneath Renaissance Parkway (located 0.5 mile to the north) during its Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-3
Table 4.7-2: Facility Case Listings Within 0.25 Mile Radius Property Address/Location Summary of Information
construction. The Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) documented the soil remediation activities. This case was closed in 2018.
E&M Aircraft
Painting
1480 N orth Linden
Avenue
Based on its address, this facility is estimated to have been approximately 570 feet northwest of the site. Based on a review of the case No Further Action letter, dated April 16, 2009, the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB) requested that Tetrachloroethylene
concentrations detected in the soil up to 70 feet deep be further investigated via a pilot Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) test. Based on the SVE pilot test results, which included extraction and testing of soil gas from 80 to 120 feet deep, they concluded that volatile organic compounds (VOC) contamination was minor, and not a significant threat to groundwater. This case was closed in 2009.
Sources:
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2024a). Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento. Accessed October 2024.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). (2024). Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60003205.
Accessed October 2024.
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance conducted for the 2010 RSP EIR. No activity has occurred on the project site since the initial reconnaissance.
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM)
Due to the vacant, unimproved state of the project site, ACMs are not a concern for the project site.
Lead-Based Paint
Due to the vacant, unimproved state of the project site, lead-based paint is not a concern for the site.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
No potential PCB-containing equipment (e.g., transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) were observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance conducted for the 2010 RSP EIR. No activity has occurred on the project site since the initial reconnaissance.
Airport Proximity
There are no private or public active airports near the project site. The closest airport is the San Bernadino International Airport, located approximately 8.75 miles southeast of the project site.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-4
Oil Facilities
According to CalGEM, the project site is not located within or near the administrative boundary of an oil field and there are no active oil or natural gas wells within one mile of the project site.1
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting
The management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is regulated at the federal, State, and local levels, including, among others, through programs administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); agencies within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); federal and State occupational safety agencies; and the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
At the federal level, the United States EPA is the principal regulatory agency, while at the State level, DTSC is the primary agency governing the storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over discharges into Waters of the State. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the State Cal/OSHA regulate many aspects of worker safety.
Federal Regulations
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is a United States federal law that aims to reduce the impact of disasters on communities and promote preparedness. It focuses on several key areas, including hazard mitigation planning, grants for mitigation projects, and the establishment of a National Mitigation Framework. The act encourages local communities to develop and implement hazard mitigation plans to identify and reduce risks. It also provides funding for projects that aim to mitigate the effects of disasters, such as flood control measures or building retrofits. Additionally, the act establishes the Nationa l Mitigation Framework, which serves as a guide for federal agencies and stakeholders to coordinate and collaborate on mitigation efforts.
Federal Emergency Management Act
The Federal Emergency Management Act establishes and outlines the responsibilities and authorities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The act aims to coordinate and support the nation's preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation effor ts for all types of disasters, including natural disasters and emergencies caused by terrorism. FEMA is tasked with providing assistance and resources to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as to individuals and communities affected by disasters. The act also authorizes FEMA to administer various programs, such as the National Flood Insurance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program, which provide funding and support for disaster preparedness and mitigation initiatives. Ad ditionally, the act establishes the National Incident Management Assistance Teams to assist with coordination during large-scale incidents and authorizes the
1 CalGEM. (2024). Well Finder https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.39705/34.12175/18.
Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-5
president to declare a major disaster or emergency, enabling the release of federal resources and assistance to affected areas.
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a program administered by the United States EPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (United States Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulat ion [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and the National Priorities List
The United States EPA also maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation (CERCLIS) and Liability Information System list. This list contains sites that are either proposed to be or on the National Priorities List (NPL), as well as sites that are in the sc reening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The NPL is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund. There are no NPL sites on the project site.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right -To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to both State and local agencies. EPCRA requires the United States EPA to maintain and publish a digital database list of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported by certain industry groups and federal facilities. This database, known as the Toxic Release Inventory, gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their chemical management.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-6
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) receives authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended and codified (49 United States Code 5101 et seq.). The DOT is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport of hazardous materials and establishes regulations for safe handling procedures (i.e., packaging, marking, labeling and routing).
In California, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code states that any hazardous material being moved from one location to another must use the route with the least travel time. This, in practice, means major roads and highways, although secondary roads are permitted to be used for local delivery. These policies are enforced by both the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Clean Water Act/ Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code Section 1251 et seq. was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires States to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non‐point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue 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 that 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 stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from movi ng off‐site into receiving waters
▪ Eliminate or reduce non‐stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
▪ Perform inspections of all BMPs.
NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-7
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act to ensure worker and workplace safety. Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic che micals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. To establish standards for workplace health and safety, OSHA also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as the research institution for OSHA. The Administration is a division of the United States Department of Labor that oversees the administration of OSHA and enforces standards in all States. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.
OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard applies to five groups of employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances (including hazardous waste) and who are en gaged in clean -up operations; corrective actions; voluntary clean -up operations; operations involving hazardous wastes at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and emergency response operations.
State Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 35000 et seq.
Title 17, Section 35000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations specifically addresses lead-based paint activities. This regulation sets standards and requirements for individuals and firms engaged in various lead-based paint activities, including inspection, risk assessment, abatement, and clearance testing.
The regulation outlines the qualifications and certification requirements for individuals conducting lead - based paint activities. It also establishes procedures for conducting inspections and risk assessments to identify lead hazards in buildings. Additionally, it provides guidelines for the safe and effective removal or containment of lead-based paint during abatement activities.
The regulation also specifies the requirements for clearance testing, which is conducted after lead-based paint abatement to ensure that the area is free from lead hazards. It outlines the sampling and analysis methods to be used during clearance testing and the acceptable clearance levels for different surfaces.
Furthermore, Title 17, Section 35000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations includes provisions related to record keeping, notification requirements, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the regulations.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
CalEPA has jurisdiction over hazardous materials and wastes at the State level. DTSC is the department of CalEPA responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control L aw. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California but not by the United Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-8
States EPA are called “non-RCRA hazardous wastes.” Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.
Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC -listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having underground storage tank leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
Enforcement of directives from DTSC is handled at the local level, in this case the San Bernardino County DEH. The RWQCB also has the authority to implement regulations regarding the management of soil and groundwater investigation.
CalFire 2022/2023 Strategic Fire Plan for the San Bernadino Unit CalFire uses this plan to direct and guide its fire management activities for the State Responsibility Area throughout California. CalFire’s mission is to serve and safeguard the people and protect the property and resources of California. CalFire responds to emergencies such as fires of all types, vehicle accidents, floods, earthquakes, hazardous material spills, and others within the State Responsibility Area. CalFire provides direction for fire prevention using fire resource assessments, a variety of ava ilable data, mapping and other tools. The plan emphasizes “pre -fire” management, which is a process to assess alternatives to protect assets from unacceptable risk of wildland fire damage and focus on those actions that can be taken in advance of a wildland fire to potentially reduce the severity of the fire and ensure safety. Pre-fire management activities include prescribed burning, fuel breaks, forest health treatments and removal of hazardous vegetation.
CalFire has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. It ranks fire threats based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate).
The rankings include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat.
California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Title 24, Part 9. The CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution.
California Water Code
The California Water Code is a collection of laws and regulations that govern the management and use of water resources within the State of California. It covers various aspects related to water rights, water quality, water supply, water conservation, and water infrastructure. The code outlines the responsibilities of State agencies, lo cal governments, and water districts in managing and protecting California's water resources. Additionally, it addresses issues such as groundwater management, water pollution control, flood control, and water infrastructure development. The California Wat er Code plays a crucial role in ensuring the sustainable and efficient use of water in the California.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-9
Emergency Management Mutual Aid System
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid System (EMMAS) is a collaborative framework that enables jurisdictions and agencies to request and provide assistance during emergencies. It facilitates the sharing of resources, such as personnel, equipment, and experti se, to enhance the overall effectiveness of emergency response and recovery efforts. EMMAS operates through mutual aid agreements, promoting interoperability, coordination, and a seamless integration of resources from different jurisdictions. Its main goal is to ensure a coordinated and efficient response to emergencies that surpass the capabilities of a single jurisdiction.
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Businesses must submit this information to the County DEH. The Environmental Health Division verifies the information and provides it to agencies responsible for protection of public heal th and safety and the environment. Business Plans are required to include emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
▪ Immediate notification to the administering agency and to the appropriate local emergency rescue personnel.
▪ Procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment. ▪ Evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site.
Business Plans are also required to include training for all new employees, and annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The act is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (C CR), which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; treatment standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements.
These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-10
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65, requires businesses to provide warnings to individuals about potential exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 mandates that businesses notify consumers if their products or environments contain any of the listed chemicals above certain threshold levels. The goal of Proposition 65 is to inform individuals about potential risks and allow them to mak e informed decisions regarding their exposure to these chemicals.
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste Generator and On‐site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (“Tiered Permitting”); Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community‐Right‐To‐Know”); California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program; and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.
The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA. The project site is in San Bernardino County. The CUPA designated for San Bernardino County is the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department.
Department of Toxic Substance Control
The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is a department of CalEPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC- listed hazardous waste facilities and sites; Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells; sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater; and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous wastes and/or materials.
California Office of Emergency Services
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California Office of Emergency Services is responsible for establishing and managing Statewide standards for business and area plans relating to Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-11
the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory agencies. The information must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.
These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 – Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to 25520) and Article 2 – Hazardous Materials Management ( Sections 25531 to 25543.3). CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4 – Hazardous Material Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum Statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in accordance with Sections 2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in accordance with Section 2731; and (3) training p rogram information in accordance with Section 2732. Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance, 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR Sections 337‐340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident‐ prevention progr ams, and hazardous substance exposure warnings. In addition, Cal/OSHA regulates medical and/or infectious waste.
California Department of Public Health
California’s medical waste disposal regulations are overseen by the California Department of Public Health, Environmental Management Branch. The Medical Waste Management Program within the Environmental Management Branch regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste. The Medical Waste Management Program also implements the large quantity generator inspector inspection program. A large quantity generator is a medical waste generator that generates more than 200 pounds of medical waste per month in any month of a 12-month period. A small quantity generator is a medical waste generator that generates less than 200 pounds per month of medical waste.
Small quantity generators are subject to all of the requirements under Cha pter 4 of the Medical Waste Management Act, Health and Safety Code section 117915 through 117946. Medical waste must be picked up by a registered medical waste hauler or if appropriate sent for treatment through a mail-back program.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-12
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Map
To evaluate the presence of oil or gas wells on-site and in the immediate site vicinity, maps available online at the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/) were reviewed. No abandoned/plugged oil/gas wells are located on the project site.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) -containing equipment (e.g., transformers, oil -filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) are located on the project site.
Radon
Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert, gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of radium (Ra) atoms. The United States EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes.
Radon sampling was not conducted as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Review of the United States EPA Map of Radon Zones places the project site in Zone 2. 2 Zone 2 has a moderate potential for radon levels between 2.0 and 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Based upon the radon zone classification, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern for the project site.
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 San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside 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 tim e of construction.
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
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 PM 10 emissions from any transportation, handling,
2 Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). EPA Map of Radon Zones. https://www.epa.gov/radon/epa-map- radon-zones. Accessed November 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-13
construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM 10 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 are paved as soon as feasible, watered regularly, or chemically stabilized. 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.
Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down following the workday to remove soil from pavement.
Rule 1166 – This rule sets requirements to control the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from excavating, grading, handling and treating VOC -contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental spillage, or other deposition.
City of Rialto General Plan
General Plan policies for hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the Project are addressed below. The goals and policies are from the General Plan Safety and Noise Element. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis.
Goal 5-1 Continue to build the City’s fire protection and prevention programs and requirements to minimize fire hazards.
Policy 5-1.3 Require that all site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations.
Goal 5-8 Ensure that first responders and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) have adequate capacity to respond to hazard events.
Policy 5–8.7 Require that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, pursuant to the City standard of cover and fire department strategic plan.2010 Renaissance Specific Plan.
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. The Safety and Noise Element of the 2010 RSP includes goals to minimize potential hazards within the 2010 RSP area. The 2010 RSP also addresses the Rialto Municipal Airport, which ceased operations in 2014.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-14
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site is zoned Public Park and Employment in the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA). The 2016 RSPA establishes the City’s planning concept, design, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of the 2016 RSPA area. Similar to the 2010 RSP, the 2016 RSPA’s Safety and Noise Element contains goals to reduce the risk of potential hazards within the 2016 RSPA area. Hazards addressed in the 2016 RSPA include public health, wind, seismic, fire, flood, and traffic hazards.
City of Rialto Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS) Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) The City of Rialto provides fire and emergency response services to residents and businesses in the City.
The City has adopted the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) to address the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated w ith natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The objective of the MHFP is to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency.
City of Rialto Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) sets forth requirements including those for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The City adopted the California Fire Code with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, as Chapters 15.28 of the Rialto Municipal Code.
4.7.4 Methodology
In determining whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in hazards or hazardous materials, this analysis considers the recommendations o f Appendix G to the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as described below. The evaluation was based on a review of regulations and a determination of the applicability of the regulations within the project area. The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the results of 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR and the Limited Phase II Investigation – Rialto Municipal Airport, Property D, Prepared by Converse Consultants (July 2008). The determination that the proposed Project will or will not result in a significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials considers the type of development proposed and whether or not past or current uses on the site have the potential to pose a risk to the proposed development.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-15
4.7.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
▪ 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; ▪ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; ▪ 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
▪ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; ▪ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
▪ Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
4.7.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.7-1 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
The Project consists of the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on-and off -site improvements. Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on and off of the project site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to the public. In addition, should a spill or other hazardous materials incident occur, construction staff are trained to handle such situations, including containment and who to contact if such a situation occurs.
The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can result in hazards to people and the environment, due to the potential for accidental release. Such hazards are typically associated with certain types of land uses, such as chemical manufa cturing facilities, industrial processes, waste disposal, and Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-16
hazardous material storage and distribution facilities. These materials would be transported, used, and disposed of in accordance with all federal, State, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Additionally, all construction waste, including trash, litter, garbage, solid waste, petroleum products, and any other potentially hazardous materials, would be removed and tran sported to an appropriately permitted waste facility for treatment, storage, or disposal. Use of these mate rials during construction for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or the environment. Consistent with federal, State, and local requirements, transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations. If reportable quantities of hazardous materials or oil products, as set forth by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, are stored on site during construction, these would be managed in accordance with federal (Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures) and State (Certified Unified Program Agency and HMBP) requirements. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
At full buildout, the Project would have two warehouse buildings. The Project is not expected to use significant quantities of hazardous materials or to generate significant quantities of hazardous materials requiring transport or result in releases of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substances which would include cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. The Project would not create a signi ficant impact through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials since the facilities are required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and regional regulations which are intended to avoid impacts to the public and environment. These regulations ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators and transporters provide operational safety and measures to reduce threats to public health and safety.
Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level with site-specific analysis and additional mitigation measures would be identified, as applicable. With compliance with applicable federal, State, and regional regulations, the Project would result in less than significant impacts during operation.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-17
Impact 4.7-2 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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Kimley-Horn performed a regulatory database search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database and the SWRCB Geotracker database to identify hazardous material regulated facilities within or proximate to the project site. As shown in Table 4.7-1, above two nearby facility cases were listed within a 0.25 miles radius of the project site , which includes the Rialto Municipal Airport Property (case closed in 2018) and E&M Aircraft Painting (case closed in 2009).
The project site includes portions of land of the previous Rialto Municipal Airport, which ceased operations in 2014. As such, historical contamination within the project site includes hazardous materials associated with aviation land uses. According to the SWRCB Geotracker database, the project site has a cleanup status of case closed.3
Kimley-Horn’s review of the referenced databases also considered the potential or likelihood of contamination from adjoining and nearby sites. To evaluate which of the adjoining and nearby sites identified in the regulatory database search present an environmental risk to the subject property, Kimley- Horn considered the following criteria:
▪ The topographic position of the property relative to the subject property; ▪ The direction and distance of the identified facility from the subject property; ▪ The status of the respective regulatory agency -required investigations and/or cleanup associated with the identified facility; and
▪ Surface and subsurface obstructions and diversions (e.g., buildings, roads, sewer systems, utility service lines, rivers, lakes, and ditches) located between the identified site and the subject property.
Only those sites that are judged to present a potential environmental risk to the subject property and/or warrant additional clarification are further evaluated. Using the referenced criteria and based upon a review of readily available information contained within the regulatory database search, Kimley-Horn did not identify adjoining (i.e., bordering) or nearby sites (e.g., properties within a 0.25 -mile radius) listed in the regulatory database report that were judged to present a potential environmental risk to the subject property.
3 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2024b). Geotracker: Rialto Municipal Airport Property (T10000002088). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000002088. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-18
Review of both the DTSC Envirostor database and the SWRCB Geotracker database concluded that no active regulated sites are located within 1 -mile of the project site. This database review did not identify any potential environmental concerns for the site.4,5
Project construction would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on and off of the project site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner th at would pose a significant hazard to the public. Project operation would include the use of typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with warehousing uses such cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. As dis cussed in Impact 4.7 -1 above, any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project implementation must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Furthermore, hazardous materials/chemicals such as cleaners, paints, solvents and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.7-3 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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project is not located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The nearest schools to the project site are Helen L. Dollahan Elementary School (1060 W est Etiwanda Avenue), approximately 0.58 miles to the southeast; Virginia Primrose Elementary (751 N orth Maple Avenue, Fontana), approximately 0.65 miles to the southwest; Locust Elementary (7420 Locust Avenue) located approximately 0.66 miles to the southwest; Eisenhower High School (1321 Lilac Avenue), located approximately 1.05 miles to the east; Dunn Elementary School (830 Lilac Avenue), located approximately
1.04 miles t o the southeast; and Wilmer Amina Carter High School (2630 Linden Avenue) located approximately 1.26 miles to the north. Upon approval of the proposed rezone, the zoning of Planning Area 123 would change from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level with site -specific analysis and additional mitigation measures would be identified, as applicable.
4 SWRCB. (2024a). Geotracker. (2024) https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento.
Accessed October 2024.
5 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60003205. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-19
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include single-family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south, and Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast. The mitigated combined construction and operation risk a ssociated with the Project would be 1.88 per million for residential receptors and 1.19 per million for par receptors, neither of which exceeds the significance threshold of 10 per million. As such, Project implementation would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
Any potentially hazardous material handled on the project site would be limited in both quantity and concentrations, consistent with other similar industrial uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal would comply with applica ble federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled would be limited to cleaners, paints and solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.7-4 Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. 67 Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level with site -specific analysis and additional mitigation measures would be identified, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
6 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). (2024). DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed October 2024. 7 SWRCB.(2024b). Geotracker.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5618207633&__cf_chl_tk= H2.kx_3keRryuY4ROpTlM3vJmEqY00iECxXM9p0NWbA-1679416346-0-gaNycGzNDRA. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-20
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.7-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site is not located in the vicinity of an existing public or public use airport. The closest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, which is approximately 8.75 miles southeast of the project site. The Rialto Municipal Airport Final Comprehensive Plan (January 1991) is no longer applicable as the airport closed in 2014. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.7-6 Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The City has adopted the Multi -Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) to address the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The objective of the MHFP is to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency. The MHFP provides a process for emergency management and response with the City. The MHFP identifies the organization structure and responsibilities of agencies in the event of an emergency or disaster. No revisions to the MHFP would be required as a resul t of the proposed Project. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and operation of the proposed Project.
Emergency services and access is further described in Section 4.12, Public Services.
The Project is required to prepare a Traffic Construction Management Plan to identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. It will also identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. As discussed above, access to all major roads wou ld be maintained during construction and would not interfere with emergency access into or out of the project site.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-21
The City’s Development Impact Fee Program ensures certain required facilities for new development are adequately funded and costs are distributed to the various types of development in the form of development impact fees paid by project applicants. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level with site -specific analysis and additional mitigation measures would be identified, as applicable. By complying with the General Plan and participating in the City’s Impact Fee Program, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.7-7 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Level of Significance: No Impact
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 and its adjacent areas are not designated as VHFHSZ. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.7
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Rialto 4.7-22
4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. The SEIR evaluates potential environmental concerns in connection with the project site and surrounding area. The database searches document the findings of various governmental database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons within a search radius of up to one mile from the site and serves as the basis for defining the cumulative impacts study area.
Although some of the cumulative projects and other future projects associated with buildout of the surrounding communities also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are typically site-specific.
Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes. Projects must adhere to applicable regulations for the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and implement mitigation in compliance with federal, State, and local regulations to protect against site contamination by hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. Additionally, site -specific investigations would be conducted at sites where contaminated soils or groundwater could occur to minimize the exposure of workers and the public to hazardous substances.
With adherence to applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials , the potential risks associated with hazardous wastes would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The incremental effects of the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site -specific. Therefore, the Project would not result in incremental effects to hazards with respect to h azardous materials that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Therefore, Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from hazards or hazardous materials.
4.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With adherence to federal, State, and local regulations , potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-1
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.8.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the potential effects of the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project ( proposed Project or Project) on the approximately 35-acre project site, comprised of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. The Project consists of the rezone of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 and the construction of two warehouse buildings on Planning Areas 126 and 133 and associated on -and off-site improvements. The analysis in this Section is based on the Preliminary Drainage Report and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (April 2024) prepared Kimley-Horn and Associates and included as Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively.
4.8.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Hydrology
The United States is divided into successively smaller hydrological areas, or units, which are then nested within each other. These regions are labeled from largest to smallest as regions (HUC 2), subregions (HUC 4), basins (HUC 6), subbasins (HUC 8), wate rsheds (HUC 10), and subwatersheds (HUC 12). 1 Hydrological unit boundaries of each designation are delineated based on surface features of their geographic locations. The project site is located within the Santa Ana, Middle Santa Ana River, and East Etiwanda Creek-Santa Ana River watersheds. Each wat ershed is classified with a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of HUC 8, HUC 10, and HUC 12, respectively.
The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The Santa Ana River Basin is the largest watershed in Southern California. The basin is home to over six million people and covers an approximately 2,700-square mile area of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties.
The quality of surface and groundwater is highest within the tributaries that flow from the surrounding mountains as well as groundwater recharge by these streams. Water quality decreases as it moves along hydraulic flow paths, as a result of various factors including consumptive use, importation of water high in dissolved solids, runoff from urban and agricultural areas, and the recycling of water within the basin.2 Precipitation frequency data for the Project area was retrieved from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlas 14 (Rialto, California area). The National Weather Service data indicated that in 2023, the Project area experienced above-average precipitation of four to five inches.3
1 United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2013). Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Pages 14 and 19. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/pdf/tm11-a3_4ed.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 2 USGS. (2018). Santa Ana Basin, National Water Quality Assessment Program.https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/complaints/docs/invest igation/40_usgs_santa_ana_basin_national_water_quality_assessment_program.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Weather Prediction Service. (2023). Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-2
Soil and soil conditions affect infiltration and stormwater runoff of a site. As discussed in the Preliminary Drainage Report, soils present within the project site consist of Tujunga loamy sand and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand. This soil type is classified as Type A soil, which typically have low runoff potential with high infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist of deep, well-drained sands or gravels.
Under existing conditions, the project site consists of previously disturbed land and runoff generally flows from the northwest to the southwest.
Groundwater
As discussed in the Preliminary Drainage Report, groundwater on -site is estimated at a depth between 300 feet and 450 feet below ground surface (bgs) and is not anticipated to be a concern for this project.
Flood Hazard
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the project site being covered by one map panel, 06 071C8657H.4 No part of the project site is within a FEMA -mapped special flood hazard area. The project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.5 Water Quality
The amount of pollutants in the surface runoff is determined by the quantity of a material in the environment and its characteristics. In an urban environment, the quantity of certain pollutants in the stormwater systems is generally associated with the intensity of the land use. Within the middle Santa Ana River watershed, pathogens, harmful bacteria, and nitrates are pollutants of concern.6
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important applicable sections of the CWA are as follows:
https://water.weather.gov/precip/index.php?analysis_date=1546300800&lat=34.1204394164&location_name=sgx&l ocation_type=wfo&lon=-117.3842106189&precip_layer=0.75&product=departure&recent_type=false&rfc_layer=- 1&state_layer=-1&hsa_layer=-1&county_layer=-
1&time_frame=year2date&time_type=year&units=eng&zoom=14&domain=current#. Accessed October 2024. 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2024). National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.3667679130852,34.04522156648235,-117.32522585986149,34.06299944290883. Accessed October 2024. 5 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-3
▪ Section 301 prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person, except as in compliance with Sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of the CWA. Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
▪ Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to “waters of the United States” to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) provides certification.
▪ Section 402 establishes the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the RWQ CB and is discussed later in this section.
▪ Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The Federal Antidegradation Policy aims to protect and preserve the quality of water resources. It establishes guidelines to prevent the degradation of water bodies, including lakes, rivers, and streams.
The policy requires states to implement measures that maintain o r improve the existing water quality in areas designated as "high quality" or "outstanding national resource waters." Any proposed activities or projects that could potentially degrade the water quality must be carefully evaluated and limited to minimize t heir impact. The goal of the federal antidegradation policy is to ensure the long -term sustainability and health of the nation's water resources for future generations.
National Flood Insurance Program
The purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is to provide affordable flood insurance to property owners and communities that are at risk of flooding. The program was established by the federal government in 1968 to help mitigate the financial impact of flood damage and to encourage the adoption of floodplain management practices. The National Flood Insurance Policy enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance, which is not typically covered by standard homeowners' insurance policies. By offering flood insurance, the program aims to reduce the costs of recovery from flood events and promote the use of floodplain management regulations that help to minimize future flood damage. The NFIP also works to map flood risk areas and provide floodplain management assistance to communities to help them better understand and prepare for flooding.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES was implemented under the Clean Water Act in the United States. Compliance with the NPDES requires permits for any point source discharges of pollutants into the country's water bodies. The objective of the program is to protect water quality and prevent harm to the environment and human health from these discharges. The program is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-4
delegated to State agencies. NPDES permits establish specific requirements and limitations for entities that discharge pollutants.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974 to ensure the safety of drinking water within the United States. It is administered by the EPA. The act sets standards for drinking water quality and establishes regulations for public water systems to follow. It includes provisions for monitoring and testing water for contaminants, such as bacteria, chemicals, and pollutants. The act also requires public water systems to treat water to meet these standards and provide information to consumers about the qualit y of their drinking water. Overall, the Safe Drinking Water Act aims to protect public health by ensuring access to safe and clean drinking water for all Americans.
State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000, et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The Act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste ( liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the State. Waste discharge requirements (WDR) resulting from the report are issued by the RWQCB, as discussed below. In practice, these req uirements are typically integrated within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) carries out its water quality protection authority through the adoption of specific Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans). These plans establish water quality standards for particular bodies of water. California water quality standards are composed of three parts: the designation of beneficial uses of water, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and implementation programs designed to achieve and maintain compliance with the water quality objectives.
Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to issue 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 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 moving 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.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-5
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, 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 identif y 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 the Project’s Grading Plan and would be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGWMA) aims to ensure long -term sustainability of groundwater resources. Under this act, local groundwater management agencies are required to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans for priority g roundwater basins. The SGMA includes various objectives and requirements to establish a framework for sustainable groundwater management, which include avoiding significant and unreasonable groundwater level declines, preventing undesirable impacts on wate r quality, and achieving long -term groundwater sustainability within 20 years of implementing the ground sustainability plans. The act also emphasizes the importance of local control and provides opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans.
Regional and Local Regulations
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates State water quality standards in the City of Rialto (City). Beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface water and groundwater resources in the Project area are established in the water quality control plans of each RWQCB and mandated by the State Porter -Cologne Act and CWA. The RWQCB also implements the CCWA Section 303(d) total maximum daily load (TMDL) process, which consists of identifying candidate water bodies where water quality is impaired by the presence of pollutants. The TMDL process is implemented to determine the assimilative capacity of the water body for the pollutants of concern and to establish equitable allocation of the allowable pollutant loading within the w atershed. CWA Section 401 requires an applicant pursuing a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant to obtain a water quality certification (or waiver) from the applicable RWQCB.
The RWQCB primarily implements basin plan policies through issuing waste discharge requirements for waste discharges to land and water. The RWQCB is also responsible for administering the NPDES permit program, which is designed to manage and monitor point and non -point source pollution. NPDES stormwater permits for general construction activity are required for projects that disturb more than one acre of land. Municipal NPDES stormwater permits are required for urban areas with populations greater than 100,000. In addition, projects that involve the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-6
required to comply with the Caltrans Statewide NPDES permit and associated Stormwater Management Plan (SEMP). Caltrans implements the SEMP in coordination with the RWQCB.
City of Rialto General Plan
During project review, approval and permitting, the City requires new development projects to address the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff through the incorporation of permanent (post-construction) BMPs into the Project’s design.
The Rialto General Plan (General Plan) includes the following applicable policies related to flooding:
Goal 5-2 Create a more flood -safe community through development standards and infrastructure improvements.
Policy 5-2.2 Require the implementation of adequate erosion control measures for development projects to minimize sedimentation damage to drainage facilities.
Policy 5-2.6 Design new developments with water retention devices and permeable surfaces to minimize flooding of the surface drainage system by peak flows. Consult with water agencies and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to consider the potential for la rger-scale capture via diversion to large -scale spreading grounds or other options on a site-by-site basis.
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Section 4, Design Guidelines, and Section 6, Sustainability, of the 2010 RSP, include an outline of requirements to maintain suitable water quality in the 2010 RSP area.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site is zoned School, Public Park and Employment in the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA). The 2016 RSPA establishes the City’s planning concept, design, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesi ve development of the 2016 RSPA area. Development within the 2016 RSPA is required to conform to the City’s Water and Drainage Master Plans. Additionally, development is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Storm Water Qu ality Management Plan (S WQMP), when applicable.
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Section 12.60.260 Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Prior to the issuance of grading or building permit, the City requires the preparation and approval of a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) which shall identify BMPs that the project will incorporate to control both stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction activities.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-7
4.8.4 Methodology
Runoff calculations were prepared for each Drainage Area (DA) using the Modified Rational Method and the methodology described in Section D of the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. The CivilD hydrology software for San Bernardino County was used to estimate time of concentrations and 100 and 2-year peak flow rates generated from the existing and proposed conditions.
Unit hydrographs were prepared for each DA using the methodology described in Section E of the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual for determining the 100 -year storm water volumes . The CivilD hydrology software for San Bernardino County was used to estimate the 100 -year peak flow rate s and volumes over a 24-hour period for the proposed and existing conditions. Since the existing conditions, DA 2 hydrograph comprises of the proposed DA 2, 3, and 4 hydrographs, a volume per acre and flow per acre calculation was performed to equate an accurate comparison of existing and proposed conditions.
A stage -storage analysis in conjunction with the peak flow rates and volumes with CivilD hy drograph output was prepared for the purposes of sizing and analyzing the proposed underground chamber characteristics for each DA. The stage -storage analysis and the hydrographs from CivilD were imported into PondPack to determine the 100-year mitigated flow rate.
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ( PWQMP) was prepared to comply with the requirements of the City, San Bernardino County Municipal Storm Water Management Program, and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a SWQMP.
4.8.5 Impact Thresholds and Significant Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; iv Impede or redirect flood flows;
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-8
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.8-1 Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed Project would be typical of those used in comparable warehouse developments. Grading and earthmoving activities conducted during the proposed Project’s construction period may require the use of water for dust mitigation. Water from dust control and other liquids such as fuels, lubricants, and liq uid wastes can create runoff that would temporarily affect water quality.
Construction activities for the lot, infrastructure , and the storm drain system would require a NPDES Construction General Permit, obtained from the CalEPA, SWRCB. Prior to the issuance of a Construction General Permit, an approved SWPPP would need to be prepared for the Project. The SWPPP would identify si te-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff from the project site. BMPs are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the downstream surface water quality. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, the following:
Minimization of disturbed areas to the portion of the project site necessary for construction; ▪ Stabilization of exposed or stockpiled soils and cleared or graded slopes; ▪ Establishment of permanent re-vegetation or landscaping as early as is feasible; ▪ Removal of sediment from surface runoff before it leaves the project site by silt fences or other similar devices around the site perimeter;
▪ Diversion of upstream runoff around disturbed areas of the project site; ▪ Protection of all storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the project site to eliminate entry of sediment;
▪ Prevention of tracking soils and debris off-site through use of a gravel strip or wash facilities, which will be located at all construction exits from the project site; ▪ Proper storage, use, and disposal of construction materials, such as solvents, wood, and gypsum; and
▪ Continual inspection and maintenance of all BMPs through the duration of construction.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-9
Operations
The City requires a stormwater quality management plan (SWQMP) be prepared for any industrial/warehouse/commercial development of 100,000 sf or more. The SWQMP must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. The proposed Project’s PWQMP, included as Appendix I , addresses post-construction water quality. This Project proposes to infiltrate stormwater into subsurface infiltration basins. A minimum of one subsurface infiltration basin would be included at each bui lding. Stormwater would be captured and conveyed via roof drains, inlets, trench drains, and underground storm drain networks, and would ultimately be infiltrated and treated in the respective subsurface infiltration basin. The proposed basins would serve as both a water quality BMP as well as an underground storage facility.
The Project would require a Construction General Permit . To comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, the proposed Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP containing site- specific BMPs, which would reduce Project construction effects on water quality to acceptable levels. The Project has prepared a PWQMP specifically identifying BMPs that will be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non -stormwater pollutants during and after construction. Additionally, development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.8-2 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site is within the service area of the City of Rialto Water Services Department. The proposed Project would not include the use of groundwate r. Although the Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on -site, the proposed Project would include subsurface infiltration basins which would detain, infiltrate, and treat stormwater prior to discharging into the public storm drain system. The majority of sediment and debris carried by stormwater flows are captured in the underground chamber system using a pre -treatment unit. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report, groundwater is estimated at a depth between 300 feet and 450 feet bgs, and is not anticipated to be a concern for the proposed Project. Under existing conditions, the project site consists of predominantly pervious land with paved sidewalks along the eastern and western perimeter of the project site. The Project would include approximately 154,929 sf of landscaping throughout the project site, which would allow for stormwater Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-10
infiltration. Therefore, the proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems , the 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP) anticipates adequate regional supplies for years 2025 to 2045 under multiple-dry year conditions. The City determined that water demands would not increase during single of multiple dry years.7 Project implementation would not jeopardize ground water supplies in any of the underlying basins. No impact would occur.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.8-3 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? i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings on approximately 20.76 acres of vacant land. As such, Project construction would alter the project site’s existing drainage pattern. Each of the proposed warehouse buildings would have a minimum of one subsurface infiltration basin. Building 2 would utilize three subsurface infiltration basins. The proposed drainage facilities have been sized to adequately treat runoff water from the project site, and the project site does not include discharge to any streams or rivers. The Project has prepared grading plans as a part of the Precise Plan of Design (PPD) application and would also be required to prepare a SWPPP, which would include BMPs to minimize on- site and off-site erosion and siltation. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
7 SBVMWD. (2021a). 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9232/637614632546570000. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-11
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.8-3 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? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings and associated on-site improvements on vacant, previously disturbed land. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report, the project site is not located within a FEMA mapped special flood hazard area. The project site is classified as Zone X, which is an area of minimal flooding. The proposed Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings and associated on -and off-site improvements. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in surface runoff on the project site compared to the existing conditions. The proposed improvements may result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff.
Each of the proposed warehouses would have a minimum of one subsurface infiltration basin. Runoff would be conveyed and captured via roof drain, inlets, trench drains, and underground storm drain networks, prior to getting treated and infiltrated in the respective subsurface infiltration basin. The proposed drainage would include an underground storage facility to detain and mitigate the peak flow rates. Outlet pipes are proposed to discharge 100-year overflows into the existing 78-inch RCP storm along the proposed Miro Way alignment. The project site does not collect off -site flows from adjacent properties. Additionally, the Project would provide water quality by means of infiltration. Sediment bays are located within the underground chamber system for pretreatment of larger sediments and pollutants.
The underground chambers would treat the remaining pollutants of concern by means of infiltration. With implementation of the proposed drainage improvements, impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, it should be noted that d evelopment of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-12
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.8-4 Would the Project i n flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Level of Significance: No Impact
As previously discussed, the project site is classified as Zone X, which includes areas of minimal flooding.
Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. The project site is approximately 47 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, d ue to location, the Project would not be subject to seiche or tsunami related inundation that would risk the release of pollutants. Development of P lanning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable . No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.8-5 Would the Project c onflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As previously discussed, the proposed Project would require the preparation of a SWPPP , which would include BMPs to reduce potential impacts associated with construction related sources of pollution.
Additionally, as required by Section 12.60.260 of the Municipal Code, the Project is required to implement a WQMP. A PWQMP has been prepared for the proposed Project, which includes additional BMPs to control pollutants during construction and operation activities. With implementation of the Project - specific SWPPP and PWQMP, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-13
Furthermore, it should be noted that d evelopment of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts
The potential for hydrology and water quality impacts are the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed project site. Additionally, the area to the west of the proposed Project is currently in development. This area is defined under the 2016 RSPA. As development occurs, local surface and groundwater resources will be incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, which will decrease percolation and increase runoff and urban pollutants. In addition, the cumulative projects, including the proposed Project, will be required to prepare SWPPPs, which will prevent construction - related pollutants from contaminating stormwater. Larger, future development projects, including the proposed Project, will be required to prepare SWQMPs.
4.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.8
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Rialto 4.8-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-1
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.9.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the land use conditions for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) and discusses potential land use impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Project.
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site consists of vacant, primarily undeveloped land. The project site is located within the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) area located within the western/central portion of the City of Rialto (City), in San Bernadino County. The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133.
The project site is bordered by vacant land and industrial uses to the north, industrial and commercial uses to the south, Ayala Drive to the east, and Linden Avenue to the west.
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site has a General Plan designation of Specific Plan and is located within the 2016 RSPA Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park , and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The Project proposes to rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center. Permitted uses within the Business Center zone include larger industrial, distribution, and manufacturing uses. Additionally, the Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. Permitted uses within the General Commercial zone include convenience retail and service use such as gas stations, drug stores, car washes, medical offices, and restaurants. The Residential Overlay would allow for Planning Area 123 to retain the option to become Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and to accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the 2016 RSPA, as discussed in Section 6 of the 2016 RSPA.
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 is a legislation that aims to address climate change by promoting sustainable land use and transportation planning by reducing vehicle miles traveled and promote more sustainable and efficient transportation systems within California. The bill requires regional agencies to develop and implement a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their regional transportation plans. The purpose of a SCS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promoting compact development, and increasing transportation options. The bill encourages collaboration between local governments, transportation agencies, and other stakeholders to achieve these goals.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-2
Regional and Local Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documen tation under federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the Southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Caltrans, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed the Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy.
Regional Comprehensive Plan
SCAG’s 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) is a comprehensive, integrated policy plan that addresses regional issues related to growth management and development. The RCP provides a policy framework for preparing local plans and handling issues of regional significance, such as land use and housing, open space and biological habitats, water, energy, air quality, s olid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, economy, and education. The RCP advances regional planning by incorporating an integrated approach between SCAG, State and local governments, transportation commissions, resources agencies and conservation groups, the private sector, and the general public.
The Regional Housing N eeds Assessment is discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy is discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.5, Energy, Section 4. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.11, Population and Housing, and Section 4.14, Transportation, of this SEIR.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long -range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Section 4.9.2 of the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS identifies ten goals that fall into four categories: economy, mobility, environment and healthy/complete communities. The goals include the following:
1. Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness;
2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods;
3. Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system;
4. Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system; Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-3
5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality;
6. Support healthy and equitable communities;
7. Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network;
8. Leverage new transportation technologies and data -driven solutions that result in more efficient travel;
9. Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options; and
10. Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment is discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing.
City of Rialto General Plan
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan under the Rialto General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan is the comprehensive planning document governing development within the City, and contains goals, policies, and actions describing the community’s vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental protection. The Ge neral Plan establishes policies for the orderly growth and development of the City. 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.
A general plan functions as a guide for the type of community that is desired for the future and provides the means to achieve it. The City of Rialto General Plan contains the following chapters related to the State mandated elements required for a General Plan: Managing Our Land Supply; Investing in Our Future; Making the Connections: the Circulation Chapter; Safety and Noise; Housing Element; Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Preservation; Implementation Plan ; and Environmental Justice . The General Plan La nd Use Plan Map (Exhibit 2.2 of the Rialto General Plan) visually represents the physical relationship of all portions of the text, including development densities. The City has prepared a Focused General Plan Update (November 2024) , to the existing Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation Element.
Additionally, the Focused General Plan Update included the addition of the Environmental Justice Element.
Chapter 2: Managing Our Land Supply. The Managing Our Land Supply Chapter combines the elements of Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Conservation. Its purpose is to guide long-term physical changes while providing and conserving community and natural resources. The chapter establis hes the City's preferred land use patterns, guides the visual character of public places and private development, and creates conservation and protection plans for natural resources and open space. Its primary goal is to direct the use of the City's land resources in an equitable and productive manner to enhance the quality of life for residents and the overall community.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-4
Chapter 3: Investing In Our Future. The Investing In Our Future Chapter discusses the economic development, redevelopment, and infrastructure plans. With the goals and policies set forth in this Chapter, the City aims to address the economic needs of the community, focus on redevelopment of project areas within the City, and maintain reliable public utility infrastructure.
Chapter 4: Making the Connections: The Circulation Element. The Circulation Element is a required part of the General Plan and is designed to guide the development of the City's transportation system in line with the land use plan. Its purpose is to ensure that major roadways, transportation routes, and public utilities are coordinated with land use. The Circulation Element for t he City of Rialto considers the increasing demand for travel due to development and the growth of its logistics industry. The Circulation Element aims to create a system of Complete Streets that accommodates the needs of all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and public transportation users.
Chapter 5: The Safety and Noise Chapter. The City takes a proactive approach to planning by addressing hazards that may pose a threat to property and lives. These hazards include seismic and geologic hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, gangs, emergency response, and wind hazards. Although the City cannot prevent these hazards, it aims to minimize their effects through the goals and policies included in this chapter. Additionally, by addressing issues such as crime and hazardous materi als use, Rialto can better respond to emergency situations and protect the community.
Chapter 6: Housing Element. The Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan. The City is currently under its sixth cycle Housing Element 2021 – 2029. The Housing Element serves as a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for promoting the development of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all members of the community.
Chapter 7: Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Resources. The City recognizes the significance of its cultural and historical resources in shaping its identity and development. Through the goals and policies provided within this chapter, the City aims is to provide direction for preserving the City’s cultural an d historic resources.
Chapter 8: Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan serves as a guide for City officials, staff, and the public to implement the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. It translates the general terms of the General Plan into specific actions and measures. These measures can be existing processes or new programs that require City action and may be subject to funding availability. The measures are organized by General Plan elements and are intended to be used for the Annual Report on the City's progress in implementing the General Plan.
Chapter 9: Environmental Justice. Generally, environmental justice is defined as the basic right of people to live, work, go to school, play, and pray in a healthy and clean environment. Those in neighborhoods of lower income are more likely to be at a disadvantage when it comes to equal access to programs and places that make and keep us healthy. The Environmental Justice Element seeks to remedy this imbalance through goals and policies from six key environmental justice issues as outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 1000:
community engagement, pollution exposure, access to public facilities, access to healthy food, safe and sanitary housing, and physical activity. The purpose of this element is to ensure that the City of Rialto is a safe and healthy place with opportunities for everyone and to fo cus on goals that will improve communities and reduce inequities.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-5
The City of Rialto 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.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan. As such, the Project would adhere to the policies and standards of the 2016 RSPA.
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (2010 RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (2016 RSPA) builds off the previous 2010 RSP and serves as the zoning ordinance for properties within the 2016 RSPA area. For projects within the 2016 RSPA area, goals, policies, and development standards included in the 2016 RSPA take precedence over general policies and standards applied throughout the rest of the City.
The Project proposes the rezone of Planning Area 123 (north of Miro Way) from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. The Project would also include the rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133 (south of Miro Way) from Park and Employment (with a Designated Park overlay) to Business Center, to allow for the development of two industrial warehouses.
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 18 Zoning
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. According to the City’s zoning map, the project site is located within the 2016 RSPA area. As such, applicable requirements of the 2016 RSPA supersede requirement s of the Zoning Code.
4.9.4 Methodology
The pre-development conditions of the project site and surrounding area were used as the baseline to compare potential impacts associated with the Project. The analysis of the project site is based on the conditions of the site when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published. The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the level of impacts related to land use and planning. This a nalysis considers existing regulations, laws and standards that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. Where significant impa cts remain, feasible mitigation Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-6
measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or lessen the Project’s significant adverse impacts.
4.9.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Physically divide an established community; or
▪ 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.
4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.9-1 Would the Project physically divide an established community? Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project could have a significant environmental impact if it were sufficiently large or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other physical division within an established community. For example, the construction of a hig hway through an existing community could constrain travel from one side of the community to another, as well as the cohesiveness of that community.
The proposed Project would include the rezone of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 and the construction of a warehouse development on Planning Areas 126 and 133 and associated on -and off-site improvements. Access to the warehouse development would be provided via Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive. The warehouse development is bordered by vacant land and industrial uses to the north, industrial and commercial uses to the south, Ayala Drive to the east, and Linden Avenue to the west . The project site does not currently provide any connection to existing neighborhoods in the general area, nor does it provide connectivity or accessibility to other neighboring uses. As such, neither the residential development south of Baseline Road , Jerry Eaves Park to the east, or other existing or planned communities proximate to the project site would be ph ysically divided by the proposed Project. The Project does not propose features such as a highway or above -ground infrastructure that preclude or impede movement through the project site, such that a permanent disruption in the physical arrangement of the surrounding community or isolation of that community would occur. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development project related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in complianc e with CEQA, as applicable. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-7
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.9-2 Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Regional Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Consistent with the RCP, the proposed Project would bring new business to vacant l and with the construction of the proposed warehouse buildings, which would be consistent with the proposed Business Center zone change. The rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay would allow for future uses on Planning Area 123 to meet the needs of the residents, employees, and visitors to the RSPA area. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is not located directly adjacent to residential land uses. Project implementation would be consistent with the RCP.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Analysis Project relevant RTP/SCS goals and policies for land use and planning are addressed below.
Goal 1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Goal 4 Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Consistent with Goal 1, implementation of the Project would result in the development of two warehouses and would on-site provide trailer parking on vacant land and provide additional employment opportunities within the community. Additionally, consistent with Goal 4, the Project would support the movement of goods. Additionally, the Project would include on-site and pedestrian access to the project site (i.e., sidewalks). The Project is consistent with applicable goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
The RTP/SCS is discussed further in Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.11, Population and Housing, and Section 4.14, Transportation, of this SEIR.
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Project Relevant General Plan policies for land use and planning are addressed in Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis, below.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-8
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 2: Managing Our Land Supply
Goal 2 -9: Residential areas , schools,
parks, and other sensitive land uses are
protected from the impacts associated
with industrial and trucking -related
land uses.
Consistent. The project site is zoned School, Employment and Public Park.
The Project proposes to rezone the project site to Business Center and General Commercial with a Residential overlay. T he nearest sensitive receptor is Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the east of the project site and single-family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south . As discussed throughout the SEIR, Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive land uses. The Project would implement MM NOI-1 to protect sensitive receptors from construction activities through requiring construction equipment to not approach the construction buffer zone.
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 identifiable health risk
areas from excessive noise, hazardous
materials and waste releases, toxic air
pollutant concentrations and other
impacts.
Consistent. The nearest residential development to the project site is single-family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south.
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive land uses. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality , to reduce potential health impacts, the Project would implement MM AIR -2 through MM AIR -7, which would require , among other things, that emergency generators to meet CARB standards and the warehouse development to use zero emissions outdoor cargo handling equipment.
Policy 2 -9.2: Require all industrial
development to front on an improved
street with appropriate fro nt yard
setbacks, landscaping and façade and
entrance treatments.
Consistent. The 2016 RSPA development standards require a minimum 25-foot front setback. Building 1 would be set back approximately 98 feet the proposed Miro Way extension and Building 2 would be set back approximately 185 feet from the property line along the proposed Miro Way extension. Additionally, the warehouse development would include a landscaped perimeter.
Policy 2.9-5: Ensure that industrial land
uses minimize conflict with
surrounding incompatible uses
through building design and truck
restrictions.
Consistent. The proposed warehouse development is bordered by vacant land and industrial uses to the north, industrial and commercial uses to the south. Trucks would access the project site via Ayala Drive, Linden Avenue, and Miro Way.
Policy 2.9 -6: Locate smaller buildings
and less intensive uses within an
industrial development site closer to
adjacent residential uses, rather than
large or more intensive uses.
Consistent. The nearest residential uses to the project site are single- family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south. As discussed in Sections 4.2, Air Quality , and Section 4.10, Noise, Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive land uses.
Policy 2.9-7: Require warehousing and
industrial uses to incorporate natural
landscape materials (trees, shrubs, and
Consistent. The Project would include approximately 154,929 square feet (3.6 acres) of landscaping, which is approximately 17.1 percent of the warehouse development site. The proposed Project landscaping would be Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-9
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
hedges) to buffer differing land uses,
and provide a transition between
adjacent properties.
located along the boundaries of the warehouse development site and within parking areas, providing a visual buffer from adjacent uses and roadway users.
Policy 2.9 -8: For sites with access to
alleyways or other internal circulation
routes, locate industrial loading docks
away from public -facing streets to
reduce trucking -related impacts in
sensitive areas.
Consistent. The Project would include 6 dock doors on the eastern side of Building 1 and 36 dock doors on the southern side of Building 2. The dock doors would not be located adjacent to public streets, including the proposed extension of Miro Way.
Goal 2 -12: Design streetscapes in
Rialto to support and enhance the
City’s image as a desirable place to live,
work, shop, and dine.
Consistent. The Project would include landscaping around the perimeter of the warehouse development and throughout parking areas.
Policy 2-12.1: Require the screening of
commercial or industrial parking areas,
storage yards, stockpiles, and other
collections of equipment from the
public right-of-way.
Consistent. The Project would screen views of the warehouse development and associated on-site parking from existing land uses to the adjacent to the east, west, and south with the incorporation of the proposed landscaping.
Goal 2 -15: Protect scenic vistas and
scenic resources.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project site is not located within an area designated by the City as a scenic vista. Further, views of designated scenic resources from the project site area are limited by existing urban development.
Policy 2-15.1: Protect views of the San
Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains
by ensuring that building heights are
consistent with the scale of
surrounding, existing development.
Consistent. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 10 miles to the northwest and the San Bernardino Mountains are located approximately 18 miles to the east. The 2016 RSPA has a maximum height requirement of 75 feet. The proposed warehouse buildings would not exceed the maximum height requirement. Additionally, views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are currently limited by existing urban development.
Policy 2 -15.2: Protect views of the La
Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring
Mountains, Moreno Valley, and
Riverside by ensuring that building
heights are consistent with the scale of
surrounding, existing development.
Consistent. The La Loma Hills are located approximately 6.3 miles to the southeast, Jurupa Hills are located approximately 6.1 miles to the south, Box Springs Mountains are located approximately 9.8 miles to the southeast, the City of Moreno Valley is located approximately 15.7 miles to the southeast, and the City of Riverside is located approximately 9.9 miles to the south. Views of these scenic resources are currently limited and interrupted by distance and urban development.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-10
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2 -15.3: Ensure use of building
materials that do not produce glare,
such as polished metals or reflective
windows.
Consistent. The proposed building materials would be similar to that of existing industrial uses within the surrounding area. The proposed building materials would not be reflective and do not produce substantial glare.
Goal 2 -17: Improve the architectural
and design quality of development in
Rialto.
Consistent. The project site currently consists of undeveloped, previously disturbed land. Under existing conditions, the portions of the project site feature remnants of the previous Rialto Municipal Airport. The Project would include architecture consistent with existing industrial uses within the area as well as landscaping to improve the visual quality of the project site.
Policy 2 -17.1: Require new
development and construction to
exhibit a high level of quality
architectural design to emphasize
community uniqueness, individuality,
and historical references.
Consistent. The Project would be consistent with the development standards of the 2016 RSPA. Development of the proposed buildings would include a variety of materials and colors to reduce mass bulking of the proposed buildings. Additionally, the Project would include landscaping along the perimeter of the project site.
Policy 2-17.3: Discourage architectural
monotony.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-17.1.
Policy 2-17.4: Discourage the design of
boxy structures; emphasize
articulation of the front façade and the
horizontal plane with multi -story
structures.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-17.1.
Policy 2 –17.5: Require developers to
vary building and parking setbacks
along the streetscape to create visual
interest.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-9.2.
Policy 2 17.6: Require architectural
treatments on all facades facing rights-
of-way, public streets, and alleys,
including windows, doors,
architectural details, and landscape
treatment.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-17.1.
The Project would include landscaping along Miro Way, Ayala Drive, and Linden Avenue.
Goal 2-18: Provide high-quality and
environmentally sustainable
landscaping.
Consistent. The Project would include approximately 154,929 square feet (3.6 acres) of landscaping , which is approximately 17.1 percent of the warehouse development site. Landscaping would be included along the perimeter of the warehouse development and within parking areas.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-11
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Landscaping would include native plant species and drought -tolerant plant species.
Policy 2 -18.1: Require the planting of
street trees along public streets and
inclusion of trees and landscaping for
private developments to improve
airshed, minimize urban heat island
effect, and lessen impacts of high
winds.
Consistent. The Project would include approximately 3.6 acres of landscaping throughout the warehouse development . The proposed landscaping would include the planting of a variety of plant species, including trees. The proposed landscaping would be included along the perimeter of the warehouse development , including along Ayala Drive, Miro Way, and Linden Avenue, and within parking areas.
Policy 2 -18.3: Require the use of
drought-tolerant, native landscaping
and smart irrigation systems for new
development to lower overall water
usage.
Consistent. Landscaping would incorporate drought-tolerant plant species to lower the water usage of the Project.
Goal 2 -23: Promote commercial
and/or industrial development that is
well designed, people -oriented,
environmentally sustainable, sensitive
to the needs of the visitor or resident,
and functionally efficient for its
purpose.
Consistent. The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings. The design of the proposed development would require City approval prior to construction. Project implementation would provide employment opportunities.
Policy 2 –23.1: Require that
developments incorporate varied
planes and textures and variety in
window and door treatments on
building façades.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-17.1.
Policy 2 -23.2: Encourage architecture
which disaggregates massive buildings
into smaller parts with greater human
scale.
Consistent. The proposed warehouse buildings would be one story buildings and would not exceed the maximum height requirement of 75 feet of the 2016 RSPA . The Project would use a variety of building materials and colors to reduce the overall sense of perceived mass. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the Project would not result in significant visual impacts.
Policy 2-23.3: Require that landscaping
be incorporated into commercial and
industrial projects to define and
emphasize entrances, inclusive of
those areas along the front of a
building facing a parking lot.
Consistent. Landscaping would be included throughout the warehouse development. Landscaping would include various plant species and would include native plant species and drought -tolerant plant species. To emphasize the entrance of the warehouse development , landscaping would include pedestrian walkways, plantings, and lighting to create a visually appealing entrance.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-12
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2 -23.5: Require developments
to provide pedestrian and vehicle
connections and pathways between
parking lots at the rear and front of
buildings.
Consistent. Vehicle access to the warehouse development would be provided via three full access driveways (one located on Ayala Drive and two located on Miro Way), and one passenger vehicle only driveway located on Ayala Drive. Pedestrian access to and within the warehouse development would be provided via the sidewalks along Ayala Drive, Linden Avenue, and the proposed Miro Way extension.
Policy 2-23.6: Require delivery areas to
be separated from pedestrian areas.
Consistent. The Project would include loading docks and trailer parking, which would be separate from passenger vehicle parking. The Project would include pedestrian walkways from parking areas to each of the proposed buildings to provide safe pedestrian access.
Policy 2 -23.8: Insist that full
architectural treatments and details be
provided on all facades visible to the
street of development projects.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2-17.1.
Goal 2-24: Minimize the visual impact
of parking lots
Consistent. The Project would include landscaping along the property boundaries and within parking areas to screen views of parking areas from adjacent land uses and roadway users.
Policy 2-24.2: Encourage the inclusion
of textured paving along pedestrian
walkways and under building canopies.
Consistent. The Project would include pedestrian walkways throughout the project site. Design details of pedestrian walkways to be finalized prior to Project approval.
Policy 2-24.3: Require use of drainage
improvements designed, with native
vegetation where possible, to retain or
detain water runoff and minimize
pollutants into drainage system.
Consistent. Landscaping would be included throughout the warehouse development to retain runoff. The proposed landscaping would include native plant species.
Goal 2 -29: Protect and enhance
Rialto’s surface waters and
groundwater basins.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4. 8, Hydrology and Water Quality , to protect the City’s surface waters and groundwater basins, the Project has prepared a project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Both the SWPPP and WQMP would include measures to protect wate r quality during Project construction and operation.
Policy 2-29.3: Design sidewalks, roads,
and driveways to minimize impervious
surfaces; provide flood control
channels with permeable bottoms to
help restore groundwater aquifers.
Consistent. The warehouse development would include approximately
3.6 acres of landscaping ( 17.1 percent of the warehouse development).
The remaining 17.16 acres of the warehouse development would be impervious, which would include building area, pedestrian walkways, driveways, and surface parking. The proposed driveways and sidewalks would be designed in accordance with City code.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-13
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2 –29.5: Apply methodologies
and assign responsibility to protect the
quality of groundwater from pollution
by landfills and industrial uses.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2 -24.3. As discussed in Section
4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, to protect the City’s surface waters and groundwater basins, the Project has prepared a project -specific SWPPP and WQMP. Both the SWPPP and WQMP would include measures to protect water quality during Project construction and operation.
Goal 2-30: Conserve water resources. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Rialto Water Services is anticipated to have water supply capacity to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The proposed industrial uses would require minimal water consumption during operation.
Policy 2 -30.1: Require new
development to use features,
equipment, technology, landscaping,
and other methods to reduce water
consumption.
Consistent. Landscaping would be included throughout the warehouse development and would include drought-tolerant and native vegetation, requiring minimal water consumption . Additionally, The proposed industrial use would require minimal water consumption during operation and the Project would comply with all applicable requirements and Green Building Standards, including those related to water conservation.
Goal 2-31: Incorporate green building
and other sustainable building
practices into development projects.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the requirements of the applicable Green Building Standards, which includes requirements for construction waste reduction, selection of construction material and conservation.
Policy 2 -31.1: 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.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 2-31.
Policy 2 -31.2: 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.
Consistent. The Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code . 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.
Policy 2 -31.3: 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.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, and per Title 24, Part 11, of the California Administrative Code , the Project 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.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-14
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2-32: Conserve energy resources. Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-31.2.
To conserve energy resources, the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Policy 2 -32.1: Require the
incorporation of energy conservation
features into the design of all new
construction and site development
activities.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-31.2.
The Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code . In addition, the Project would include drought tolerant landscaping.
Goal 2 -35: 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.
Consistent. Per Municipal Code Section 8.08.570 - Compliance with CALGreen recycling requirements, all applicants for new construction are required to adhere to all required components of the California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11, known as CALGreen, if its project is covered by the scope of CALGreen or more stringent requirements of the City. If the requirements of CALGreen are more stringent than the requirements of this section, the CALGreen requirements shall apply.
Policy 2-35.2: Utilize source reduction,
recycling, and other appropriate
measures to reduce the amount of
solid waste generated in Rialto that is
disposed of in landfills.
Consistent. The Project would include measures to recycle during construction and operation when feasible. Per Muni cipal Code Section
8.08.570 - Compliance with CALGreen recycling requirements, the Project would be required to comply with CALGreen requirements and applicable law related to management of construction and demolition material, including diversion of Organic Waste in C&D fro m disposal. Comply with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code , and all written and published City policies and/or administrativ e guidelines regarding the collection, recycling, diversion, tracking, and/or reporting of construction and demolition material, thus reducing the amount of solid waste generated.
Policy 2-35.3: Encourage the maximum
diversion from landfills of construction
and demolition materials through
recycling and reuse programs.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2 -31.3. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, and per Title 24, Part 11 of the California Administrative Code , a pproximately 50 percent of Project construction and demolition waste would be diverted from landfills.
Goal 2 -36: Reduce air pollution
emissions from both mobile and
stationary sources in the City.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, to reduce potential impacts to air quality, the Project would implement Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations ( LORs) LOR AQ-1 through LOR AQ-6, Project mitigation measures MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7, and 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-14. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce air pollution emissions through efficient building and site design, the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program , and training of staff of current CARB regulations.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-15
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2 -36.2: Require that new
development projects incorporate
design features that encourage
ridesharing, transit use, park and ride
facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian
circulation.
Consistent. Pedestrian access to the warehouse development would be available via the proposed sidewalk along the proposed Miro Way extension. The project would not conflict with the Bicycle / Pedestrian Circulation Plan identified in 2016 RSPA Figure 3-17 or existing or planned transit facilities. The Project would be subject to City design review and subject to the requirements of the 2016 RSPA including preferred parking for high -occupancy vehicles/carpool/vanpool, and bicycle parking provided at nonresidential uses.
Policy 2-36.3: Establish a balanced land
use pattern, and facilitate
developments that provide jobs for
City residents in order to reduce
vehicle trips citywide.
Consistent. Upon approval of the proposed rezone, the proposed development would be consistent with the Business Center zone. Project implementation would create employment opportunities within the City.
Policy 2 -36.4: 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.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality , Project implementation would not produce noxious odors. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast and single-family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south of the project site. The Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on-site improvements. Project operation is not anticipated to result in a substantial amount of noxious odors beyond the limits of the project site.
Goal 2 -37: Reduce the amount of
fugitive dust released into the
atmosphere.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality , t o reduce fugitive dust, the Project would implement LOR AQ -1, which requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
Policy 2 -37.1: Put conditions on
discretionary permits to require
fugitive dust controls.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 2-36.
Policy 2 -37.2: Support programs and
policies of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District regarding
restrictions on grading and operations
at construction projects.
Consistent. The Project would incorporate 2016 RSPA Mitigation Measure AQ-8 and Project Mitigation Measures MM AIR-6 and MM AIR-7, which would require the Project to be consistent with applicable SCAQMD standards.
Policy 2-37.3: Enforce regulations that
do not allow vehicles to transport
aggregate or similar material upon a
roadway unless the material is
stabilized or covered.
Consistent. The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings. Trucks transporting aggregate or similar material would be required to comply with applicable requirements for transportation of aggregate materials , such as California Vehicle Code Section 23114, which requires vehicles transporting loose materials to be covered.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-16
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2 -39: Mitigate against climate
change.
Consistent. To mitigate against climate change, the Project would include mitigation measures MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -4, which would require solar panels, LEED certification, recyclable collection, and low - water use landscaping , as discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and MM AIR-2, which would require implementation of a TDM to reduce use of single occupant vehicles, as discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality.
Policy 2 -39.1: 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.
Consistent. As further discussed in Section 4. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would comply with applicable regulations, including SB 32 and SB 375. The Project would implement standard mitigation measures and LORs, to reduce impacts associated with GHGs.
Implementation of the Project would be considered infill development as it would include development on currently vacant and underutilized land.
Policy 2 -39.3: Provide enhanced
bicycling and walking infrastructure,
and support public transit, including
public bus service, the Metrolink, and
the potential for Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT).
Consistent. See consistency analysis related to Policy 2 -36.2, above.
Further, the Project would include pedestrian access to the warehouse development via the proposed Miro Way extension.
Goal 2 -40: Conserve and enhance
Rialto’s biological resources.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources , with the implementation of MM BIO -1a through MM BIO -4c, Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts associated with biological resources. Mitigation would require habitat surveys, pre- construction surveys, and consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the event avoidance is not possible, and the removal of habitat that supports nests would occur outside of breeding season.
Policy 2 -40.1: Protect endangered,
threatened, rare, and other special
status habitat and wildlife species
within and along Lytle Creek by
working with the United States Wildlife
Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game to establish Natural
Community Conser vation Plans,
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or
other established biological resource
protection mechanisms within this
sensitive area.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO -4c require construction best management practices, habitat surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl pre-construction surveys, consultation with CDFW in the event avoidance is not possible, and the removal of habitat that supports nests to occur outside of breeding season.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-17
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2 -40.2: Pursue open space,
wildlife corridors, or conservation
easements to protect sensitive species
and their habitats.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2.40-1.
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the project site does not include wildlife corridors. Potential impacts to sensitive species and their habitats are discussed further in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The Project would include MM BIO -1A through MM BIO -4c to reduce potential impacts to biological resources.
Chapter 3: Investing in Our Future: Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Infrastructure Goal 3-1: Strengthen and diversify the
economic base and employment
opportunities and maintain a positive
business climate.
Consistent. The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings, which would employ 147 employees during operation. The proposed warehouses and trailer parking would address industrial needs within the City.
Policy 3 -1.4: Encourage the
consolidation of smaller lots of
industrial and commercial areas to
attract larger industrial businesses or
commercial projects.
Consistent. The Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on -site improvements, resulting in an increase in industrial uses within the City.
Policy 3-1.7: Encourage employers to
hire residents of the immediate area
with incentives such as a reduction in
licensing fees.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, future employees of the Project are anticipated to be residents of the City and surrounding areas.
Goal 3 -8: Promote affordable and
quality water service capable of
adequately meeting normal and
emergency water demands to all
areas in Rialto.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality , water services would be provided by Rialto Water Services , which is anticipated to have adequate supplies to serve the project site during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Policy 3 -8.1: Require that all new
development or expansion of existing
facilities bear the cost of expanding
the water system to handle the
increased demands which they are
expected to generate.
Consistent. Water services to the project site would be provided by Rialto Water Services. The Project would include connections to existing facilities located within Ayala Drive and Miro Way . As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would not require expansion of existing facilities.
Policy 3-8.9: Conserve potable water
and utilize reclaimed water for
meeting landscaping and irrigation
demands as much as possible.
Consistent. The Project would include new connections to water facilities located within Ayala Drive and Miro Way . As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the 2010 RSP EIR evaluated water usage for the City, and it is anticipated that the City has an adequate water supply to serve the Project . The proposed landscaping would incorporate drought -tolerant plant species and reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-18
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 3-8.10: Support water
conservation through requirements
for landscaping with drought -tolerant
plants and efficient irrigation for all
new development and City projects.
Consistent. The Project would include approximately 3.6 acres of landscaping. The proposed landscaping plans would include the incorporation of drought-tolerant plant species and reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.
Goal 3 -9: Upgrade and maintain an
improved wastewater system with
adequate plant efficiency and
capacity to protect the health and
safety of Rialto residents, businesses,
and institutions.
Consistent. The Project would include the connections to existing wastewater system located within Ayala Drive and would not require the construction or expansion of existing wastewater facilities , as discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems. Wastewater services would be provided by Rialto Water Services. The Project would comply with applicable wastewater regulations.
Policy 3 -9.1: Require that all new
development or expansion of existing
facilities bear the cost of expanding
the wastewater disposal system to
handle the increased loads which they
are expected to generate.
Consistent. Wastewater services would be provided by Rialto Water Services. The Project proposes to connect to existing wastewater facilities located within Ayala Drive. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems , the Project would result in a minimal increase in wastewater and the existing facilities of the Rialto Water Services would adequately serve the project site.
Policy 3-9.2: Evaluate the wastewater
disposal system routinely to ensure its
adequacy to meet changes in demand
and changes in types of waste.
Consistent. Wastewater produced by the Project would be treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). As further discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would not require the expansion of wastewater facilities and the City has adequate capacity to serve the Project.
Goal 3 -10: Minimize the volume of
solid waste that enters local and
regional landfills.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, solid waste services would be provided by the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill, which is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project. The Project would include recyclable collection to reduce solid waste volume of Project implementation.
Policy 3-10.2: Encourage the recycling
of construction and demolition
materials in an effort to divert these
items from entering landfills.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, solid waste services would be provided by the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill, which is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project. As discussed in the consistency analysis for Policy 2 -30.3 and Goal 2 -34, the Project would recycle construction materials when feasible to minimize solid waste entering landfills.
Chapter 4: Making the Connections: The Circulation Chapter Goal 4 -1: Provide transportation
improvements to reduce traffic
congestion associated with regional
and local trip increases.
Consistent. The Project would include the extension of Miro Way from Linden Avenue to Ayala Drive. The proposed extension would provide both truck and passenger vehicle access to the project site. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts and mitigation is not required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-19
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 4-1.17: Require new streets and
improvements to connect to
established streets.
Consistent. The Project would include the extension of Miro Way from Linden Avenue to Ayala Drive.
Policy 4 -1.20: Design City streets so
that signalized intersections operate at
Level of Service (LOS) D or better
during the morning and evening peak
hours, and require new development
to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade
LOS below that level. The one
exception will be Riverside Avenue
south of the Metrolink tracks all the
way to the City’s southern border,
which can operate at LOS E.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, under Project implementation, Project roadways and intersections would operate at LOS D or better.
Note: LOS is not considered under CEQA to evaluate traffic impacts.
Policy 4 -1.21: Design City streets so
that unsignalized intersections operate
with no vehicular movement having an
average delay greater than 120
seconds during the morning and
evening peak hours, and require new
development to mitigate traffic
impacts that increase delay above that
level.
Consistent. As discussed in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Appendix K), the Project implementation would not result in a delay over 120 seconds at Project intersections.
Note: LOS is not considered under CEQA to evaluate traffic impacts.
Goal 4 -2: Protect residential
neighborhoods from through traffic
impacts.
Consistent. The nearest residential land use include s single-family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south of the project site.
In order to accommodate truck traffic while protecting residential areas within the City , the City has developed designated truck routes.
Additionally, City Ordinance 1684, which, in accordance with California Vehicle Code 35703, allows for local deliveries on roadways not identified as commercial truck routes. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, trucks would enter the project site from the SR 210 freeway by using the Alder Avenue/SR 210 interchange, head south on Alder Avenue, then head east on Baseline Road, and then north on Ayala Drive to Miro Way to access the project site. Trucks exiting the project site to access the SR 210 freeway would head east on Miro Way, then south on Ayala Drive, west on Baseline Road, and then north on Alder Avenue to access the SR 210 freeway. The Project would be consistent with City Ordinance 1684, and therefore would be consistent with the City’s goal to p rotect residential neighborhoods from through traffic impacts.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-20
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 4-2.1: Locate new development
and their access points in such a way
that traffic is not encouraged to utilize
local residential streets for access to
the development and its parking.
Consistent. See consistency discussion for Goal 4-2, above. Further, access to the warehouse development would be provided via three full access driveways (two located on Miro Way and one located on Ayala Drive) and one passenger vehicle only driveway (located on Ayala Drive).
Policy 4 -2.2: Discourage non -local
traffic from using neighborhood
streets.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Goal 4 -2 and Policy 4 -2.1.
Consistent with the City Ordinance 1684, the Project would use designated truck routes with the exception of roadways providing immediate local access to the project site.
Goal 4 -8: Establish and maintain a
comprehensive system of pedestrian
trails and bicycle routes that provide
viable connections throughout the
City.
Consistent. The Project would provide pedestrian pathways throughout the project site to provide pedestrian access. The Project would be subject to City design review and subject to the requirements of the 2016 RSPA including bicycle parking provided at nonresidential uses.
Policy 4 -8.5: Require major
developments to include bicycle
storage facilities, including bicycle
racks and lockers.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 4-8. The Project would comply with design review and conditions of approval regarding bicycle racks to be implemented as part of the Project.
Goal 4-9: Promote Walking. Consistent. The Project would include a sidewalk along the Project frontage on Miro Way to provide pedestrian access to the warehouse development.
Policy 4 -9.1: Install sidewalks where
they are missing, and make
improvements to existing sidewalks for
accessibility purposes. Priority should
be given to needed sidewalk
improvement near schools and activity
centers. Provide wider sidewalks in
areas with higher pedestrian volumes.
Consistent. The Project would include sidewalks along the proposed extension of Miro Way to provide pedestrian access to the warehouse development from Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive.
Policy 4 -9.2: Require sidewalks and
parkways on all streets in new
development.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 4-9.
Policy 4 -9.4: Accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists — in
addition to automobiles — when
considering new development
projects.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2-35.2 above. Further, the Project would include the extension of Miro Way to provide vehicle access to the warehouse development as well as passenger vehicle parking on-site. Pedestrian access would be provided via the proposed sidewalk along the Project frontage on Miro Way.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-21
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 4 -9.6: Encourage new
development to provide pedestrian
paths through projects, with outlets
to adjacent collectors, secondaries,
and arterial roadways.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 4-9.4.
The proposed sidewalk would connect to existing sidewalks along Ayala Drive.
Policy 4-9.7: Require ADA compliance
on all new or modified handicap
ramps.
Consistent. Handicap ramps located on -site would comply with ADA requirements.
Goal 4 -10: Provide a circulation
system that supports Rialto’s position
as a logistics hub.
Consistent. The Project would include the extension of Miro Way to Ayala Drive, to provide adequate site access for the Project.
Policy 4 -10.1: Designate and enforce
truck routes for use by commercial
trucking as part of the project
approval process.
Consistent. Trucks travelling to and from the warehouse development would use existing truck routes to access the warehouse development.
Trucks travelling to the project site would enter the project site from the SR 210 freeway by using the Alder Avenue/ SR 210 interchange, head south on Alder Avenue, then head east on Baseline Road, and then north on Ayala Drive to Miro Way to access the project site. Trucks exiting the project site to access the SR 210 freeway would head east on Miro Way, then south on Ay ala Drive, west on Baseline Road, and then north on Alder Avenue to access the SR 210 freeway.
Policy 4 -10.3: Develop appropriate
noise mitigation along truck routes to
minimize noise impacts on nearby
sensitive land uses.
Consistent. Trucks travelling to the project site would exit SR 210 and follow Ayala Drive southbound, to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is single -family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south and Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast of the project site . As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, to reduce noise impacts the Project would incorporate mitigation measures N-1 and N-2 of the 2016 RSPA, which would require co nstruction activities shall be limited to the City’s allowable hours of construction activities in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance , and a ll construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features. Additionally, during operational activities, heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be 45.6 dBA at the nearest single -family residences and 40.2 dBA at Jerry Eaves Park, which are below the City’s exterior noise standards.
Noise from back-up alarms produced by medium and heavy -duty trucks reversing into loading docks would be 50.9 dBA at the nearest single - family residences and 45.6 dBA at Jerry Eaves Park, which are below the City’s exterior noise standards.
Policy 4 -10.4: Encourage the
development of adequate on -site
loading areas to minimize
interference of truck loading activities
Consistent. According to Municipal Code Section 18.58.030 , The Project would be required to include a total of 8 loading spaces . The Project Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-22
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
with efficient traffic circulation on
adjacent roadways.
would include 71 dock doors, exceeding the City’s requirement for the project site.
Chapter 5: The Safety and Noise Chapter
Goal 5 -1: Continue to build the City’s
fire protection and prevention
programs and requirements to
minimize fire hazards.
Consistent. Project implementation would adhere to requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC). As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, the Project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which includes a fire protection services development fee to fund fire facilities and apparatus necessary for the safety of new development.
Policy 5-1.3: Require that all site plans,
subdivision plans, and building plans
be reviewed by the Fire Department to
ensure compliance with appropriate
fire regulations.
Consistent. The proposed buildings would be designed to comply with the current CFC. As determined in Section 4.12, Public Services, it is expected that the Rialto Fire Department would adequately serve the project site and does not require the construction or expansion of existing fire services facilities. Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which includes a fire protection services development fee to fund fire facil ities and apparatus necessary for the safety of new development. As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, the Project would be developed in compliance with all applicable fire regulations, and the Rialto Fire Department would review the site plans and building plans for compliance.
Goal 5 -2: Create a more flood -safe
community through development
standards and infrastructure
improvements.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is not located with a designated flood hazard area.
Stormwater runoff would be conveyed for the proposed drainage systems on-site and landscaping would allow for additional infiltration.
Policy 5 –2.4: Require the
implementation of adequate erosion
control measures for development
projects to minimize sedimentation
damage to drainage facilities.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project has prepared a SWPPP and WQMP, which include erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize potential impacts associated with erosion.
Policy 5 –2.6: Design new
developments with water retention
devices and permeable surfaces to
minimize flooding of the surface
drainage system by peak flows. Consult
with water agencies and the San
Bernardino County Flood Control
District to consider the potential for
larger-scale capture via diversion to
large-scale spreading grounds or other
options on a site-by-site basis.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed drainage would be conveyed and captured via roof drain, inlets, trench drains, and underground storm drain networks, prior to getting treated and infiltrated in the respective subsurface infiltration basin.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-23
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 5 -5: Minimize impacts to public
health, safety, and welfare as a result
of seismic and geologic hazards.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations , the Project would not result in significant impacts regarding geotechnical hazards. The Project would comply with CBC standards to minimize geotechnical hazards on-site.
Policy 5 -5.1: 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 paid to
areas within Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 5-5.
As discussed in Section 5,0, Other CEQA Considerations, the project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active fault traverses the project site. The nearest fault zone is the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately 2.6 miles east of the project site.
Policy 5 -5.2: 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.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 5-5.
The Project would comply with the UBC, CBC, and the City’s Municipal Code.
Goal 5–8: Ensure that first responders
and the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) have adequate capacity to
respond to hazard events.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, the Project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees, which would fund the needs of fire protection and police protection services.
Funding from the development impact fees would ensure the public services would have the resources to adequately serve the Project.
Policy 5 –8.7: Require that
development be phased in relation to
the City’s ability to provide an
adequate level of fire protection,
pursuant to the City standard of cover
and fire department strategic plan.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 5-1.3.
Goal 5 -10: Provide effective and
comprehensive policing services that
meet the safety needs of Rialto.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services , Police protection services for the Project would be provided by the Rialto Police Department. The Project would result in a minimal increase in police protection demand, and it is anticipated that the Rialto Police Department would adequately serve the Pro ject. Additionally, the warehouse development would include Crime Prevention Through Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-24
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Environmental Design (CPTED) measures (such as lighting and fencing) to reduce the potential of criminal activity on-site.
Policy 5-10.3: Continue to encourage
design concepts that inhibit and
discourage criminal behavior such as
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
techniques.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Goal 5-10.
The warehouse development would include lighting on -site for security purposes.
Goal 5 -12: Minimize the impact of
point source and ambient noise levels
throughout the community.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1 0, Noise, the Project would not exceed the applicable noise thresholds during construction, and Project operation would generate ambient noise levels below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard.
Policy 5-12.2: Consider noise impacts
as part of the development review
process, particularly the location of
parking, ingress/egress/loading, and
refuse collection areas relative to
surrounding residential development
and other noise-sensitive land uses.
Consistent. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single- family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south and Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast of the project site. As discussed in Section 4.1 0, Noise, the Project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Dock doors and parking areas would be screened from sensitive receptors by landscaping.
Policy 5-12.3: Ensure that acceptable
noise levels are maintained near
schools, hospitals, and other noise
sensitive areas in accordance with the
Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal
Code) and noise standards contained
in Exhibit 5.5 ( Table 4.1 0-2: Rialto
Noise Guidelines for Land Use
Planning).
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 5-12.2.
As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, Project implementation would comply with the City’s noise level standards.
Policy 5 -12.4: Limit the hours of
operation at all noise generation
sources that are adjacent to noise -
sensitive areas.
Consistent. Due to the speculative nature of the Project, operations were assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site includes single -family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south and Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast and of the project site. As further discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, due to distance from the nearest sensitive receptor, noise impacts would be less than significant.
Policy 5 -12.5: Require all exterior
noise sources (construction
operations, air compressors, pumps,
fans and leaf blowers) to use available
noise suppression devices and
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 5-12.2.
Project construction would occur within the City’s restrictions for construction hours.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-25
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
techniques to reduce exterior noise to
acceptable levels that are compatible
with adjacent land uses.
Goal 5 -13: Minimize the impacts of
transportation-related noise.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, the Project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways from daily activities, resulting in an increase in vehicular noise in the Project area. However, Project operation would not result in a noise increase greater than the 3.0 dBA increase significance threshold.
Policy 5 -13.3: Require development
of truck -intensive uses to minimize
noise impacts on adjacent uses
through appropriate site design.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 5-12.2.
As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. Heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be 45.6 dBA for the residential land use to the south, which would not exceed the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA).
Chapter 7: Our Roots: Cultural and Historical Resources Goal 7 -1: Preserve Rialto’s significant
historical resources as a source of
community identity, stability, aesthetic
character, and social value.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, no previously identified cultural resources are located within the project site . The Project would implement MM CUL -1, to reduce potential impacts to historical resources. Requirements of these mitigation measures include retaining a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the find.
Policy 7-1.1: Protect the architectural,
historical, agricultural, open space,
environmental, and archaeological
resources in Rialto.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, no previously identified cultural resources are located within the project site. T he Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. The Project would implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, which would require a qualified archaeo logist to be retained to evaluate the significance of finds in the unanticipated event that unknown resources are encountered and comply with applicable legal requirements related to the unanticipated discovery of human remains.
The Project would include the rezone of Planning Area, 126, Public Park, to accommodate the proposed warehouse development.
The Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards of the 2016 RPSA, and architectural design of the proposed warehouses would be similar to that of existing industrial uses within the City.
Additional potential environmental impacts associated with Project implementation are analyzed throughout this SEIR.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-26
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 7 -3: Identify, document, and
protect significant archaeological
resources in Rialto.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, no previously identified cultural resources are located within the project site . To reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources, the Project would implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-2.
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.
Consistent. As further discussed, in Section 4.4 Cultural Resources , a Project-specific Cultural Resources Letter Report has been prepared for the Project (Appendix E ). No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were found during the pedestrian survey of the project site conducted by ASM. Therefore, there is a low archaeological sensitivity for project site. The Cultural Resources Letter Report did not identify any known cultural resources on-site.
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.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 7-1.1.
As discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project would not result in significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project would implement MM CUL -2, which would require compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Policy 7 -3.3: Avoid impacts to
potentially significant prehistoric and
historical archaeological resources and
sites containing Native American
human remains consistent with State
law.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 7-1.1 and Policy 7-3.2.
Policy 7 -3.4: Reduce adverse impacts
to significant archaeological resources
that cannot be protected in place
through data recovery excavations.
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 7-1.1 and Policy 7-3.2.
Chapter 9: Environmental Justice
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-27
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 9 –3: Establish and maintain a
comprehensive system of pedestrian
trails and bicycle routes that provide
viable connections throughout the City
(Circulation Element Goal 4 -8) and
prioritize implementation in
Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)
with limited walking and biking
infrastructure.
Consistent. The Project would include sidewalks throughout the project site to provide pedestrian access. The Project would be subject to City design review and subject to the requirements of the 2016 RSPA including bicycle parking provided at nonresidential uses.
Policy 9 –3.5: Require major
developments to include bicycle
storage facilities, including bicycle
racks and lockers (Circulation Element
Policy 4-8.5).
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 9-3.
Goal 9 –4: Increase Safe and
Comfortable Walking and Wheelchair
Mobility
Consistent. The Project would include sidewalks throughout the project site to provide safe pedestrian access to and around the warehouse development.
Policy 9 -4.1: Require that new
development projects incorporate
design features that encourage
ridesharing, transit use, park and ride
facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian
circulation (Land Use, Community
Design, Open Space, and Conservation
Element Policy 2-36.2).
Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-36.2.
Policy 9–4.6: Require ADA compliance
on all new or modified handicap ramps
(Circulation Element Policy 4-9.7).
Consistent. Handicap ramps located on the project site would comply with ADA requirements.
Goal 9–5: Reduce air pollution impacts
in DACs.
Consistent. Air quality impacts associated with Project implementation are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. The Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts with the implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Additionally, a Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the Project to evaluate health risks to the surrounding community, and it determined that impacts related to health risk from the Project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AI R-7, which requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment (yard trucks and forklifts) to be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators to be Tier 4 certified.
Policy 9–5.2: Locate new development
and their access points in such a way
that traffic is not encouraged to utilize
Consistent. Access to the project site would be provided from Ayala Drive and Miro Way . Truck traffic associated with the Project would not use local residential roadways.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-28
Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
local residential streets for access to
the development and its parking
(Circulation Element Policy 4-2.1).
Policy 9 –5.5: Apply conditions of
approval to any industrial or
warehouse use to minimize the public
health impact of that use. Build on
existing City and Regional Agency
efforts to create a menu of mitigation
options including but not limited to
building and parking or ientation,
vegetation and sound buffers, truck
route compliance enforcement, zero
emission truck usage, solar panel
installation, and air filtration systems.
Consistent. See consistency with Goal 9-5.
The nearest sensitive receptor is Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the east of the project site and single -family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south. Trucks travelling to the project site would enter the project site from the SR 210 freeway by using the Alder Avenue/ SR 210 interchange, head south on Alder Avenue, then head east on Baseline Road, and then north on Ayala Drive to Miro Way to access the project site. Trucks exiting the project site to access the SR 210 freeway would head east on Miro Way, then south on Ayala Drive, west on Baseline Road, and then north on Alder Avenue to access the SR 210 freeway. Trucks would not travel along residential roads.
Goal 9 –6: Proactively address
hazardous waste and water pollution
concerns where possible, and
aggressively pursue actions that
correct spills and contamination when
it occurs.
Consistent. As discussed in Sections 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with either hazards and hazardous materials or hydrology and water quality. The Project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazards and water quality.
Policy 9–6.4: Apply methodologies and
assign responsibility to protect the
quality of groundwater from pollution
by landfills and industrial uses (Land
Use, Community Design, Open Space,
and Conservation Element Policy
2-29.5).
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. The Project would comply with regulations to protect water quality such as preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP, which would include measures to protect water quality during Project construction and operation.
Source: City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/653/General-Plan. Accessed March 2023.
The Project would comply with the 2016 RSPA development standards, as discussed in Table 4.9- 2: 2016 RSPA Consistency.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-29
Table 4.9- 2: 2016 RSPA Consistency
Development Standard
Required per Business Center
Zone1 Proposed Project
Automobile Parking2 277 283
Maximum Height 75 feet 75 feet
Floor Area Ratio 0.5 0.5
Front Setbacks 15 feet minimum
Building 1: 98.5 feet
Building 2: 185 feet
Side Setbacks 15 feet minimum
Building 1: 49 feet
Building 2: 40 feet
Max. Stories 6
Building 1: 1
Building 2: 1
Landscape Coverage 10% minimum of site 17.1% of warehouse development site
Notes:
1. Standards are derived from the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment unless otherwise noted.
2. Per Municipal Code Section 18.58.050.
As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the proposed warehouse development would be consistent with the Development Guidelines included in Section 3 of the 2016 RSPA. The proposed Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with the 2016 RSPA in such a way that would result in potentially significant impacts. Upon completion of the proposed rezone, t he Project would be consistent with the zoning proposed for the project site and would comply with the applicable development standards .
Additionally, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts associated with existing 2016 RSPA zoning policies would be less than significant.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis The proposed Project would develop a warehouse use on Planning Areas 126 and 133, which is consistent with the allowed uses identified within the Specific Plan for the Business Center zone. The Business Center zone accommodates distribution, manufacturing, and large industrial uses. The Business Center zone is identified as a Business Land Use in Table 3-1 of the 2016 RSPA. As shown in Table 4.9-2, the Project would comply with the development standards for Business uses; refer to Table 3-5: Development Standards - Business and Commercial Uses , of the 2016 RSPA. As previously mentioned, development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.9
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
City of Rialto 4.9-30
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts
The Project would be consistent with applicable land use goals and policies. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary for individual future projects, such changes have been, and would be, required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the proposed Project would be consisten t with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not combine with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy. Any associated physical impacts ar e covered in the individual topic sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County of San Bernardino, City of Rialto, and other cities in the County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. The refore, no significant cumulative impacts associated with plans and policies are anticipated. In addition, the contribution of the proposed Project to any such cumulative impacts would be less than significant because present and probable future projects are anticipated to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with plan or policy inconsistency.
4.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with land use and planning. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-1
4.10 NOISE
4.10.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the existing noise setting and potential noise related effects from implementation of the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (Project or proposed Project) on the project site and surrounding area. The analysis in this section is based on the Acoustical Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (October 2024), which is included as Appendix J.
4.10.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Noise Levels
The City of Rialto (City) is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses (e.g. residential, commercial, institutional, and recrea tional and parks activities) throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise. The existing mobile noise sources in the Project area are generated by motor vehicles traveling on Ayala Drive and Linden Avenue. The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with the industrial uses to the north, east, and south. Industrial stationary noise sources may include mechanical equipment (use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] units, etc.) and parking lot activities (cars parking, open and closing doors, etc.). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
Mobile Traffic Noise
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Traffic Study for the Proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Warehouse Project in the City of Rialto (Traffic Study), prepared by Kimley-Horn (October 2024). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for Californ ia by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the project site are included in Table
4.10-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-2
Table 4.10-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Conditions
ADT
dBA CNEL at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline
Alder Avenue
SR 210 WB Ramps to SR 210 EB Ramps 16,020 67.5
SR 210 EB Ramps to Renaissance Parkway 23,147 68.4
Renaissance Parkway to Baseline Road 18,946 67.9
Linden Avenue
Miro Way to Baseline Road 9,062 60.6
Ayala Drive
Renaissance Parkway to Fitzgerald Avenue 25,610 66.3
Miro Way to Baseline Road 21,446 65.8
Baseline Road
Alder Avenue to Linden Avenue 12,697 64.2
Linden Avenue to Ayala Drive 13,739 65.4
Notes:
ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = day-night noise level; Source: Appendix J
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located approximately 520 fee t to the south and the Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast of the project site. Future residential uses would be located approximately 1,400 feet to the north of the project site.
Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted two short-term noise measurements on April 12, 2023 . The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 10:39 a.m. and 12:06 p.m. Short-term Leq measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and measurement location are listed in Table 4.10-2: Existing Noise Measurements.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-3
Table 4.10-2: Existing Noise Measurements
Site # Location
Leq
(dBA) Time
1 Corner of Brentwood Avenue and Mesa Drive, south of project Site 51.7 10:39 a.m. 2 Cul-de-sac on W Mesa Drive, southwest of project Site 51.2 11:04 a.m. 3 Along N Linden Avenue, west of project Site 65.5 11:21 a.m. 4 End of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of project Site 57.5 11:40 a.m. 5 Jerry Eaves Park, east of project Site 55.4 11:56 a.m.
Source: Appendix J
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Guidance The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual to provide guidance on procedures for assessing impacts at different stages of transit project development. The report covers both construction and operational noise impacts and describes a range of measures for controlling excessive noise and vibration. In general, the primary concern regarding vibration relates to potential damage from construction. The guidance document establishes criteria for evaluating the potential for damage for various structural categories from vibration.
State Regulations
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Servi ces. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. School s, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-4
in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi -family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
Regional and Local Regulations
City of Rialto General Plan
The Rialto General Plan (General Plan) Safety and Noise Element specifies exterior noise guidelines for land uses. The City requires that new developments be designed to meet these guidelines .1 Noise compatibility can be achieved by avoiding the location of conflicting land uses adjacent to one another, incorporating buffers and noise control techniques including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building construction techniques. Selection of the appropriate noise control technique would vary depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as well as the location and intended land use. General Plan policies that directly address reducing and avoiding noise or vibration impacts include the following:
Goal 2-9 Residential areas, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses are protected from the impacts associated with industrial and trucking-related land 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.
Goal 5-12 Minimize the impact of point source and ambient noise levels throughout the community.
Policy 5-12.2 Consider noise impacts as part of the development review process, particularly the location of parking, ingress/egress/loading, and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy 5-12.3 Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals, and other noise-sensitive areas in accordance with the Rialto Municipal Code and noise standards contained in Exhibit 5-5 (Table 4.10-1 of this SEIR).
Policy 5-12.4 Limit the hours of operation at all noise generation sources that are adjacent to noise-sensitive areas.
Policy 5-12.5 Require all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans and leaf blowers) to use available noise suppression devices and techniques to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels that are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Goal 5-13 Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise.
1 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/653/General-Plan. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-5
Policy 5-13.3 Require development of truck-intensive uses to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses through appropriate site design.
The General Plan Safety and Noise Element establishes policies guarding against new noise or land use conflicts to minimize the impact of existing noise sources on the community . Table 4.10-3: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning presents the City’s exterior noise guidelines for land use planning. It should also be noted that the Safety and Noise Element mentions sound levels exceeding 40 to 45 dBA are generally considered to cause sleep interference within a residence. The General Plan also references Title 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, stipulating a maximum of 45 dBA for interior residential noise levels.
Table 4.10-3: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
R2 ‐ Residential 2, R6 ‐ Residential 6 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85 R12 ‐ Residential 12 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85
R21 ‐ Residential 21, R45 ‐ Residential 45 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed‐Use 50 – 60 60 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 CC ‐ Community Commercial 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 GC ‐ General Commercial 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 R2 – Residential 2, R6 – Residential 6 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 75 70 – 85 R12 – Residential 12 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 75 70 – 85 R21 – Residential 21, R45 – Residential 45 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 DMU – Downtown Mixed-Use 50 – 60 60 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 CC – Community Commercial 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 BP ‐ Business Park, O ‐ Office 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 LI ‐ Light Industrial 50 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85
GI ‐ General Industrial 50 – 75 75 – 85 NA NA
P ‐ Public Facility, P ‐ School Facility 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85 OSRC - Open Space ‐ Recreation 50 – 75 NA 75 – 80 80 – 85 OSRS ‐ Open Space ‐ Resources 50 – 75 NA 75 – 80 80 – 85 Notes:
NA = Not Applicable; dBA = Decibel
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, assuming buildings are of conventional construction.
Conditionally Acceptable – New development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements are made.
Normally Unacceptable – New development should be discouraged, or a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made.
Clearly Unacceptable – New development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Appendix J
Compliance with the requirements of a noise ordinance is intended to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from stationary, non-transportation noise sources. Noise ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks traveling on public roadways ; federal and State laws preempt control of mobile noise sources on public roads. The Rialto Municipal Code prohibits Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-6
the production of excessive noise and is applied to future development within the City to det ermine potential noise impacts.
Municipal Code Section 9.50.070 provides exemptions for construction noise. This Code section states that no person shall be engaged in any type of work relating to construction, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolition, or improvement to any building or structure except within the hours provided in Table 4.10-4: Permitted Hours of Construction Work; exclusions are noted in the Municipal Code.
Table 4.10-4: Permitted Hours of Construction Work
Days of Week Time1,2
October 1 through April 30
Monday – Friday 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Sunday No Permissible Hours
State Holidays No Permissible Hours
May 1 through September 30
Monday – Friday 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Sunday No Permissible Hours
State Holidays No Permissible Hours
Notes:
For purposes of this section, the following exceptions shall apply:
1. Emergency repair of existing installations, equipment, or appliances; and
2. Such work that complies with the terms and conditions of a written early work permit issued by the city manager or his or her designee upon a showing of a sufficient need and justification for the permit due to hot or inclement weather, the use of an unusually long process material, or other circumstances of an unusual and compelling nature.
Source: Appendix J
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. The 2010 RSP is located between various major noise sources: State Route 210 (SR 210), Baseline Road, Ayala Drive, and Alder Avenue. To mitigate additional noise impacts to sensitive receptors, the development standards include requirements for future developments in proximity to sensitive land uses. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) establishes the City’s planning concept, de sign, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of the 2016 RSPA area. Similar to the 2010 RSP, the 2016 RSPA includes noise control developments standards to reduce noise impacts to sensitive land uses.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-7
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Compliance with the requirements of a noise ordinance is intended to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from stationary, non -transportation noise sources. Noise ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks traveling on public roadways ; federal and State laws preempt control of mobile noise sources on public roads. The Rialto Municipal Code prohibits the production of excessive noise and is applied to future development within the City to det ermine potential noise impacts.
Chapter 9.50 – Noise Control
This Chapter includes requirements and standards for noise control within the City. Section 9.50.070 states that no person shall be engaged in any type of work relating to construction, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolition, or improvement to any building or structure except within the hours provided in Table 4.10-4. Exclusions are noted in the Municipal Code.
Municipal Code Section 9.50.050 , Controlled Hours of Operation, is relevant for operational noise. The section states:
“It is unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM in all zones.
A. Operate or permit the use of powered model vehicles and planes; B. Load or unload any vehicle, or operate or permit the use of dollies, carts, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any impulsive sound, raucous or unnecessary noise within one thousand feet of a residence;
C. Operate or permit the use of domestic power tools, or machinery or any other equipment or tool in any garage, workshop, house or any other structure; D. Operate or permit the use of gasoline or electric powered leaf blowers, such as commonly used by gardeners and other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters and other property;
E. Operate or permit the use of privately operated street/parking lot sweepers or vacuums, except that emergency work and/or work necessitated by unusual conditions may be performed with the written consent of the city manager; F. Operate or permit the use of pile driver, steam or gasoline shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other similar devices; G. Operate or permit the use of electrically operated compressor, fan, and other similar devices;
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-8
H. Perform ground maintenance on golf course grounds and tennis courts contiguous to golf courses that creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line;
I. Operate or permit the use of any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of ten thousand pounds, or of any auxiliary equipment attached to such a vehicle, including but not limited to refrigerated truck compressors, for a period longer than fifteen minutes in any hour while the vehicle is stationary and on a public right-of-way or public space except when movement of the vehicle is restricted by other traffic;
J. Repair, rebuild, reconstruct or dismantle any motor vehicle or other mechanical equipment or devices in a manner so as to be plainly audible across property lines.” Additionally, Section 9.50.060 (O) of the Municipal Code states that sounds generated in commercial and industrial zones that are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein are exempt from the Controlled Hours of Operation.
4.10.4 Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise levels used in the analysis are based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the FTA and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA L eq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
Construction noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA RCNM. Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line -of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise).
Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The City does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour L eq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non -residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.
Operational Noise
Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources.
The reference noise levels are used to represent a conservative noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the standar ds within the Municipal Code and General Plan.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-9
An analysis was conducted of the Project’s effect on traffic noise conditions at offsite land uses. Without Project traffic noise levels were compared to With Project traffic noise levels. The environmental baseline is the Without Project condition. The Wi thout Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a conservative representation of the roadway noise. In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable.
Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potent ial ground -borne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.
4.10.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
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 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.
▪ Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. ▪ For a project 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?
4.10.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.10-1 Generation of 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? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-10
equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.
During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods near the project site.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the projec t site include the single -family residences located approximately 520 feet to the south. As construction would occur up to the Project boundary line, construction activities would occur as close as 520 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. However, it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the sensitive receptors.
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading/infrastructure improvements, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, grade rs, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating applications. Typical operating cycle for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings.
Construction noise was calculated accounting for each piece of equipment’s usage factor , or fraction of time that the equipment would be in use at full power over a specific period of time. 2 Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment when operating at full power are listed below in Table
4.10-5: Typical Construction Noise Levels.
Table 4.10-5: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
at 50 feet from Source
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
2 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration- impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-11
Table 4.10-5: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
at 50 feet from Source
Paver 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Source: Appendix J
The FHWA RCNM was used to calculate conservative construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the project site during construction. Pursuant to FTA guidance, the distance of sensitive receptors to construction activity has been measured at the center of the project site. 3 The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to Project construction activities. Noise levels at other sensitive receptors surrounding the project site would be located further away and would experience lower construction noise levels than the closest receptors modeled.
The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative exterior construction noise standards. While the Municipal Codes does not establish quantitative construction noise standards, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.4 The noise levels calculated in Table 4.10-6: Project Construction Noise Levels show estimated exterior noise levels for the conservative construction noise scenario without accounting for attenuation from intervening barriers, structures, or topography. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences located approximately 520 feet to the south and the nearest non-residential receptors are the commercial/industrial uses located adjacent to the south of the project site. Noise levels at other receptors in the Project vicinity would be located further away and would experience lower construction noise levels than the closest receptors modeled. Because infrastructure improvements/building construction and building construction/paving/architectural coating activities are anticipated to overlap, the equipment from these phases have been combined. All construction equipment for each individual phase was assumed to operate simultaneously to represent a conservative noise scenario ; actual noise levels would be anticipated to be lower, as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site and would operate at different intervals.
3 Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration- impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 4 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-12
Table 4.10-6: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase Land Use
Receptor Location
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2 Exceeded Direction
Distance
to
Center
of Site
(feet)1
Modeled
Exterior Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Site Preparation
Residential South 975 56.2 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 53.1 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 64.0 90 No
Grading
Residential South 975 60.5 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 57.3 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 68.2 90 No
Infrastructure
Improvements
Residential South 975 56.2 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 53.1 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 64.0 90 No
Building Construction
Residential South 975 57.1 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 54.0 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 64.9 90 No
Paving
Residential South 975 52.8 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 49.7 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 60.5 90 No
Architectural Coating
Residential South 975 47.9 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 44.8 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 55.7 90 No
Infrastructure
Improvements/Building
Construction
Residential South 975 59.7 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 56.6 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 67.5 90 No
Building Construction/
Paving/Architectural
Coating
Residential South 975 58.9 80 No
Park Northeast 1,400 55.7 90 No
Commercial/Industrial South 400 66.6 90 No
Notes:
1. Per the methodology described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), distances are measured from the nearby buildings to the center of the Project construction site pursuant to FTA guidance.
2. The City does not have a quantitative noise threshold for construction and only limits the hours of the construction activiti es. Therefore, FTA’s construction noise threshold are conservatively used for this analysis (FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018).
Source: Appendix J
As shown in Table 4.10-6, the conservative construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA construction thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at residential receptors would occur during the grading phase and would be 60.5 dBA which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold. Additionally, the highest exterior noise level at non-residential (industrial/commercial park) receptors would also occur during the grading phase and would be 68.2 dBA which is below the FTA’s 90 dBA threshold. Construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-13
location for extended periods of time. Although sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction, these noise levels would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. Therefore, per the methodology described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, distances are measured from the nearby buildings to the center of the project site.
The City has set restrictions on construction hours to control noise impacts from construction activities.
Section 9.50.070 of the City’s Municipal Code states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays from October 1 through April 30 and shall only occur between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays from May 1 through September
30. Although the Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not provide specific noise level performance standards for construction. Should construction be anticipated outside of allowable hours, the appropriate permits and clearances will be obtained from the City. By following the City’s standards, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing and future nearby residences include the following:
▪ Mechanical equipment;
▪ Slow moving trucks on the project site, approaching and leaving loading areas; ▪ Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); ▪ Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and ▪ Off-site traffic.
Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. HVAC units would be installed on the roof of the proposed structures. Sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source.
The nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the south) would be located as close as 690 feet from the HVAC equipment installed on the roof of Building 2. At this distance, mechanical equipment noise levels would be approximately 29.2 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Additionally, the Jerry Eaves Park would be located as close as 1,052 feet from the HVAC equipment at the project site. At this distance, mechanical equipment noise levels would be approximately 25.5 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for parks. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to mechanical equipment noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting/braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-14
down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Loading/unloading activities would occur throughout the project site.
Typically, heavy truck and loading dock operations generate a noise level of 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet.5 The closest residential sensitive receptors would be the single -family residences located approximately 660 feet south of the closest loading dock areas on the south side of Building 2. At this distance, heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be 45.6 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Additionally, the Jerry Eaves Park would be located approximately 1,225 feet northeast of the closest loading dock areas on the north side of Building 2. At this distance, heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be approximately 4 0.2 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for parks. Further, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. A s described above, noise levels associated with trucks and loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standards and impacts would be less than significant.
Back-Up Alarms
Medium and heavy -duty trucks reversing into loading docks would produce noise from back -up alarms (also known as back-up beepers). Back-up beepers produce a typical volume of 97 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) from the source. The property line of the nearest residential sensitive receptor would be located approximately 660 feet south of the loading dock areas where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering.
At this distance, exterior noise levels from back -up beepers would be approximately 50.9 dBA, which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Additionally, the Jerry Eaves Park would be located approximately 1,225 feet northeast of the closest loading dock areas where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering. At this distance, exterior noise levels from back -up beepers would be approximately 4 5.6 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for parks. Therefore, back-up alarm noise impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Noise
The proposed Project would provide 283 surface parking spaces. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time - averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass -bys range from 60 to 63 dBA and may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise
5 Loading dock reference noise level measurements conducted by Kimley-Horn on December 18, 2018. The measurements used are comparable to the proposed Project, project site, and surrounding area.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-15
levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.
Actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the reference levels identified above. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on-site. It is also noted that parking lot noise occurs at the project site and surrounding commercial/industrial uses under existing conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by background noise from traffic along surrounding roadways. The n earest surface parking lot would be located approximately 550 feet from the residential sensitive receptors to the south.
Noise attenuation based strictly on distance and not taking into account intervening barriers or structures would reduce parking lot noise to 4 2.2 dBA. Additionally, Jerry Eaves Park would located approximately 860 feet northeast of the closest parking lot. At this distance, parking lot exterior noise levels would be approximately 38.3 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for parks . Noise associated with parking lot activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The proposed Project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways from daily activities, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. Based on the Traffic Study for the Proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Warehouse Project in the City of Rialto (Traffic Study), prepared by Kimley-Horn (October 2024), typical daily activities are forecast to generate 733 daily trips. In general, traffic noise level increases of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people , while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes obtained from the Traffic Study. The calculated traffic noise levels for the “Opening Year Without Project” and “Opening Year With Project” scenarios are compared in Table 4.10-7: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels . The traffic noise models accounts for a reasonably accurate number of trucks verses passenger vehicles. As depicted in Table 4.10-7, under the “Opening Year Without Project” scenario, noise levels would range from approximately 60.6 dBA to 68.4 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along Alder Avenue from SR 210 eastbound ramps to Renaissance Parkway. The “Opening Year With Project” scenario noise levels would range from approximately 60.9 dBA to 68.5 dBA, with the highest noise levels also occurring along Alder Avenue from SR 210 eastbound ramps to Renaissance Parkway.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-16
Table 4.10-7: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
Without Project
Opening Year
With Project
Change
Significant
Impacts ADT
dBA CNEL
at 100 feet
from
Roadway
Centerline ADT
dBA CNEL
at 100
feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Alder Avenue
SR 210 WB Ramps to SR 210 EB Ramps 16,340 67.5 16,486 67.6 0.1 No SR 210 EB Ramps to Renaissance
Parkway 23,610 68.4 23,903 68.5 0.1 No
Renaissance Parkway to Baseline Road 19,325 68.0 19,618 68.1 0.1 No Linden Avenue
Miro Way to Baseline Road 9,243 60.6 9,500 60.9 0.3 No
Ayala Drive
Renaissance Parkway to Fitzgerald
Avenue
26,122 66.4 26,386 66.5 0.1 No
Miro Way to Baseline Road 21,875 65.9 22,065 66.0 0.1 No Baseline Road
Alder Avenue to Linden Avenue 12,951 64.2 13,288 64.4 0.2 No Linden Avenue to Ayala Drive 14,014 65.5 14,226 65.6 0.1 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Source: Appendix J
As depicted in Table 4.10-7, the “Opening Year With Project” scenario traffic noise levels would not exceed the 3.0 dBA increase significance threshold along any of the surrounding roadways. As a result, the Project would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
As discussed above, construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. However, the Project would be subject to 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures N-01 and N-02 to reduce construction noise impacts. With the implementation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures N-01 (allowable hours still accurate) and N-02, impacts would remain less than significant.
Additionally, it should be noted that d evelopment of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures N-1 Construction activities shall be limited to the City’s allowable hours of construction activities in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
N-2 All Construction equipment shall use noise -reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-17
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.10-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Once operational, the proposed Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cos metic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The City does not provide numerical vibration standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses the FTA and Caltrans standard of 0.20 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings and human annoyance.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. Table 4.10-8:
Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels for typical construction equipment.
It should be noted that the Project would not require the use of pile drivers. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.
Table 4.10-8: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 5 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 10 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 15 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 30 Feet
(in/sec)1
Vibratory Roller 2.348 0.830 0.452 0.375
Large Bulldozer 0.995 0.352 0.191 0.159
Loaded Trucks 0.850 0.300 0.164 0.136
Jackhammer 0.391 0.138 0.075 0.062
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.034 0.012 0.006 0.005
Notes:
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7 -4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Appendix J
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-18
Construction activities are anticipated to occur up the Project boundary line. Therefore, the nearest structure (i.e. commercial building) would be located approximately 5 feet to the south of the project site boundary. As indicated in Table 4.10-8, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.034 to 2.348 in sec/PPV at 5 feet from the source of activity. Therefore, construction groundborne vibration would excee d the structural damage criterion (0.5 in/sec PPV) and human annoyance criterio n (0.4 in/sec PPV). Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level by requiring a buffer distance for heavy equipment operation adjacent to the existing commercial building to ensure groundborne vibration generated by Project construction would not exceed the structural damage criterion (0.5 in/sec PPV) and human annoyance criterion 0.4 in/sec PPV). Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable . With implementation of MM NOI-1, impacts would less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 The following measures shall be incorporated on all grading and building plans and specifications subject to approval of the City’s building and safety division prior to issuance of a grading permit:
The developer shall ensure construction equipment will not approach the construction buffer zone adjacent to the commercial building (i.e., 1348 West Baseline Road) along portions of the Project southern and southwestern Project Boundary. The buffer zone shall be tiered based on distances established in Table 4.10-8. As shown in Table 4.10-8, vibratory rollers shall not operate within 17 feet of the commercial building; large bulldozers and loaded trucks shall not operate within 10 feet of the commercial building; and jack hammers and small bulldozers/ tractors shall not operate within 5 feet of the commercial building.
Impact 4.10-3 For or 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The public airport nearest to the project site is the San Bernadino International Airport, located approximately 8.23 miles to the southeast. As such, the Project would not be located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. There are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working within the Project area to excessive airport – or airstrip-related noise levels. Additionally, development of Planning Area 123 is not Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-19
proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increase. Cumulative noise impacts involve development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other related development projects. As noise levels decrease as distance from the source increases, only projects in the nearby area could combine with the proposed Project to potentially result in cumulative noise impacts.
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction Project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, The Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant followi ng the City’s Municipal Code.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implementation mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed, and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of the Projec t-generated traffic on local roadways in combination with cumulative projects in the vicinity. However, noise from generators and other stationary sources could also generate cumulative noise levels.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-20
Cumulative Stationary Noise
As discussed above, impacts from the Project’s operational stationary noise would be less than significant.
Due to distance, intervening land uses, and the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and surrounding area. No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would compound or increase the oper ational noise levels generated by the Project. As such, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project -specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.
Cumulative Traffic Noise
The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two-step process. First, the combined effects from both the Project and other projects are compare d. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the Project’s incremental effects are then analyzed. A p roject’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the “Cumulative With Project” condition to “Existing” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated by the Project combined with the traffic noise increase generated by cumulative projects.
The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase. ▪ Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the Project in combination with identified cumulative projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.
▪ Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative with Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the Project area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.10-9: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site for “Existing”, “Cumulative Without Project”, and “Cumulative With Project”, conditions and net cumulative impacts.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-21
Table 4.10-9: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
CNEL @ 100 feet from Centerline
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact? Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With Project
dBA
Difference:
Existing and
Cumulative
With Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without and
With Project
Alder Avenue
SR 210 WB Ramps to
SR 210 EB Ramps 67.5 68.7 68.8 1.3 0.1 No
SR 210 EB Ramps to
Renaissance Parkway 68.4 69.7 69.8 1.4 0.1 No
Renaissance Parkway
to Baseline Road 67.9 68.9 69.0 1.1 0.1 No
Linden Avenue
Miro Way to Baseline
Road 60.6 60.8 61.1 0.5 0.3 No
Ayala Drive
Renaissance Parkway
to Fitzgerald Avenue 66.3 66.9 67.0 0.7 0.1 No
Miro Way to Baseline
Road 65.8 66.3 66.4 0.6 0.1 No
Baseline Road
Alder Avenue to Linden
Avenue 64.2 64.7 65.0 0.8 0.2 No
Linden Avenue to Ayala
Drive 65.4 66.1 66.3 0.9 0.2 No
Notes:
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = day-night noise level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Appendix J
It must be determined whether the “Cumulative With Project” 3.0 dB increase above existing conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Next, under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the forecast ambient (“Cumulative Without Project”) noise level is increased by 1.0 dB or more. As shown in Table 4.10-9, the Incremental Effects criterion (1.0 dB) and Combined Effects criterion (3.0 dB) are not exceeded along any of the roadway segments analyzed . Therefore, the Project would not exceed both the combined and incremental effects criteria along any of the surrounding roadways. Thus, the Project, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. The Project’s contributi on to traffic noise would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts associated with temporary vibration impacts occurring during construction would be reduced to less than significant.
Additionally, potentially significant noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.10
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Noise
City of Rialto 4.10-22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-1
4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.11.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) provides contextual background information on potential impacts on population growth and housing (either directly or indirectly) resulting from implementation of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (Project or proposed Project) within the City of Rialto (City). The analysis is based on data in the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) and available from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
4.11.2 Environmental Setting
The approximately 35-acre project site is comprised of Planning Areas 123, 126 , and 133. The Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 (north of Miro Way) from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. The Project would also include the rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133 (south of Miro Way) from Park and Employment (with a designated Park overlay) to Business Center, to allow for the development of two industrial warehouses. The project site consists of undeveloped vacant land within the western/central portion of the City, in San Bernadino County. The project site does not feature existing habitable structures.
Existing Regional and Local Population
Table 4.11-1: Population Projections for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto, identifies the increase of population growth within the County of San Bernadino and the City of Rialto, between 2018 and 2024.
According to the DOF’s Cities, Counties, and State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change (2024) data, San Bernardino County currently has a population of approximately 2,144,499 residents. As of 2024, the City has a population of approximately 103,097 residents.
Table 4.11-1: Population Projections for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto Location
2018
Population1
2024
Population2
2035
Population3
2040
Population3
2045
Population4
Projected
population
increase
(2023-
2045)
%
Change
San Bernardino
County 2,150,017 2,144,499 2,637,400 2,731,300 2,815,000 632,944 29% City of Rialto 102,373 103,097 111,400 112,000 139,100 36115 35% Notes:
1. California Department of Finance (DOF). (2021). Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2020. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/. Accessed October 2024.
2. DOF. (2024). Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2020-2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020- 2024/. Accessed October 2024.
3. SCAG. (2020a). 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file attachments/2016_2040rtpscs_finalgrowthforecastbyjurisdiction.pdf?1605576071.Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-2
4. SCAG. (2020b). Connect SoCal: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Accessed October 2024.
Existing Regional and Local Housing
According to the DOF’s City/County Population and Housing Estimates data, San Bernardino County and the City of Rialto have seen an increase in total and occupied housing units and a decrease in housing vacancy and population household numbers. Table 4.11-2: Housing for San Bernardino County and the City of Rialto identifies the total housing units (Total/Occupied) plus vacancy rate and person per household.
Table 4.11-2: Housing for San Bernardino County and the City of Rialto Location
Total Units Occupied Units Vacancy Rate
Persons/
Household
2018 2024 2018 2024 2018 2024 2018 2024
San Bernardino
County 719,911 753,826 638,633 699,088 11.3% 8.7% 3.31 3.12 City of Rialto 27,460 28,523 25,662 27,863 6.5% 2.3% 3.97 3.68 Sources:
DOF. (202 4). Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011 -2024, with 2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state- 2020-2024/j. Accessed October 2024.
DOF. (2011). Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011 -2020, with 2010 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state- 2020-2024/. Accessed October 2024.
City of Rialto
SCAG determines total housing needs for each community in Southern California based on three general factors: (1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future population and employment growth; (2) the number of additional units needed to allow for housing vacancies; and (3) the number of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income units needed in the community. Additional factors used to determine the RHNA include tenure, the aver age rate of units needed to replace housing units demolished, and other factors. Based on DOF data (202 4), the City has 28, 523 housing units with an average of 3.97 persons per household. The vacancy rate was 2.3 percent. There is no existing residential development on the project site.
Existing Regional and Local Employment
Table 4.11-3: Labor Force Data for San Bernardino County and the City of Rialto identifies the total labor force and employment and unemployment rates for the County and the City for 2021 and 2024. Because Covid-19 resulted in decreased employment for both the County and the City, statistical information for 2020 was not used. According to the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), between 2021 and 202 4, the labor force and the number of employed persons increased in both the County and the City.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-3
Table 4.11-3: Labor Force Data for San Bernardino County and the City of Rialto Location
Labor Force Employment Unemployment
Employment
Change 2021 2023 2021 2023 2021 2023
San Bernardino County 992,200 1,016,900 918,600 958,800 73,600 58,000 4.3% City of Rialto 46,300 47,100 42,300 44,100 4,000 2,900 4.3% Source:
California Employment Development Department (2024). Labor Force and Unemployment Rate For Cities and Counties. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed October 2024.
Jobs to Housing Balance
SCAG growth forecasts in the RTP/SCS estimate the City’s employment to reach 39,900 jobs by 2050, representing a total increase of 7,900 jobs between 2019 and 2050. In terms of the jobs housing balance, the SCAG Rialto 2019 Local Profiles Report identified that 7.6 percent of Rialto residents work within the City, while 92.4 percent commute to places of employment outside the City. The RTP/SCS aims to balance the region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals .
Consistent with the strategies identified in the RTP/SCS, the increased job opportunities in the City resulting from implementation of the Project would minimize commutes for employees living within the City.
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
The Housing Element is one of the seven General Plan elements that are mandated by the State of California (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). California State law requires that the Housing Element provides “an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code Section 65580).
State law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and forecasted housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs.
Regional and Local Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a Joint Powers Agency established under Sections 6502 et seq. of the California Government Code.
SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county region of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-4
Ventura, Orange, Riverside, and Imperial counties. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area comprised of more than 38,000 square miles. As the designated MPO, SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting reg ional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local governments. Rialto is a member of the SCAG Regional Council District 8 which also includes the City of Fontana.
SCAG’s demographic data is developed to enable the proper planning of infrastructure and facilities to adequately meet the needs of anticipated growth in the region. In September 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal, its 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
Major themes in the RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use and transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure; increase capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices; leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce, economic growth and opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmen tal protection and economic opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice into the plan.
Growth forecasts contained in the RTP/SCS for San Bernardino County and the City are used as the basis of analysis for housing, population and employment forecasts in this section.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is an assessment process performed periodically as part of General Plan Housing Element updates at the local level. The RHNA process begins with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s projection of future statewide housing g rowth need, and the apportionment of this need to regional Council of Governments (COGs) throughout the State. SCAG is the COG responsible for developing “fair share” allocation methodology to distribute the region’s assigned share of statewide need to cit ies and counties in the region. 1 California Government Code Section 65583 sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element.
Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to provide their “fair share” of regional housing n eeds (its RHNA allocation) at all income levels. Regional growth needs are defined as the number of units that would have to be added in each jurisdiction to accommodate the forecasted number of households, as well as the number of units that need to be ad ded to compensate for anticipated demolitions and changes to achieve an ideal vacancy rate. SCAG defines a “household” as an occupied dwelling unit.
The current RHNA 6 th Cycle planning period is 2021 -2029. The housing construction need is determined for four broad household income categories: very low (households making less than 50 percent of area median income), low (50 to 80 percent of area median income), moderate (80 to 120 percent of area median income), and above moderate (more than 120 percent of area median income). The intent of the future needs allocation by income groups is to relieve the undue concentrations of very low-income and low-income households in a single jurisdiction and to help allocate resources in a fair and equitable manner.2 For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City of Rialto is required to meet the RHNA number of
1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Methodology. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/rhnafinalallocationmethodology110311.pdf?1602185834. Accessed October 2024. 2 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-5
8,272 housing units. The City has identified sites to accommodate a capacity of 15,253 units.3 As a result, the City has included an 84% surplus (6,981 units) of sites above the RHNA obligation for the 202 1-2029 planning period.
City of Rialto General Plan
Project relevant Rialto General Plan (General Plan) policies for population and housing are addressed below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis.
Goal 2-9 Residential areas, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses are protected from the impacts associated with industrial and trucking-related land-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 identifiable 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. 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. Implementation of the 2010 RSP would include an increase in residential and employment opportunities. The 2010 RSP included a variety of residential land uses to accommodate the anticipated growth in the 2010 RSP area. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The 2016 RSPA SEIR analyzes the impacts of growth-inducing impacts associated with implementation of the 2016 RSPA. Implementation of the 2016 RSPA would result in and increase in employment as a result of an increase in business and commercial uses. It was anticipated that new employment opportunities would be occupied by future employees residing within the 2016 RSPA area and surrounding areas. Similar to the 2010 RSP, the 2016 RSPA is anticipated to accommodate the anticipated growth in the 2016 RSPA area. Additionally, the 2016 RSPA includes various goals to ensure future development accommodates the existing and future population of the 2016 RSPA area.
4.11.4 Methodology
The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning population and housing. In addition, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws a nd standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory
3 SCAG. (2023). 6th Cycle Housing Element. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/4018/City-of-Rialto-2021-2029- Sixth-Cycle-Housing-Element-Update. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-6
framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
4.11.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as significance criteria in this section. An impact of a project could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Would 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; or
▪ Would displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.11-1 Would the Project in duce 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)? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The project site is zoned School, Public Park, and Employment and consists of vacant, undeveloped land.
Upon approval of the proposed zone change, Planning Area 123 would be zoned General Commercial with a Residential overlay and Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be zoned Business Center . The proposed warehouse development on Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be consistent with the Business Center zoning designation of the Specific Plan . The proposed Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on- and off -site im provements. Based on the employment information presented in Table 3-2, operation of the proposed warehouse development is anticipated to generate the demand for up to approximately 147 employees. It is anticipated that a majority of future employees would reside within the City or local region and commute to work. As discussed in the City’s Housing Element, the City’s population is anticipated to increase by 45 percent, or 9,400 job opportunities by the year 2040. The City is anticipated to increase in pop ulation by 36,115 persons by 2045 ( Table
4.11-1).4 As such, the City is anticipated to grow in population and labor force, and Project implementation would not result in an unplanned population growth.
The Project would include off -site improvements to Miro Way and Ayala Drive to provide driveways for vehicle ingress/egress, and signalization of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive intersection . However, these improvements would allow for access to the project site and would not provide an extension of roadway or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth on or near the project site. The Project would not include development of any housing. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. Additionally, the project site is located within the 2016 RSPA area, which was amended to accommodate to an increase in residential uses to adequately serve
4 City of Rialto. (2021). 6th Cycle Housing Element. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1805/Section-2-City-of- Rialto-Community-Profile. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-7
the anticipated increase in population within the City as well as commercial land uses, industrial land uses, and public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development project related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.11-2 Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project would include the rezone of land zoned for Employment, Public Park, and School. Planning Area 123 would be rezoned from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay and would have the option to become Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) with the ability to accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the Specific Plan, as described in Section 6 of the 2016 RSPA , Implementation of the Specific Plan . Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development project related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. The project site is currently vacant and does not feature existing people or housing. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not displace existing people or housing , necessitating the construction of replacement housing . No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative population and housing impacts are assessed relative to the Renaissance Specific Plan, General Plan, and regional plans, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS population, housing, and employment projections. SCAG’s regional growth projections reflect recent and past trends, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.11
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
City of Rialto 4.11-8
key demographic and economic assumptions and include local and regional policies. Local jurisdictions participate in the growth forecast development process.
Cumulative impacts would occur if development on the project site, together with other cumulative projects would induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. The proposed Project would not result in significant direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts related to population or housing because the project site is not zoned for residential use , there is an existing housing surplus in the City, and the off -site improvements that would be implemented as a part of the Project would not extend roadways or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth on or near the project site. Other projects under development (Appendix K) would also be subject to project -level review and project -specific measures would be required, as needed, to reduce significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in incremental significant effects to population or housing that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other cumulative present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As discussed above, the Project would not result in significant population and housing impacts, and therefore, taken with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required.
The City of Rialto is anticipated to have an approximate population of 139,100 by 2045. As discussed, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in population growth as future employees are expected to commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas . Within this planning context in terms of both local and regional population growth, and considering the Project is not proposing new housing or the expansion of existing facilities that would promote population growth, Project implementation would not be cumulatively considerable. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not induce population growth that has not been planned and would not extend infrastructure to areas resulting in unplanned induced or cumulatively considerable development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing and no mitigation is required.
4.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding population and housing. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-1
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.12.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes existing public services for the Project area and identifies and addresses potential impacts of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (Project or proposed Project), related to public services provided by the City of Rialto (City).
4.12.2 Environmental Setting
Public Services
Fire Protection
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 as 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 withi n a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a local agency. Cal Fire is responsible for fire protection within State Responsibil ity Areas, found in 56 counties in California, and provides a variety of emergency services in 36 counties.
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 and adjacent areas are classified as a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non-VHFHSZ).1 The Rialto Fire Department provides fire protection services for the City of Rialto. The Fire Department provides services for over 100,000 residents in a 22-square-mile area and is led by a Fire Chief, Division Fire Chief, four Battalion Chiefs, an Emergency Medical Services Coordinator, and an Assistant Fire Marshall.2 The Rialto Fire Department deploys from five fire stations staffed 24 hours per day by career firefighters, non-safety ambulance operators and one administrative office. Daily emergency medical service and fire/rescue staffing consists of one Battalion Chief, four engine companies, one truck company, and four paramedic ambulances. Of the five fire stations, Fire Station 203 (1550 N orth Ayala Drive) is the closest fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.4 miles to the north.
Administration. Fire Department Administration provides oversight to all department operations including project development, budgeting, development of policy and protocol, personnel development, and strategic planning to ensure highly effective fire and life safety services. Fire Administration is staffed
1 Cal Fire. (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed October 2024. 2 City of Rialto (2024). Rialto Fire Department. https://www.yourrialto.com/233/Fire-Department. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-2
by the Fire Chief with an Executive Assistant, a Division Chief of Operations, Administrative Battalion Chief, and one office specialist.
Rialto Fire Prevention Division. The Fire Prevention Division engages in community risk reduction services through code compliance, plan review, public education, inspection, emergency preparedness and targeted risk-specific programs.
Ambulance Operator Program. The Rialto Fire Department has provided ambulance transportation services since 1971 using a model of deployment that includes staffing of ambulances with firefighters that are cross-trained as Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians. Based on service demand and cost of deployment, the current ambulance staffing model is being retooled to include single function, paramedic and Ambulance Operators to staff City-owned ambulances.
Rialto Fire Department Emergency Medical Service. The Emergency Medical Service is responsible for the planning, compliance, review, and oversight for the provisions of clinical medical care provided by the Rialto Fire Department. The Fire Department staffs one paramedic for all fire engines, trucks, and ambulances; all other positions are staffed by Emergency Medical Technicians.
Incident Response. Fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response. Speed refers to initial response (first due) of all -risk intervention resources (engines, ladder trucks, and squads) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergencies within a time interval to facilitate desired outcomes. Weight refers to multiple -unit Effective Response Force (commonly referred to as a First Alarm) responses to more serious emergencies, such as building fires, multiple -patient m edical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents. In these situations, a sufficient number of firefighters must be assembled within a reasonable time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it escalating into a more serious event.
Police Protection
The Rialto Police Department provides law enforcement and police protection services throughout the City. The Rialto Police Department headquarters at 128 North Willow Avenue, is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. With 176 employees, the Rialto Police Department is a full-service law enforcement agency that is charged with the enforcement of local, State, and federal laws, and with providing 24 -hour protection. Operations within the Rialto Police Department are organized within divisions — Operations, Support Services, and Professional Standards — with bureaus, teams and units, and programs within each division.3
The Rialto Police Department participates in the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan administrated by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services ( OES). The law enforcement mutual aid system is an ongoing cooperative effort among law enforcement agencies to ensure an effective and organized response to a wide range of emergencies. Under the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan, the City of Rialto can both pro vide and request law enforcement resources to and from neighboring jurisdictions. There are seven mutual aid regions in the State and each region is comprised of multiple Operational Areas and has a Regional Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Coordinator. The City is located in
3 Rialto Police Department. (2024). Our Department. https://rialtopolice.com/our-department/. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-3
mutual aid Region VI, which includes the counties of San Bernardino, Mono, Inyo, Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego.
Schools
The City of Rialto is served by the Rialto Union School District (RUSD) (elementary schools serving grades K-5, middle schools serving grades 6-8, and high schools serving grades 9-12). The RUSD operates 14 K-5 elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high schools. Schools located within the vicinity of the Project include Helen L. Dollahan Elementary School (1060 West Etiwanda Avenue), approximately 0.58 miles to the southeast; Virginia Primrose Elementary (751 North Maple Avenue, Fontana), approximately
0.65 miles to the southwest; Locust Elementary (7420 Locust Avenue) lo cated approximately 0.66 miles to the southwest; Eisenhower High School (1321 Lilac Avenue), located approximate ly 1.05 miles to the east; Dunn Elementary School (830 Lilac Avenue), located approximately 1.04 miles to the southeast; and Wilmer Amina Carter High School (2630 Linden Avenue) located approximately 1.26 miles to the north.
Parks and Recreation
Nine City-owned parcels are available for public use. The closest park to the project site is Jerry Eaves Park located at 1485 N Ayala Drive, located approximately 800 feet to the northeast.
Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities present in the City include a Racquet and Fitness Center (1243 South Riverside Avenue), located approximately 3.38 miles southeast; a Community Center (214 North Palm Avenue), located approximately 1.93 miles north; Tom Sawyer Pool (152 East San Bernardino Avenue), located approximately 3.34 miles southeast; a Senior Center (1411 South Riverside Avenue), located approximately 1.4 miles north; and the Rialto Branch Library (1 West 1 st Street), located approximately
2.0 miles southeast.4,5
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) became part of the U nited States Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation ac tivities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the United States Fire Administration.
4 Rialto Police Department. (2024). Our Department. https://rialtopolice.com/our-department/. Accessed October 2024. 5 City of Rialto Facilities. (2024). https://www.yourrialto.com/Facilities/Facility/Details/Rialto-Branch-Library-22. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-4
Federal Fire Safety Act (FFSA)
The 1992 FFSA is different from other laws affecting fire safety as the law applies to federal operations, and there is no requirement for local action unless a private building owner leases space to the federal government. The FFSA requires federal agencies to provide sprinkler protection in any building, whether owned or leased by the federal government, that has at least 25 federal employees during the course of their employment.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA's mission is to "assure safe and healthy working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance." The agency is also charged with enforcing a variety of whistleblower statutes and regulations.
OSHA: Emergency Action Plan . Developments are required under OSHA standards to prepare an emergency action plan (EAP) kept in the workplace that provides procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency, emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments, and to be followed by all employees. Employers are required to have and maintain an employee alarm system, provide training, and review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan.
OSHA: Fire Prevention Plan . Developments are required under OSHA standards to prepare a fire prevention plan that at minimum must include procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials, and for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heat -producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials. Furthermore, the fire prevention plan must contain the names and/or job titles of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires, and for the control of fuel source hazards.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is a federal law that amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The DMA was signed into law on October 30, 2000, after being introduced by Representative Tillie Fowler (R-FL-4) on February 11, 1999. The DMA's goals include reducing injuries, loss of life, and property damage; helping communities understand and reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards; using a more proactive planning process; and developing more effective hazard mitigation plans.
State Regulations
California Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291
These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction with a SRA (approved after January 1, 1991), and within la nds classified and designated as very high FHSZ (after July 1, 2021). The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest -covered lands, brush -covered lands, grass -covered lands, or la nd Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-5
that is covered with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the perimeter of the building. The regulations shall include the following:
1. Road standards for fire equipment access.
2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.
3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.
4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.
These regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations adopted by the State.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California conditions . It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.
Industrial buildings are plan checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all industrial buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
California Fire Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 9 (California Fire Code) contains regulations for the construction and maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of Wildland-Urban Interface areas, among other issues. The Cali fornia Fire Code (CFC) is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and was last updated in 2022 (effective January 1, 2023). The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification syst ems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high -rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings.
Topics addressed in the code also in clude fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.
Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the State. EMAA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMAA is to support disaster operations in affected Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-6
jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and State emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures. San Bernardino County, including the City of Rialto, is in Region VI, which also includes San Diego, Imperial, Inyo, Mono, and Riverside counties.
California Vehicle Code
The California Vehicle Code is the section of the California Codes which contains almost all statutes relating to the operation, ownership, and registration of vehicles. The Vehicle Code also contains statutes concerning the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol.
California Senate Bill 50 and California Government Code (Section 65995(b)) and Education Code (Section 17620)
California Senate Bill (SB) 50 places limitations on the power of local governments to require mitigation of school facilities by developers. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts can collect fees to offset the cost of expanding school capacity, which becomes necessary as development occurs. These fees are determined based on the square footage of proposed uses. As a part of SB 50, school districts must base their long-term facilities needs and costs on long-term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. Payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be adequate mitigation of school impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SB 50 amended California Government Code (CGC) Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. CGC Section 65995(b)(3) req uires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. Currently, the maximum impact fees allowed by SB 50 are as follows:
▪ In the case of residential construction, one dollar and ninety -three cents ($1.93) per square foot of assessable space.
▪ In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, thirty-one cents ($0.31) per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space. (Gov. Code Section 65995, subd. (b)).
According to CGC Section 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the CGC.
California State Assembly Bill 2926: Facilities Act of 1986 To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development, Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 was enacted in 1986 and authorizes a levy of impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The bill was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. to the CGC. Under this statute, payment of school impact fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-7
California Government Code, Section 65995(b), and Education Code Section 17620 SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Government Code Section 65995(b)( 3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 24, 2018, the State Allocation Board (SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I School Fees) to $3.79 per square foot of assessable space for residential development of 500 square feet of more, and to $0.61 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development (State Allocati on Board, 2018). School districts may levy high fees if they apply to the SAB and meet certain conditions.
California State Assembly Bill 97
Approved in July 2013, AB 97 revises existing regulations related to financing for public schools, by requiring State funding for county superintendents and charter schools that previously received a general- purpose entitlement. AB 97 authorizes local educational agencies to spend, for any local educational purpose, the funds previously required to be spent for speci fied categorical education programs, including, among others, programs for teacher training and class size reduction.
Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the OES in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers.
The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and State emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures. San Bernardino County, including the City of Rialto, is in Region VI, which also includes San Diego, Imperial, Inyo, Mono, and Riverside counties.
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code (Sections 66000 through 66008)) Enacted as AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency, such as the City of Rialto, establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied. This Act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.
Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution subdivision (a)(2) Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution subdivision (a)(2) identifies that the protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-8
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (funded by Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provides instead for a standardized developer fee. S B 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities funding match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding, and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year -round school, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a City or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential development.
Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The 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 following goals and policies are applicable to the Project regarding public services.
Goal 5-1 Continue to build the City’s fire protection and prevention programs and requirements to minimize fire hazards.
Policy 5-1.3 Require that all site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations.
Goal 5–8 Ensure that first responders and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) have adequate capacity to respond to hazard events.
Policy 5–8.7 Require that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, pursuant to the City standard of cover and fire department strategic plan.
Goal 5-10 Provide effective and comprehensive policing services that meet the safety needs of Rialto.
Policy 5-10.1 Provide timely responses to emergency and non-emergency call for service 24 hours a day, per the City standards.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-9
Policy 5-10.3 Continue to encourage design concepts that inhibit and discourage criminal behavior such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques. 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed -use community, with a v ariety of land use types. Public services offered to the residents of the City include police protection, fire protection, library services and recreational facilities. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a designated Park overlay, respectively. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) establishes the City’s planning concept, design, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive devel opment of the 2016 RSPA area. Potential increase in demand for public services resulting from t he expansion or construction of additional public services related to implementation of the 2016 RSPA area are funded by development impact fees collected from development projects.
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 3 Revenue and Finance
The California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local gov ernmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project.
The City has adopted development impact fee programs for various public facilities, which are outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. Title 3 of City’s Municipal Code establishes every fee that every person or development must comply with if applicable regarding utility, community and recreation center impacts, library, animal center impacts, police impacts, park in-lieu/park impacts, and fire protection fees, etc.
Title 17 Zoning Code
The purpose and intent of the Title 17 Zoning Code is to set standards and guidelines for the City to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avo id undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-10
Chapter 15.28 Fire Code
The City of Rialto Fire Code is described in Section 15.28 of the City’s Municipal Code. As discussed in Section 15.28 and identified in Ordinance 1491, the City has adopted and amended the California Fire Code as permitted by Health and Safety Code Section 17958 and Government Code 50022. The City’s Fire Code identifies methods for calculating required fire flow, h ydrant placement and other requirements considered in building and site design. The RFD reviews Plot Plans for proposed development projects to ensure compliance with the City’s Fire Code.
Emergency Response
Procedures for mitigating emergency events, such as such wildfires, floods, windstorms, hazardous materials releases, civil disturbance, and earthquakes are outlined in the City’s Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) Multi -Hazard Functional Plan (MH FP). The MHFP incorporates and coordinates all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency.
4.12.4 Methodology
The City of Rialto Fire Department and Police Department were contacted to determine if the proposed Project would significantly impact the departments’ ability to provide fire protection and law enforcement services. No response has been received at the time of this SEIR.
4.12.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 time, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
▪ Fire protection;
▪ Police protection;
▪ Schools;
▪ Parks and Recreation facilities; and
▪ Other public facilities;
▪ Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or ▪ If the project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-11
4.12.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.12-1 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 ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
I) Fire protection?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The nearest Rialto Fire Department fire station to the project site is Station 203 (1550 North Ayala Drive) located approximately 0.4 miles to the north. In the event of an emergency, emergency vehicles of Station 203 would access the project site via the driveways located on Miro Way and Ayala Drive.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped , and thus it is anticipated that the Rialto Fire Department would receive an increase in calls for fire services to the project site as a result of the proposed Project. As a standard condition of project approval, the Project Applicant will be required to pay the City’s fire protection services development impact fee pursuant to Section 3.33.220 of the City’s Municipal Code. The development impact fees are intended to finance public facilities necessary to reduce impacts generated by new development in the City and to ensure that new development pays its fair share associated with the costs of funding public services. This fee includes a fire protection services development fee to fund fire facilities and apparatus necessary for the safety of new development.
Additionally, buildout of the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements for fire protection, which would reduce the potential need for fire protection services serving the project site during construction and operation. Applicable regulations include, but are not limited to, requirements for adequate fire flows, width of emergency access routes, turning radii, automatic sprinkler systems, and fire alarms.
Because an increase in demand on public facilities, services, and utilities that will result from a project is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA, the potential for the Project to result in increased medical or emergency service response times does not, standing alone, create a significant environmental impact. Given the above, although the Project would require fire protection services in the event of an emergency, the Project is not expected to result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, or to result in a station’s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. No new facilities would be required to serve the Project, and as such, no significant impacts resulting from the Project implementation would occur.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as possible. Impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-12
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
II) Police protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would result in the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on- and off-site improvements on vacant, undeveloped land. As such, it is anticipated that the Rialto Police Department can expect an increase in calls for police services as a result of the Project. Officers patrolling the City are dispatched from police department located at 128 North Willow Avenue, approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site.
During construction, the Project may attract vandals or other security risks that would increase demand on police protection/law enforcement services. The Project Applicant would implement best management practices (BMPs) and standard construction site security by controlling site access to the project areas under construction. Project construction personnel commuting to the project site via nearby highways (State Route 210) could increase services required by the Rialto Police Department in the event of accident or traffic violations. Project construction personnel would be required to adhere to all federal, State and local traffic laws. The additional volume of traffic associated with construction personnel commuting to the project site during construction is not expected to exceed the Rialto Police Department’s ability to patrol the highways. This increase due to construction would be temporary in nature and impacts would be less than significant.
The Project could potentially affect response times and coverage ability by creating the need for additional police staff within the existing service area. However, it is not anticipated that the increased demand generated by the proposed Project would require the construction of a new police station and police services would continue to be dispatched from the existing police department. Moreover, as discussed above, an increase in demand for emergency services does not constitute a significant impact under CEQA because meeting adequate response times is the City’s responsibility. In accordance with Section 3.33.210 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would be required to pay the City’s law enforcement services development impact fee , which would fund future police service facilities. Payment of the development impact fee by the Project Applicant would be used to offset the costs of capital improvements that could be required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives. The payment of development fees would further reduce impacts.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as possible. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-13
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
III) Schools?
Level of Significance: No Significant Impact
The project site currently consists of vacant, undeveloped land and does not feature existing school facilities. Future employees are likely to reside within the City or surrounding area and commute to work.
As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing , the Project does not include the construction of habitable structures and is not expected to result in substantial unplanned population growth within the City. Additionally, per Senate Bill 50 (1998) and the California Education Code (as described in Section
4.12.2, above), the governing board of any school district may collect impact fees from developers of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Furthermore, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all potential project impacts on school facilities from implementation of a project to less-than-significant levels. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, with the payment of the applicable school fees, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. As such, the Project would not result in an increase in school students requiring the need for new or physically altered RUSD facilities. Impacts to schools would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as possible. No impacts to school facilities would occur.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-14
IV) Parks?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would include the rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133 from Park and Employment with a designated Park overlay, to Business Center, along with the rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay (See Figure 4: RSPA Plan Area and Figure 5: Amended RSPA Plan Area ). The Project would also include the construction of two warehouses located within Planning Areas 126 and 133 and associated on-site and off-site improvements. The project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land and does not feature existing parks. The City has adopted a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. 6 According to the General Plan, t he current ratio is 2.78 acres per resident, including RUSD open space. Thus, the City currently has a moderate shortage of parkland to serve residents. As discussed in Section 4.1 1, Population and Housing , the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase in demand of City parks requiring new or physically altered parks.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as possible. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
V) Other public facilities?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Library services within the City are provided by the Rialto Library and the Carter Library . These libraries are a part of the San Bernadino County Library System and therefore, can access any other library within the San Bernadino County Library System for materials needed. The City’s libraries provide public access to movies, books, computers, and Internet access.7
The proposed Project would include the rezone of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 and the construction of a warehouse development on Planning Areas 126 and 133 and associated on -and off -site improvements. As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing , the proposed Project would not include habitable structures or result in substantial unplanned population growth. As such, Project
6 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
Accessed October 2024.
7 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-15
implementation would not result in an increase in demand for library facilities. In accordance with Section
3.33.200 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would be required to pay library facilities development impact fees, which would fund improvements of the City’s library facilities. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as possible.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project assumes the provision of fire protection services is based on a combination of existing fire services and the use of mutual aid agreement s. Additionally, all present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to pay development fees. As previously addressed, development impact fees are paid on a project -by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand caused by development. The payment of fees and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would preclude the Project’s cumulative contribution to fire protection impacts.
The Rialto Police Department’ s operating budget is primarily generated through tax revenues and fees collected from penalties and requested services, and development fees. Increased property and sales tax from cumulative projects would increase the City’s General Fund in rough proportion to population increases, pro viding funding for any improvements necessary to maintain adequate police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. Consequently, although the cumulative demand for police services would incrementally increase over time, the addition of new officers and equipment to serve the demand is not likely to result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts associated with the construction of new facilities or the alteration of existing facilities. Moreover, should any new or altered facilities be requi red in the future, these facilities would be subject to separate CEQA review. The proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute to an impact to police protection services.
As further discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, Project implementation would not result in an increase in population growth. As such, the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the need for public service such as schools, parks, or library services. The Project would pay the applicable development impact fees, which would be appropriately allocated for police, fire, schools, parks, and other library services. Similar to the Project, other cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate their level of impact on public services including paying the appropriate development fees; therefore, the past, present, and future projects would not result in a cumulative impact related to the provision of public services.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Services
City of Rialto 4.12-16
4.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts associated with public services. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-1
4.13 RECREATION
4.13.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses potential impacts of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) on parks and recreational amenities within the Project vicinity. This section also describes the environmental and regulatory settings and discusses potential mitigation measures to reduce Project impacts, where applicable.
4.13.2 Environmental Setting
The City of Rialto (City) maintains and provides almost 2.78 acres of park and open space for every 1,000 residents in the City.1 The City has ten parks comprising 106 acres. The City also has a joint-use partnership with the Rialto Unified School District (RUSD) which provides 171.9 acres of open space. Additionally, to mitigate deficiencies for parkland acreage, the City has various recreational centers including a community center, indoor swimming pool, racquet and fitness center, a senior center, and a playhouse.
As discussed in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR, the City owns and operates nine parks, six recreational facilities, and 26 schools featuring recreational facilities.2 The City standard is to provide three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which the City currently does not meet.
There are four designated parks located near the project area; Jerry Eaves Park (1485 Ayala Drive) located approximately 0.2 miles to the east; Flores Park (1020 Etiwanda Avenue) located approximately 0.6 miles to the southeast; Birdsall Park (2611 Linden Avenue) located approximately 1.7 miles to the north; and Bud Bender Park (300 Lilac Avenue ) located approximately 1.8 miles to the southeast. The nearest community center to the project site is the Rialto Community Center (214 Palm Avenue ) located approximately 1.9 miles to the southeast.
The approximately 35 -acre project site is comprised of Planning Areas 123, 126 , and 133. The Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 (north of Miro Way) from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. The Project would also include the rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133 (south of Miro Way) from Park and Employment (with a designated Park overlay) to Business Center, to allow for the development of two industrial warehouses. However, Planning Area 126 Public Park, is currently vacant, privately owned land, and does not feature existing recreational facilities.
1 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
Accessed October 2024.
2 City of Rialto. (2010). Renaissance Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-2
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1975 (California Government Code Section 66477, adopted 1975 and amended 1982), part of the Subdivision Map Act, was intended to require developers seeking subdivision approvals to assist in mitigating the potential impacts resulting from improvements that may directly or indirectly increase the need for recreational facilities or park lands within a given city or county. The Act authorized cities to pass ordinances that require developers to set aside a portion of their land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Such fees are required to be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that are responsible for the provision of park and recreational services and amenities within the affected community.
In 1982, the Quimby Act was amended to allow local governments to be held accountable for imposing park development fees. The 1982 amendment to Assembly Bill 1600 requires that agencies demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the public need for a re creation facility or park land and the development upon which the fee is being imposed. Cities and counties were required to show a strong direct relationship (or nexus) between park fees imposed and a proposed development. As a result, local ordinances are required to include specific standards for identifying the percentage of a subdivision to be dedicated and/or the relative fee that is required.
Within the State of California, the Quimby Act establishes standards for park lands for local jurisdictions.
The Act establishes a maximum of three acres of park land dedication/fee per 1,000 residents unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park land exceeds that limit (at the time of adoption).
If the standard of three acres per 1,000 residents is exceeded, a greater standard of five acres per 1,000 residents may be adopted by the jurisdiction in order to meet anticipated park land needs. The Quimby Act only applies to development of residential subdivisions, and thus the Project would not be subject to the Quimby Act.
Regional and Local Regulations
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. The 2010 RSP also offers a variety of recreational opportunities for its residents.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) establishes the City’s planning concept, de sign, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-3
the 2016 RSPA area. The 2016 RSPA contains goals related to recreation to guide the City in meeting its recreational needs.
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Chapter 3.33 Development Impact Fees
This chapter of the municipal establishes park development fees which are used to provide funds for the City’s costs associated with meeting the increased demand on open space areas, parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities resulting from residentia l development. This fee is applicable to every new single - family residence, residential dwelling unit, manufactured or mobile home constructed within the city. The City Council may accept the donation of land or the development of parks in lieu of fees. The fees are due and payable at the time of the issuance of the building permits.
Chapter 17.23 Park and Recreational Facilities Dedication This chapter of the municipal code requires a developer to either dedicate land for a park or pay a development fee in the event a proposed development project is located on land designated by Rialto General Plan (General Plan) for park or recreational facilities.
4.13.4 Methodology
The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning recreation. In addition, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws and standard s) 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.
4.13.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or ▪ Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.16-1 Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-4
With the addition of approximately 399,715 sf of warehouse space, 21,000 sf of office space, and 8,000 sf of mezzanine space an increase in number of employees at the project site could incrementally increase demand on recreational facilities in the immediate project vicinity, as some employees may exercise before or after work, or during lunch. However, as discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing , implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial unplanned population growth. It is anticipated that future employees of the Project would commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas. It is not anticipated that the potential increased demand for recreational facilities from the proposed Project would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 from Public Park and Employment with a Park overlay to Business Center, and Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. Under existing conditions, Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 consist of vacant, previously disturbed land and do not feature existing recreational facilities.
Further, Planning Area 126, Public Park, is currently privately owned, and no recreational facilities are planned for the parcel. Upon approval of the proposed rezone, the warehouse development would be consistent with the Business Center zone.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
As such, the proposed Project would not cause or accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.16-2 Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would include the rezone of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 and the construction of two warehouse buildings on Planning Areas 126 and 133 and associated on-and off-site improvements.
The Project does not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As previously discussed, Planning Areas 126 and 133 are zoned Public Park and Employment with a Park overlay, respectively.
However, the project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land and does not feature existing recreational facilities. The Project is not anticipated to result in substantial population growth, thus requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-5
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project includes the construction of two warehouse buildings on land zoned Employment and Public Park. As a component of the Project, the Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center, which would change the existing recreational land use designation to accommodate the proposed industrial land use development. Planning Area 126, Public Park, is currently privately owned vacant land, and no recreational facilities are planned for the parcel. The 2016 RSPA anticipated an increase in population within the 2016 RSPA area, and ultimately an increase in demand for recreational facilities. Future employees of the Project are anticipated to commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas. As such, the Project is not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for recreational facilities, requiring the expansion or relocation of existing facilities. Additionally, future projects would be required to provide either park dedication or development impact fees to reduce impacts to recreational facilities.
4.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding Recreation. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.13
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Recreation
City Rialto 4.13-6
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-1
4.14 TRANSPORTATION
4.14.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the potential effects of the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project ( proposed Project or Project ) on the project site and surrounding area relative to transportation. The analysis in this section is based on the Traffic Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (February 2025) included as Appendix K.
4.14.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Transportation System
Roadway Characteristics
Regional access to the project site is provided primarily by State Route 210 (SR 210), approximately 0.64 miles to the north. In addition, Interstate 215 (I 215) is approximately 5.5 miles to the east of the project site. Direct access to the project site is provided by Ayala Drive to the east, and Miro Way and Linden Avenue to the west. Trucks would enter the project site from the SR 210 freeway by using the Alder Avenue/SR 210 interchange, head south on Alder Avenue, then head east on Baseline Road, and t hen north on Ayala Drive to Miro Way to access the project site. Trucks exiting the project site to access the SR 210 freeway would head east on Miro Way, then south on Ayala Drive, west on Baseline Road, and then north on Alder Avenue to access the SR 210 freeway. It should be noted that a Truck Route Moratorium was adopted by the City of Rialto on December 13, 2022, which has designated Alder Avenue and Baseline Road as truck routes.
Ayala Drive is a four-lane north-south roadway located east of the project site. Ayala Drive is designated as a Major Arterial and truck route in the General Plan Circulation Element. The posted speed limit along Ayala Drive is 45 miles per hour (MPH). Ayala Drive has an existing raised median between Baseline Road and Renaissance Parkway.
Alder Avenue is a four -lane roadway approximately 1 mile west of the project site. Alder Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial with four travel lanes, a bike lane in each direction, and a raised center median. Alder Avenue is a designated truck route from Baseline Road to Casa Grande. The posted speed limit along Alder Avenue is 50 MPH.
Baseline Road is a four-lane east-west roadway located approximately 400 feet south of the project site.
Baseline Road is designated as a Major Arterial and a truck route, in the General Plan Circulation Element.
It has four travel lanes and a two-way left-turn median lane between Cactus Avenue and Linden Avenue; the median lane is planned to be converted to a raised median. The posted speed limit along Baseline Road is 50 MPH.
Renaissance Parkway is a Major Arterial west of Ayala Drive and a Secondary Arterial between Ayala Drive and the Renaissance Specific Plan eastern boundaries. Within the project area, Renaissance Parkway would provide four travel lanes with bike lanes and a raised median within 108 feet of right -of-way.
Renaissance Parkway extends in an east-west orientation through and beyond the boundaries of the City Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-2
of Rialto, changing to Highland Avenue to the west and Easton Street to the east. Renaissance Parkway connects with north-south streets that have interchanges with the SR 210 Freeway to the north, and the Interstate (I 10) Freeway to the south. Renaissance Parkway is a truck route between Alder Avenue and Locust Avenue, and east of Ayala Drive; with truck access restricted to local deliveries between Locust Avenue and Ayala Drive, and west of Alder Avenue. The posted speed limit along Renaissance Parkway is 45 MPH.
Fitzgerald Avenue is a two-lane local roadway to the east of the project site. The roadway terminates at Baseline Road and forms a two -way stop -controlled intersection with Ayala Drive. There is on -street parking available on both sides of Fitzgerald Avenue.
Cactus Avenue is a four-lane roadway with a two-way left turn median lane located approximately 0.64 miles east of the project site. The roadway is designated as a Major Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH north of Baseline Road and 45 MPH south of Baseline Road.
Transit Services
Transit service near the project site is provided by OmniTrans, which serves various cities in San Bernardino County. Bus stops in the Project vicinity are located along Renaissance Parkway, Baseline Road, and Linden Avenue. A description of the bus routes serving the project area is provided below.
OmniTrans Route 10 operates between the City of Fontana and the City of San Bernardino, traveling through the City along Baseline Road in the Project vicinity. Route 10 operates on weekdays from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM with approximately 1-hour headways (the time between bus arrivals), on Saturdays from 6:20 AM to 7:00 PM with approximately 1-hour headways.
OmniTrans Route 22 operates through the City between the City and the City of Colton along Renaissance Parkway in the project vicinity. Route 22 operates on weekdays from 5:00 AM to 9:40 PM with approximately 1 -hour headways, on Saturdays from 7:15 AM to 6:30 PM with approximately 1 -hour headways, and on Sundays from 7:30 AM to 6:40 PM with approximately1-hour headways. Route 22 has a transfer point with Route 10 at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Baseline Road.
OmniTrans Route 32 operates between the City of San Bernardino and the City of Fontana through Cal State San Bernardino and Rialto, along Renaissance Parkway and Linden Avenue in the project vicinity.
Route 312 operates on weekdays from 5:20 AM to 10:30 PM with approximatel y 1-hour headways, on Saturdays and Sundays from 7:15 AM to 6:50 Pm with approximately 1-hour headways.
Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities
The Rialto Active Transportation Plan recommends actions meant to support and increase bicycling and walking in Rialto and to enhance non -motorized travel infrastructure and create options to support the existing population.1 The Active Transportation Plan includes an inventory of existing bike and pedestrian
1 City of Rialto. (2020). Rialto Active Transportation Plan. https://issuu.com/ktua/docs/rialto_atp_final_2020_march_low_res.
Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-3
infrastructure, identifies deficiencies, develops and prioritizes improvements, and produces materials for future grant applications for implementation of improvements.
The Rialto Active Transportation Plan shows Ayala Drive and Cactus Avenue as existing Class II Bike lanes and Baseline Road as a proposed Class II/III bike lane/route. Baseline Road does not contain any current bicycle facilities. Pedestrian sidewalks are located on the south side of Baseline Road. The Rialto Active Transportation Plan also identifies the Cactus Avenue Trail as a priority project. As shown in Figure 5 -15 of the Active Transportation Plan, the Cactus Avenue Trail is proposed within the boundaries of Jerry Eaves Park, to the northeast of the project site.
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, Title 23, Part 655, Subpart F). The FHWA requires that the most recent MUTCD be adopted by individual States as their legal State standard for traffic -control devices within two years of the update. The MUTCD identifies the standards that should be used to install and maintain traffic-control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads t hat are open to public traffic. The City uses the MUTCD for determining the necessary traffic-control devices (e.g., signs, barricades, gates, warning signs, object markers, guide signs, pavement and curb markings, traffic- control signs, pedestrian control signs, in-roadway lights, and flagger control) on public streets, highways, bikeways, and school areas in the City, including temporary traffic-control devices in and near construction work areas.
State Regulations
Sustainable Communities Strategies: Senate Bill 375 – Land Use Planning Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides for a planning process to coordinate land use planning and Regional Transportation Plans (RTP)s and funding priorities in order to help California meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals established in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires that RTPs developed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) (e.g., Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG]) incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” in their RTPs that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects, such as Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs).
Senate Bill 743 – Update to the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Impacts The Steinberg Act (SB 743) (also known as the Environmental Act) was enacted in 2013 to shift the focus of transportation analysis from driver delay to reducing GHG emissions, creating multimodal networks, and promoting mixed land uses. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) , now the Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide alternative level of service metrics for transportation impact evaluations. In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-4
finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines including the incorporation of the SB 743 modifications. SB 743 requires changes to CEQA that specifically direct to the LCI to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular Level of Service (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan.
Measurements of transportation impacts may include VMT, VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. According to SB 743, projects should aim to reduce VMT and mitigate potential VMT impacts through the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. By July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies were required to analyze a project ’s transportation impacts using VMT.
Regional and Local Regulations
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the SCAG Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. This RTP/SCS is a long -range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals.
Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non -profit org anizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of San Bernardino, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by State law to lower regional GHG emissions.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is San Bernardino’s congestion management agency. SBCTA prepares, monitors and periodically updates the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) to meet federal Congestion Management Process requ irement and the County’s Measure I Program. The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of State highways and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures; the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportations system’ and technical justification for the approach.
Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in San Bernardino County until March 2040 for use exclusively on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements in San Bernardino County.
The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, State and federal transportation revenues, and private fair -share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund the Measure I 2010 –2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-5
management systems. The City has adopted a Development Impact Fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements.
City of Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Circulation Element governs the long -term mobility system in the City. The Circulation Element was updated under the General Plan Focused Update , which was approved in November 2024, and includes goals and policies that are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City’s future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. The Project would be consistent with the following policies related to traffic and circulation.
Goal 4-1 Provide transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion associated with regional and local trip increases.
Policy 4-1.17 Require new streets and improvements to connect to established streets.
Policy 4-1.20 Design City streets so that signalized intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. The one exception will be Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.
Policy 4-1.21 Design City streets so that unsignalized intersections operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that increase delay above that level.
Goal 4-2 Protect residential neighborhoods from through traffic impacts.
Policy 4-2.1 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets for access to the development and its parking.
Goal 4-8 Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City.
Policy 4-8.5 Require major developments to include bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers.
Goal 4-9: Promote Walking.
Policy 4-9.1 Install sidewalks where they are missing, and make improvements to existing sidewalks for accessibility purposes. Priority should be given to needed sidewalk improvement near schools and activity centers. Provide wider sidewalks in areas with higher pedestrian volumes.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-6
Policy 4-9.2 Require sidewalks and parkways on all streets in new development.
Policy 4-9.4 Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists — in addition to automobiles — when considering new development projects.
Policy 4-9.6 Encourage new development to provide pedestrian paths through projects, with outlets to adjacent collectors, secondaries, and arterial roadways.
Policy 4-9.7 Require ADA compliance on all new or modified handicap ramps.
Goal 4-10 Provide a circulation system that supports Rialto’s position as a logistics hub.
Policy 4-10.1 Designate and enforce truck routes for use by commercial trucking as part of the project approval process.
Policy 4-10.3 Develop appropriate noise mitigation along truck routes to minimize noise impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.
Policy 4-10.4 Encourage the development of adequate on -site loading areas to minimize interference of truck loading activities with efficient traffic circulation on adjacent roadways.
Goal 9–3 Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City (Circulation Element Goal 4-8) and prioritize implementation in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) with limited walking and biking infrastructure.
Policy 9–3.5 Require major developments to include bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers (Circulation Element Policy 4-8.5).
Goal 9–4 Increase Safe and Comfortable Walking and Wheelchair Mobility.
Policy 9–4.6 Require ADA compliance on all new or modified handicap ramps (Circulation Element Policy 4-9.7).
Policy 9–5.2 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets for access to the development and its parking (Circulation Element Policy 4-2.1).
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-7
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) establishes the City’s planning concept, de sign, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of the 2016 RSPA area. The 2016 RSPA includes a mobility plan which discusses mobility options for vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mobility within the City.
Rialto Active Transportation Plan
The Rialto Active Transportation Plan recommends actions meant to support and increase bicycling and walking in Rialto and to enhance non -motorized travel infrastructure and create options to support the existing population. The Active Transportation Plan includes an inventory of existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure, identifies deficiencies, develops and prioritizes improvements, and produces materials for future grant applications for implementation. The Rialto Active Transportation Plan shows Ayala Drive and Cactus Avenue as existing Class II Bike lanes, Baseline Road as a proposed Class II/III bike lane/route, and identifies the Cactus Avenue Trail, portions of which are proposed to the north and east of the project site, as a priority project. Wit h respect to the Safe Routes to School program, there are no proposed improvements proximate to the project site.
4.14.4 Methodology
Intersection Analysis
Peak hour intersection operations at signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using methods prescribed in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition, consistent with the requirements of the City of Rialto and the San Bernadino County CMP.
The City guidelines require analysis of traffic operations to be based on the vehicular delay methodologies of the HCM. The intersection analysis for the proposed Project has been accomplished using the VISTRO software program and using the specified input parameters outlined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS).
Per the HCM Methodology, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average vehicle delay.
Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period within the hour analyzed.
Level of Service Standards and Measure of Significance
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. The City established minimum LOS standards, as shown in Table 4.14-1: City of Rialto LOS Standards. According to Policy 4-1.20 of the General Plan, the City requires that signalized intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning and evening peak hours. The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines require new development to mitigate Project- related effects that cause the LOS to fall below LOS D, or cause the peak hour delay to increase as follows:
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-8
Table 4.14-1: City of Rialto LOS Standards
Level of Service Delay Time
A/B 10.0 second
C 8 seconds
D 5 seconds
E 2 seconds
F 1 second
Source: Appendix K
The City’s traffic study guidelines require unsignalized intersections to operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay exceeding 120 seconds during the morning and evening peak hours.
4.14.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
▪ Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15604.3(b); ▪ Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment; or ▪ Result in inadequate emergency access.
4.14.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.14-1: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on-site improvements, include the extension of Miro Way. Project implementation would require the partial and temporary closure of Ayala Drive during construction for off-site improvements. However, operation of Ayala Drive would resume existing conditions upon completion of construction.
The proposed Project’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Section
4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. As shown in Table 4.6-4 of Section
4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would be consistent with applicable goals of the RTP/SCS. The Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s goals. The project site is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) MPO region. The Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS addresses regional challenges in several ways. A key, formative step is to develop a Regional Growth Forecast in collaboration with local jurisdictions, which helps SCAG identify opportunities and Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-9
barriers to development. The plan forecasts the number of people, households and jobs (at the jurisdictional level) expected throughout SCAG’s 191 cities and in unincorporated areas by 2045. This information is typically a component of the City’s General Plan, and if available, the City’s traffic analysis model.
Growth assumed in the General Plan and its corresponding traffic modeling would be the information supplied to SCAG. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan . The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. To accommodate for the proposed warehouse development, the Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 from Public Park and Employment with a designated Park overlay to Business Center. Additionally, the Project would rezone Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay for future development. The 2016 RSPA accounted for future development within the 2016 RSPA area, including the project site. The project site currently consists of vacant and underutilized land. As further discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to employ approximately 147 employees. Future employees are anticipated to commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas. Therefore, because the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and was therefore accounted for in the City’s growth forecast, the Project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS. In addition, the Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the General Plan.
As discussed above, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines require new development to mitigate project-related effects that cause the LOS to fall below LOS D . As discussed in the Traffic Study ( Appendix K ) prepared for the Project, under Project implementation, Project roadways and intersections would operate at LOS D or better. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.
The project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land and does not have any authorized roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit improvements or vehicular access. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two drives ways on Ayala Drive, and two driveways on Miro Way.
The Rialto Active Transportation Plan shows Ayala Drive and Cactus Avenue as existing Class II Bike lanes and Baseline Road as a proposed Class II/III bike lane/route. Baseline Road does not contain any current bicycle facilities. Pedestrian sidewalks are located on the south side of Baseline Road. The Rialto Active Transportation Plan also identifies the Cactus Avenue Trail as a priority project. As shown in Figure 5 -15 of the Active Transportation Plan, the Cactus Avenue Trail is proposed within the boundaries of Jerry Eaves Park, to the east of the project site. Project implementation would not interfere with implementation of the Rialto Active Transportation Plan. Additionally, the extension of Miro Way connecting Miro Way to Ayala Drive would not interfere with the circulation plan included in the 2016 RSPA. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Further, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project.
Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-10
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.14-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Screening Criteria
SB 743 requires the OPR , now the LCI, to establish recommendations for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. Generally, SB 743 moves away from using delay -based LOS as the primary metric for identifying a project’s transportation impact to instead use VMT. The final Technical Advisory released by LCI in December 2018 and the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines provide guidance on evaluating transportation impacts and VMT and are the guidance on which this VMT analysis is based.
Prior to undertaking a full VMT analysis, LCI’s Technical Advisory advises that lead agencies conduct a screening process “to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less -than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study.” Both the City’s TIA Guidelines and LCI provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed level anal ysis.
Screening thresholds are broken into the following three steps:
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
2. Low VMT Area Screening
3. Land Use Type Screening
A land use project needs only meet one of the above screening thresholds to be presumed to result in no significant impact under CEQA pursuant to SB 743.
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
As described in the LCI Guidelines, projects located within one -half mile from an existing major transit stop or within one-half of a mile from an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor can be screened out. Based on San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the project site is not located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA). The TPA screening criteria is not met.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-11
Low VMT Generating Area Screening
A project located within a low VMT generating area as determined by the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool and the City’s TIA Guidelines would be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. A Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a VMT below the County baseline of 16.9 is considered to be a low VMT area. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the project site is located within TAZ 53745301, which has a VMT per worker of 15.7. Therefore, the proposed Project is located within a low VMT generating area. Results of the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool are provided in the Approved Scoping Agreement in Appendix K. The Low VMT Generating Area Threshold is met.
Land Use Type Screening
The LCI and SBCTA VMT guidelines identify that project types falling under the screening criteria includes the following:
▪ Local-serving K-12 Schools
▪ Local parks
▪ Day care centers
▪ Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet (sf), including:
o Gas stations
o Banks
o Restaurants
o Shopping Center
▪ Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)
▪ Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses ▪ Local-serving assembly uses (e.g., places of worship, community organizations) ▪ Community institutions (e.g., public libraries, fire stations, local government) ▪ Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS Affordable or supportive housing
▪ Assisted living facilities
▪ Senior housing as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ▪ Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips o This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials ▪ 11 single family housing units
▪ 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units ▪ 10,000 sf of office space
▪ 15,000 sf of light industrial
▪ 63,000 sf of warehousing
▪ 79,000 sf of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse The proposed Project would involve the construction of two warehouse buildings totaling 428,715 sf that generate more than 110 daily trips; therefore, the Project would not be screened out based on the development type.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-12
Based on the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines VMT and LOS and the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the proposed Project is located within a low VMT generating area. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact, and no further VMT analysis is required.
Further, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project.
Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.14-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to surrounding roadways. Upon approval of the proposed rezone, the warehouse development would be consistent with Planning Areas 126 and 133.
The project site driveways and Project improvements would be designed so that adequate sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the project site is maintained. The line of sight – a straight line between the driver’s eye and oncoming vehicles on the adjacent roadway – defines the “limited use area.” The limited use area for each driveway would be kept clear of visual obstructions, including Project signs, structures, and obstructive landscaping, in order to maintain adequate sight distance. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable State building codes and would meet City standards for design. The Project would provide adequate site access and driveway width for the proposed uses, and the final site plan would be subject to review and approval of the City prior to Project approval.
A peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted for the unsignalized intersection of Ayala Drive at Miro Way. For the intersection of Ayala Drive at Miro Way, the signal warrant analysis shows that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant is satisfied in the PM peak hour under both Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions and Opening Year 2024 Existing Plus Growth Plus Project conditions . As such, this intersection would operate at optimum level of service. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Project impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-13
No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.14-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Level of Significance: No Impact
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways along Ayala Drive, and two driveways along Miro Way. Emergency vehicles could access the project site through any of the four driveways. Project traffic would not result in substantial delays or congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles within the Project area. Further, the proposed driveways would meet requirements for fire access roads in the California Fire Code 9 CCR Title 24 Part 9. Adequate emergency access would be provided on-site. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. The Project would have no impact with respect to adequate emergency access.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts
For cumulative conditions, a project that is below the VMT impact thresholds and does not have a VMT impact under baseline conditions would also not have a cumulative impact as long as it is aligned with long-term State and local environmental goals, such as reducing GHG emissions, and relevant plans, such as the SCAG RTP/SCS. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative traffic impacts includes traffic volumes resulting from buildout of the City of Rialto. In addition, cu mulative impacts are based on the future traffic volumes estimated by SCAG, which includes population and socioeconomic projections. As discussed above, based on the VMT analysis for the proposed Project, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to VMT. As such, the Project would have a less than significant VMT impact under cumulative conditions and no mitigation is required.
4.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with transportation. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.14
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Transportation
City of Rialto 4.14-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-1
4.15 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.15.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) provides contextual background information on tribal cultural resources on or near the project site. The extent to which implementation of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) could impact existing tribal cultural resources is evaluated. This section also provides the results of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation.
As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) , a tribal cultural resource is a site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American tribe and is either [1] on or eligible for the California Historic Register or a local historic register; or [2] the lead agency at its discretion, and supported by substantial evidence, determines to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.
The analysis in this section was conducted in compliance with the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 and Section 21074 to identify tribal, archaeological and historic resources in the project area and evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. Baseline conditions and impact analyses are based the Cultural Resources Assessment Letter Report prepared by ASM Affiliates, which is included in Appendix D of this SEIR. Findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment Letter Report are further discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources.
4.15.2 Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The project site lies in the northern portion of the City of Rialto (City). Elevations range from approximately 1,385 to 1,420 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The City is largely urbanized and surrounded by other developed cities.
Prehistoric Setting
Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources , regarding the ethnography of Native American tribes in the vicinity of the project site. For further information regarding the cultural setting and archaeological and historical context, see Appendix D.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-2
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code Section 65352.3) requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to the adoption and amendment of general plans and specific plans. The consultation process requires (1) that local governments send the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) information on a proposed project and request contact information for local Native American tribes; (2) that local governments then send information on the project to the tribes that the NAHC has identified and notify them of the opportunity to consult; (3) that the tribes have 90 days to respond on whether they want to consult or not, and (4) that consultation begins if requested by a tribe and there is no statutory limit on the duration of the consultation. If issues arise and consensus on mitigation cannot be reached, SB 18 allows a finding to be made that the suggested mitigation is infeasible. SB 18 is applicable to the proposed Project.
California Assembly Bill 52
On July 1, 2015, California AB 52 of 2014 was enacted and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2).
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before an EIR can be released. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native A merican tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the Lead Agency, in writing, to be informed by the Lead Agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation .” (PRC Section 21080.3.1). Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the Project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe.
The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either the parties agree on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource (if such a significant effect exists) or when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-3
Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052
State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the San Bernardino County Coroner must be notified. HSC Section 7052 es tablishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
More precisely, if human remains are encountered, Section 7050.5 states that:
a) “Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code.
The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any person carrying out an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code or to any person authorized to implement Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Se ction 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to th e 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. The Coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the Coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
c) If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.”
Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
Relevant Rialto General Plan (General Plan) policies for tribal cultural resources are identified 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.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-4
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.
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.
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (2010 RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. The 2010 RSP includes goals to preserve cultural and historical resources within 2010 RSP area. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
As stated in the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA), the 2016 RSPA area is partially developed with industrial uses, scattered residential areas, roadways, utilities, and vacant and undeveloped areas. No known historical or archaeological reso urces exist within the 2016 RSPA area.
Future development within the 2019 RSPA area would require ground -disturbing monitoring and earth work shall be surveyed and recorded, prior to and during ground-disturbing activities.
4.15.4 Methodology
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
The NAHC was contacted on September 19, 2022 requesting a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if there was any information relating to the potential presence of Native American cultural resources on the site. A response was received on November 7, 2022 indicating a tribal resource may be located on the project site suggesting that the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation be contacted for additional information. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians have requested additional Project materials from the City. This request is to be fulfilled by the City. Further, a list of 29 tribal contacts who may have also had an interest in the Project was provided with the NAHC response (refer to Appendix D).
Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
As previously discussed, SB 18 and AB52 require local governments to consult with Native American tribes and provide notice to tribes during the planning process. SB 18 applies to general plans and specific plans, while AB 52 establishes a formal consultat ion process for projects that may have a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Both laws emphasize the need for consultation with Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-5
tribes, the exchange of information, and the consideration of mitigation measures to avoid significant effects on tribal cultural resources.
The following tribes have been contacted by the City in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 on September 3, 2024: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrieleno-Tongva Nation, Gabrieleno -Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno -Tongva Tribe, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Indians, Queechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla.
At this time, one response was received from the from the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, which notified the City that the Project would have a high potential to cause significant adverse effects to tribal cultural resources. The Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council also expressed their interest in continuing with the AB 52 consultation process. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians have requested additional Project materials fro m the City. This request is to be fulfilled by the City.
4.15.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ 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, o r object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (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 PRC §5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
4.15.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.15-1: 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:
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-6
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k)
and
(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.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated In compliance with SB 18 and AB 52, on September 3, 2024 , the City provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives that may have interest in the proposed Project. The following tribes were contacted: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Gabriele ño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabriele ño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabriele ño-Tongva Nation, Gabri eleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Indians, Queechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla. At this time, one request for consultation was received from the Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, which notified the City that the Project would have a high potential to cause significant adverse effects to tribal cultural resources. The Gabriele ño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council also expressed their interest in continuing with the AB 52 consultation process. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians have requested additional Project materials from the City. This request is to be fulfilled by the City.
Additionally, on November 14, 2022, a Query Letter was sent to tribal representatives who may have interest in the Project. The City received correspondence from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation in response to the query letter requesting information on the lead agency.
The consultation period ended on December 2, 2024. The City attempted to engage with tribes that requested consultation and additional Project details, however, response was only received by San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
No known or potential tribal cultural resources were identified by the NAHC SLF search or in response to the query letters. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, no cultural resources are located within the project site. Further, due to previous uses of the project site, it is unlikely tribal cultural resources would occur on-site. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures ( MM) TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
In the event an undiscovered tribal cultural resource is encountered during project development, all activities would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be notified of the find. The Project would not cause a substantial change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-7
would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manual Nation (YSMN) Cultural Management Department shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-2, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment . Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Plan) shall be created by the archaeologist, i n 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 docume nts created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency, and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the Project.
4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts
Although the Project, in conjunction with the effects of cumulative projects, may result in the disturbance of tribal cultural resources throughout the study area, standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures required for each project would redu ce the impacts to less than significant levels. 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 re sult, development of the proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources. Future projects would be required to comply with the requirements of SB 18 and AB 52 and implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, when applicable. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
4.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.15
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Rialto 4.15-8
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-1
4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.16.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) discusses impacts associated with the potential for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) to impact existing utilities or utility service providers on or in the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, this section addresses the following utilities: water, sewer, wastewater, electrical, telecommunications, and solid waste. Other utilities such as electricity and natural gas are discussed in Section 4.5, Energy. Stormwater is discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The following utility and services are addressed in this section (the service provider is noted parenthetically):
▪ Domestic water supply and distribution (Rialto Water Services) ▪ Wastewater facilities (Rialto Water Services)
▪ Electricity (Southern California Edison)
▪ Natural gas (SoCalGas Company)
▪ Telecommunications (AT&T)
▪ Solid waste (Burrtec)
4.16.2 Environmental Setting
Water Supply
Water service within the City of Rialto (City) is provided by three separate water agencies: Rialto Water Services, West Valley Water District (WVWD), and Fontana Union Water Company (FUWC). The project site is located within the jurisdiction of Rialto Water Services.
As described in the 2020 IRUWMP, Rialto Water Services provides water service to a portion of the City , including the project site. Rialto Water Services is a retail public water supplier with over 12,000 water connections.1 Recycled water is also available from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The City distributes its water to its year 2020 12,265 service connections through a 162 -mile network of distribution mains with pipelines sizes ranging from two to 48 inches. The water system consists of three pressure zones and three subzones that provid e sufficient water pressure to c ustomers. Table 4.16-1:
Projected Water Supplies, identifies the anticipated water supplies for Rialto Water Services.
As described in the 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan ( IRUWMP), the City ’s municipal water system provides potable water to customers primarily within the City of Rialto and serves
1 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). (2021). 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9242/637614374631830000. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-2
one-half of the City’s population, or approximately 51,696 customers as of July 2023.2 The City's water supply sources consist of water from canyon surface flows on the east side of the San Gabriel Mountains, including the North Fork Lytle Creek, Middle Fork Lytle Creek, and South Fork Lytle Creek, which is treated at the Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Plant. Groundwater sources to the City come from four different adjudicated groundwater basins: the Rialto Basin, Lytle Creek Basin, North Riverside Basin and the Bunker Hill Basin. The City also receives additional Bunker Hill groundwater delivered through a shared delivery system called the Baseline Feeder. Recycled water is also available from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 4.16-1: Projected Water Supplies
Water Supply Additional Detail on
Water Supply
2025
Water
Supply (AF)
2030
Water
Supply (AF)
2035
Water
Supply (AF)
2040
Water
Supply (AF)
2045
Water
Supply (AF)
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Bunker Hill (part of SBB) 2,580 3,227 3,875 4,270 4,665 Groundwater
(not desalinated)
Bunker Hill (part of SBB),
via Baseline Feeder) 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Lytle (past of SBB) 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Groundwater
(not desalinated) Rialto-Colton 1,528 1,557 1,586 1,614 1,642 Purchased or
Imported Water
State Water Project –
Rialto Colton
Groundwater
Supplement Supply
384 412 440 469 498
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Riverside-Arlington 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Surface water
(not desalinated) Lytle Creek 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,241 Recycled Water Rialto WWTP 10 10 10 10 10
Total 11,043 11,747 12,451 12,903 13,355
Source:
2020 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2021); https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9242/637614374631830000. Accessed November 2023. Accessed November 2023.
Water for the Project would be supplied by the City of Rialto Water Services and would connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline located in Miro Way and the existing 14 -inch water pipeline located in Ayala Drive . The 2020 IRUWMP has strategically anticipated future industrial uses within the City by assessing projected water demands and identifying sustainable supply sources. This proactive approach
2 United States Census Bureau. (2024). Quick Facts: Rialto city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/rialtocitycalifornia. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-3
ensures that Rialto has the necessary water resources to support future development. The 2020 IRUWMP anticipates adequate regional supplies for years 2025 to 2045 under multiple -dry year conditions, as summarized in Table 4.16-2: Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand.3 The multiple-dry year period is reflected as the lowest annual runoff for a three year or more consecutive period. As shown in Table
4.16-2, the supply is sufficient to account for the demand during the same period. The City also determined that water demands would not increase during single or multiple dry years.4 Table 4.16-2: Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Year Totals 2025
(AF)
2030
(AF)
2035
(AF)
2040
(AF)
2045
(AF)
First Year
Supply Totals 12,147 12,922 13,696 14,194 14,691
Demand Totals 10,563 11,236 11,910 12,342 12,775
Difference 1,584 1,685 1,786 1,851 1,916
Second Year
Supply Totals 12,417 12,922 13,696 14,194 14,691
Demand Totals 10,563 11,236 11,910 12,342 12,775
Difference 1,584 1,685 1,786 1,851 1,916
Third Year
Supply Totals 12,417 12,922 13,696 14,194 14,691
Demand Totals 10,563 11,236 11,910 12,342 12,775
Difference 1,584 1,685 1,786 1,851 1,916
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 12,417 12,922 13,696 14,194 14,691
Demand Totals 10,563 11,236 11,910 12,342 12,775
Difference 1,584 1,685 1,786 1,851 1,916
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 12,417 12,922 13,696 14,194 14,691
Demand Totals 10,563 11,236 11,910 12,342 12,775
Difference 1,584 1,685 1,786 1,851 1,916
Source:
SBVMWD. (2021). 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9242/637614374631830000. Accessed October 2024.
Wastewater
Wastewater within the City is treated at the City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The approximately 14 -acre plant provides secondary and tertiary treatment processes with a maximum
3 SBVMWD. (2021a). 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9232/637614632546570000. Accessed October 2024. 4 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-4
treatment capacity of 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd). It consists of five separate treatment facilities built between 1956 and 1998. The City processes over 2 billion gallons of wastewater per year at the WWTP. Processing of sewage can be accomplished in numerous ways through, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatment methods. Primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment standards reflect the degree by which the sewage has been treated. Primary treatment includes the removal of relatively large objec ts such as trash, rags, cans, and gravel. Secondary treatment involves the removal of biological solids such as fat, grease, human waste, soaps, and other organic materials. Tertiary treatment further clarifies wastewater utilizing chemical washes, biologi cal decomposition, and disinfection. Tertiary treatment involves the removal of nitrates, phosphorous, pathogens, and other microorganisms.5 Tertiary treated water can be used as reclaimed water for irrigation and other uses that can rely on non- potable water. Reclaimed water is produced at the City’s WWTP. However, there is no infrastructure for citywide use of recycled water for irrigation or other non-potable uses and there are no plans to install such infrastructure. The City’s Utilities Division is responsible for maintaining over 150 miles of sewer mains. The collection method uses gravity flow through vitrified clay pipes that flow from n orthwest to southeast. The Project would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer pipeline located within Ayala Drive to the east of the project site.
Dry Utilities
The Project would be served by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and Southern California Edison (SCE). SoCalGas serves 21.1 million consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities with its 24,000 -square mile service territory thr ough central and southern California. 6 The Project would connect to existing natural gas utilities within the Project vicinity.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication services within the City are provided by AT&T.
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste Industries provides trash collection and recycling services including hazardous waste disposal and recycling services to the City of Rialto. Burrtec transports solid waste to the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works Mid -Valley Sanitary L andfill, located approximately 6.8 miles southeast of the project site. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a total site capacity of 408 acres and is expected to reach capacity and closure in 2045. 7 The maximum permitted throughput is 7,500 tons per day and the remaining capacity is 54,219,377 cubic yards. In the event that that the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill is closed due to high winds, wastes are transferred to the San Timoteo Landfill in Redlands. The El Sobrante Landfill, in the City of Corona also serves as a backup. The San Timoteo Landfill has a total site
5 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan Update EIR. Accessed October 2024. 6 SoCalGas. (2024). Company Profile. https://www.socalgas.com/about- us/mission#:~:text=As%20the%20nation%27s%20largest%20natural,in%20more%20than%20500%20com munities.Accessed October 2024.
7 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), (2024). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for Mid- Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-5
capacity of 366 acres and is expected to reach capacity and closure in 2039. 8 The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day and the remaining capacity is 12,360,396 cubic yards. The El Sobrante Landfill has a total site capacity of 1,322 acres and is expected to reach capacity and closure in 2051. The maximum permitted throughput is 16,054 tons per day and the remaining capacity is 143,9 10,000 cubic yards.9
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, Health and Safety Code, Sections 116350 through 116405) is intended to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The Federal SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (33 United States Code Section 1251 et seq.) is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutants discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established pursuant to the Clean Water Act to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been es tablished for broad categories of discharges, including point -source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint -source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.
Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant. In California, the federal requirements are administe red by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and individual NPDES permits are issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
8 CalRecycle. (2024). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0087). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1906?siteID=2688. Accessed October 2024. 9 CalRecycle. (2024c). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-6
The NPDES permit applicable to the project site is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
State Regulations
California Safe Drinking Water Act
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act, with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) granted primary enforcement responsibility. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) established DHS authority and provides drinking water quality and monitoring requirements, which are equal to or more stringent than federal standards.
California Recycled Water Regulations
The regulation of recycled water is vested by State law in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Public Health Services (DPH). DPH is responsible for the regulations concerning the use of recycled water. Title 17 (California Water Code, Sections 13500 through 13556) regulates the protection of the potable water supply through the control of cross-connections with potential contaminants, including recycled water. The established water quality standards and treatment reliability criteria for recycled water are codified in Title 22 of the California Water Code. The requirements of Title 22, as revised in 1978, 1990 and 2001, establish the quality and/or treatment processes required for a recycled effluent to be used fo r a non -potable application. In addition to recycled water uses and treatment requirements, Title 22 addresses sampling and analysis requirements at the treatment plant, preparation of an engineering report prior to production or use of recycled water, gen eral treatment design requirements, reliability requirements, and alternative methods of treatment.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6, Section 10610 et. seq.) was enacted in 1983. The UWMP Act applies to municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 acre -feet (AF) per year of water. The UWMP Act requires these suppliers to update their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years to demonstrate an appropriate level of reliability in supplying anticipated short-term and long-term water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the California agency focused on providing and ensuring clean sustainable water for all state residents. The SWRCB works alongside other federal programs like the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate water sources and uses. The agency regulates water consumption for irrigation and drinking, as well as water discharges from construction, municipal uses, stormwater, and other sources.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-7
Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 – May 31, 2018
SB 606 and AB 1668 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards, which must be in place by 2022. The two bills strengthen the State’s water resiliency in the face of future droughts with provisions that include:
Establishing water use objectives and long -term standards for efficient water use that apply to urban retail water suppliers; comprised of indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters, water loss, and other unique local uses.
Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water.
Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and provide recommendations for drought planning.
Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare for drought.10
Senate Bill 610
Under SB 610, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912 [a]) subject to the CEQA.11
Senate Bill 221
Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before Project construction begins.12 Assembly Bill 341
AB 341, approved in October 2011, is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in the state. I t is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. This law requires California commercial businesses and public entities, that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week or is a multi -family residential dwelling with five or more units, to arrange for recycling services.
10 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2023). California Statutes Making Conservation a California Way of Life. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statutes.html. Accessed October 2024. 11 California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). (2002). Draft Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 1610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. Page iii. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And- Efficiency/Files/DT-SB-610-SB-221-PDF.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 12 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-8
Each local jurisdiction is required to inform businesses about the recycling requirement and to keep track of the level of recycling within the business community. In addition, each jurisdiction is required to report to California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the state agency that oversees recycling and solid waste, on progress in the business community.
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, requires each city or county to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. Subsequent legislation changed the reporting requirements and threshold, but restated source reduction as a priority.
Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008
The purpose of the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (SB 1016) is to make the process of goal measurement (as established by AB 939) simpler, timelier, and more accurate. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplif ied measure of jurisdictions’ performance.
SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator—the per capita disposal rate—which uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment) and (2) its disposal, as reported by disposal facilities. Each year, CalRecycle calculates each jurisdiction’s per capita (per resident or per employee) disposal rates. If business is the dominant source of a jurisdiction’s waste generation, CalRecycle may use the per employee disposal rate. Each year’s disposal rate will be compared to that jurisdiction’s 50 percent per capita disposal target. As such, jurisdictions will not be compared to other jurisdictions or the statewide average, but they will only be compared to their own 50 percent per capita disposal target. Among other benefits, per capita disposal is an indicator that allows for jurisdiction growth because, as residents or employees increase, report -year disposal tons can increase and still be consistent with the 50 percent per capita disposal target. A comparison of the reported annual per capita disposal rate to the 50 percent per capita disposal target will be useful for indicating progress or other changes over time.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act require areas in development projects to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act required CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, providing fo r adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-9
Regional and Local Regulations
City of Rialto Urban Water Management Plan
Pursuant to the UWMP Act, the City of Rialto adopts the San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan every five years. The current adopted plan is the 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP.
City of Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18.108, Regulation of Recycling Facilities The requirements of Chapter 18.108 – Regulation of Recycling Facilities established guidelines and operating standards and procedures for the permitting of recycling facilities in the City. Recycling facilities may be located and operated in commercial and industrial zoning districts in conformance with Section 18.108.040.
City of Rialto General Plan
The City’s General Plan provides guidance to promote the City’s goals for current and future development related to solid waste, recycling, and infrastructure, including water and wastewater systems. Relevant General Plan policies for infrastructure and wa ste handling are addressed below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.
Goal 3-8 Promote affordable and quality water service capable of adequately meeting normal and emergency water demands to all areas in Rialto.
Policy 3-8.1 Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the water system to handle the increased demands which they are expected to generate.
Policy 3-8.4 Advocate regular evaluation of the entire water supply and distribution system to ensure its continued adequacy, reliability, and safety.
Policy 3-8.6 Work with water agencies to aggressively recharge groundwater basins and prevent excessive water pumping when there are inadequate supplies.
Policy 3-8.7 Develop new sources of water supply, including drilling additional water wells that are free from perchlorate, and expanding recycling water opportunities.
Policy 3-8.8 Work with municipal water districts to explore new water conservation opportunities within Rialto.
Policy 3-8.9 Conserve potable water and utilize reclaimed water for meeting landscaping and irrigation demands as much as possible.
Policy 3-8.10 Support water conservation through requirements for landscaping with drought - tolerant plants and efficient irrigation for all new development and City projects.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-10
Goal 3-9 Upgrade and maintain an improved wastewater system with adequate plant efficiency and capacity to protect the health and safety of all Rialto residents, businesses, and institutions.
Policy 3-9.1 Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the wastewater disposal system to handle the increased loads which they are expected to generate.
Policy 3.9-2 Evaluate the wastewater disposal system routinely to ensure its adequacy to meet changes in demand and changes in types of waste.
Goal 3-10 Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters local and regional landfills.
Policy 3-10.2 Encourage the recycling of construction and demolition materials in an effort to divert these items from entering landfills.
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) covers an area of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres within the City and establishes a framework for future development and land use decisions. Buildout of the 2010 RSP would result in a mixed-use community, with a variety of land use types. Section 3 of the 2010 RSP includes development standards for new development project s regarding utilities. Additionally, the 2010 RSP includes a Dry Utilities Plan, Conceptual Water Plan, and Conceptual Sewer Plan, which outline the existing and proposed utilities facilities within the 2010 RSP area. 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
The project site is zoned Public Park and Employment in the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA). The 2016 RSPA establishes the City’s planning concept, design, and development guidelines, administrative procedures, and implementation measures required to achieve cohesive development of the 2016 RSPA area. Similar to the 2010 RSP, future and existing utility facilities are outlined in the 2016 RSPA and future development is required to comply with the development standards regarding new utility connections.
4.16.4 Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds detailed below and information concerning current service levels and the ability of the service providers to accommodate the increased demand created by the Project.
Water Supply. The analysis of water supply is based on the change of water levels due to the Project’s projected water demand. This information used for this analysis includes results from the 2020 IRUWMP.
Wastewater Capacity and Treatment Regulations . The wastewater analysis identifies the types of wastewater anticipated to be generated by Project implementation and wastewater treatment requirements related to wastewater. Impacts would be considered significant if the Project would not comply or would conflict with existing applicable wastewater regulations resulting in a significant Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-11
environmental impact. Refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for information regarding the Project’s impacts on drainage.
Dry Utilities. This analysis addresses the Project’s potential impacts on dry utility infrastructure, including electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Energy consumption that would occur during both construction and operation of the Project and specific analysis methodologies are assessed in Section
4.5, Energy. Energy calculations are provided in Appendix F of this SEIR and are based on the same assumptions used in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of this SEIR.
Storm Drain Capacity. Impacts on stormwater drainage facilities include the general increase or decrease in stormwater and impact on existing drainage infrastructure that is anticipated to occur from buildout of the Project. As discussed above, issues related to stormwater drainage facilities are further addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Landfill Capacity. The analysis of the Project’s impact on landfill facilities is based on the anticipated generation of solid waste that would occur during construction and operation of the Project. The analysis identifies the projected amount of non -hazardous construction debris and operational solid waste that would be generated from implementation of the Project and the amount that would be disposed of in landfills after compliance with recycling/diversion requirements. The Project impact’s regarding solid waste would be significant if the Project’s anticipated solid waste generation would substantially affect landfill capacity, such that additional or expanded landfill facilities would be required to accommodate the Project.
Solid Waste Regulations. The analysis of the Project consists of the Project’s conformance of applicable solid waste regulations related to the generation or disposal of solid waste. Impacts would be considered significant if the Project would not comply with all applicable federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
4.16.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as the significance criteria in this section. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, of telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; ▪ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; ▪ Result in a determination by the waste water 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;
▪ Generate solid waste is excess of State of local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-12
▪ Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
4.16.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.16-1 Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
The Project would require the construction of new water service connection laterals that would connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline located in Miro Way and the existing 14-inch water pipeline located in Ayala Drive. Impacts of required water facilities are addressed throughout this SEIR in the respective SEIR section(s). The majority of Project water facilities would be installed below ground and installed within existing road rights -of-way, and as such the only physical impacts would be associate d with temporary impacts during construction. All Project water facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the Rialto Water Services and the City and would also follow applicable SEIR mitigation measures in each topical area addressed in the SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater would be captured and conveyed via roof drains, inlets, trench drains, and underground storm drain networks, and will ultimately be infiltrated and treated in the respective subsurface infiltration basin. The proposed basins would serve as both a water quality BMP as well as an underground storage facility. In consideration of existing requirements and SEIR mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project water facilities.
Further, prior to the issuance of the final building permit, the City would determine the fees associated with connecting to the existing facilities. Payment of fees as required by th e City are intended to offset incremental impacts to water facilities by helping fund capital improvements and expenditures. With the proposed lateral connections, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of water facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Construction on the warehouse development site would result in an additional 399,715 square feet (sf) of warehouse use and 29,000 sf of office use in the City. Prior to construction or operations of the Project, the City permitting process would ensure adequate capacity to treat the anticipated wastewater occurs before the Project is implemented through review of the Utility Plans. The Project would generate approximately 99.1 million gallons of water per year for indoor use, or 0.27 mgd (Appendix F).
As discussed above, wastewater during construction and operations from the project site would be treated at the WWTP. An existing 8-inch sewer main is located within Ayala Drive. The Project would include a connection to the existing sewer utilities, ultimately conveying Project effluent to the Rialto WWTP. Connections to the existing 8-inch sewer main is located within Ayala Drive would require off-site construction work, which is included in the Project footprint.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-13
The 2016 RSPA anticipated the development of Planning Areas 126 and 133 would include recreational uses and commercial uses and business uses. As such, although the project site currently consists of vacant, undeveloped land, the 2016 RSPA anticipated the project site would feature future development that would generate wastewater. While the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for wastewater treatment services, the Project wastewater treatment demand, which is further discussed under t he response to Impact 4.1 6-3, would not result in or require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Improvements to facilitate service to the project site would occur in previously disturbed or areas already proposed to be disturbed. Impacts would be less than significant.
Dry Utilities
SCE currently operates electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines both aboveground and buried lines. The Project would connect to existing SCE lines which would enable services to the project site. Although some new utility infrastructure may be required on-site, extension of services is not anticipated to require the construct ion of any new off -site electric power facilities in order to serve the project site. At most, it is anticipated that SCE would provide more electricity to the Project compared to what is currently consumed, due to the current vacant status of the project site. New infrastructure would be confined to the project site and not to any off-site facilities. This would represent a less than significant impact and mitigation is not required.
The SoCalGas Company provides gas services to most of southern California. It is anticipated that the project site may require some amount of natural gas to support future operations. Similar to electrical services, natural gas lines already exist in the Project area to enable service to surrounding uses. These areas are anticipated to be heavily disturbed and would not contain any pristine resources. Additionally, it is not anticipated that new or expanded gas supply facilities would be required to serve the Project. As such, all required improvements would be made as part of the proposed improvements in areas that would be disturbed as part of Project implementation or in the aforementioned previously disturbed areas. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant.
The Project site would require telecommunication services to be provided by AT&T. Existing telecommunication lines would be located within existing adjacent right -of-ways needed to serve the existing surrounding development. Service to the project site would require tying into these lines but these improvements would occur within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. The construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructures would not be required.
These impacts would be less than significant.
It should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development project related to Planning Area would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA.
Impact 4.16-2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-14
Construction
Project construction would result in water demand of approximately 3,020 gallons/acre each day based on the Project water demand calculations for the Project’s Energy Assessment (Appendix F). During construction, the Project would require water usage for dust control measures.
Operation
As shown in Table 4.16-3: Renaissance Specific Plan Water Demand Comparison, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a decrease in water demand. Table 4.16-3 is from the 2016 RSPA, which based their water supply analysis on the 2008 Water Supply Assessment prepared for the 2010 RSP. Under the existing zoning, the total water demand for Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, would b e 140 AFY, as analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Under the proposed rezone, the total water demand for Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 would be 131 AFY.
A Project -specific water supply assessment was not required for the Project as the methodology for analyzing Project water usage is consistent with the methodology for implementation of the 2016 RSPA.
The City’s General Plan EIR evaluated water usage for the City based on existing zoning designations of the 2016 RSPA (including the project site) and assuming full build out of the project site under its current zoning designations. Based on this, it is a nticipated that the City has an adequate water supply to serve the Project. The proposed rezone would result in a decrease in water demand of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, it is anticipated that the City would have adequate water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project- specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.16-3: Renaissance Specific Plan Water Demand Comparison Existing Land Uses
Land Use
Planning
Area
Unit Water
Demand
(gpd/ac)
Unit Water
Demand
(AF/ac)
Acreage
(ac)
Water Demand
(AFY)
Commercial 123 3,500 3.92 13 51
Public Park 126 4,000 4.48 16.6 75
Commercial 133 3,500 3.92 3.4 14
Total Approved Demand 140
Proposed Land Uses
Land Use
Planning
Area
Unit Water
Demand
(gpd/ac)
Unit Water
Demand
(AF/ac)
Acreage
(ac)
Water Demand
(AFY)
Commercial 123 3,500 3.92 13 51
Commercial 126 3,500 3.92 16.6 66
Commercial 133 3,500 3.92 3.4 14
Total Proposed Demand 131
Difference in Demand -9
Source: City of Rialto. (2016). Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-15
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.16-3 Would the Project result in a determination by the waste water 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? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Wastewater services are provided by Rialto Water Services and is treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) . The Project would include connections to the existing 8-inch sewer pipeline located within Ayala Drive, to the east. The Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings on vacant land, and thus would result in an increase in wastewater treatment demand at the project site. Based on the Project water demand for the Energy Assessment ( Appendix F), the Project would result in a demand for approximately 99.1 million gallons of water per year for indoor use, or 0.27 mgd. The General Plan noted that the design capacity of the Rialto WWTP exceeds 12 mgd and that, as of 2020, the City produces approximately 7 to 8 mgd of sewage. There is approximately 4 to 5 mgd capacity remaining. Accordingly, Project operations would generate a minimal increase and it is anticipated that the City’s existing wastewater facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the Project. Development of Planning Ar ea 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-16
Impact 4.16-4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would be served by the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill (2390 N orth Alder Avenue), located approximately 1.8 miles north of the project site. The landfill has a daily throughput of 7,500 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 54,219,377 cubic yards.13 Construction
Site preparation and construction activities would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardboard, and green waste. Non-salvaged construction and demolition waste would result in an incremental and intermittent increa se in solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.
According to the EPA’s (2003) “Construction and Demolition Amounts,” the overall waste generation rate of nonresidential construction is expected to be 4.34 pounds of waste per square foot constructed. Using the EPA waste generation rates and the overall warehouse development’s square footage of approximately 428,715 sf, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 930 tons of solid waste during Project construction.14 Application of the CBC requirements would divert a minimum of 50 percent of the construction waste from the landfill, which results in a total estimated construction solid waste generation of approximately 465 tons.
As discussed above, the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill has approximately 7,500 tons per day of intake capacity; therefore, the landfill would support a temporary increase in solid waste during construction of the Project over time, in multiple phases. Recycl ing of construction debris would reduce the potential amount of waste disposed of at the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill and would contribute to the recycling goals set forth by the City, the CBC, and AB 939. Construction activities would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. As a result, impacts associated with short-term solid waste would be less than significant.
Operation
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and shown in Table 3-2 the proposed rezone for Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 would result in approximately 156 new employees and t he warehouse development would result in approximately 147 new employees. It is estimated that the warehouse development would generate approximately 346 tons of solid waste (2.35 tons per employee a year x 147 employees) using the generation rate identified in the 2010 RSP EIR. Pursuant to AB 939, a minimum of 50 percent of so lid waste would be required to be recycled. Accordingly, the Project would generate approximately 0.9 tons per day of solid waste that would be directed to a landfill, which represents 0.01
13 CalRecycle. (2024). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed October 2024. 14 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2003). Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-17
percent of the Mid-Valley Landfill maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons per day. Although the Project would increase solid waste generation and decrease available capacity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, Project operations are anticipated to result in a minimal increase in remaining capacity of the landfill. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed above. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and AB 939. Further, the Project would not exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill and solid waste infrastructure and would generate a minimal amount of solid waste compared to the permitted daily capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill, The Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required.
Further, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project.
Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.16-5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As previously discussed, the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill has a daily maximum intake load of 7,500 tons per day. The remaining disposal capacity is 54,219,377 cubic yards according to the most current published data. Based on the remaining capacity of the transfer station and landfill, and the long -term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County ’s landfill system to meet the needs of the Project. Although the project site is currently vacant, future development was anticipated at the project site by the City within the 2016 RSPA, which would result in solid waste generation. The Project would comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations regarding solid waste , such as AB 939, the Solid Waste Disposal Management Act, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act . Solid waste services would be provided to the Project without significantly impacting existing and planned development within the City and County. Additionally, development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. I mpacts associated with compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.16
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems
City of Rialto 4.16-18
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.
Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of public utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts are considered for projects on a system-wide basis and are associated with the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure from local responsible agencies. As described above, all impacts from the project site to public services and utilities systems would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. In addition, the project site would recycle and implement measures on-site to reduce the waste stream to landfill(s) and the Project applicant would pay the applicable development impact and service fees. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is using approximately 54 percent of its capacity and is projected to have sufficient capacity to serve current and future needs until its scheduled closure in 2045. Impacts related to storm water drainage facilities are addressed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed stormwater management systems would adequately serve the project site and would not require the expansion or relocation of existing facilities. Additionally, the Project’s water demand would be adequately met by the Rialto Water Services, and the Project would include lateral connections to the existing 12-inch water pipeline located in Miro Way and the existing 14 -inch water pipeline located in Ayala Drive . Although temporary significant impacts during construction of future projects could occur, these impacts would only occur during development of the future sites, would be typical of construction, would be localized, would occur at different times, and would be required to implement site-specific erosion control BMPs. Therefore, impacts are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be anticipated to implement similar measures or implement mitigation to fully mitigate their contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated relative to public utility and service systems, and the proposed Project’s contribution toward potential future utility and service system impacts in the City is not cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts for dry utilities such as electricity and natural gas are discussed in Section 4.5, Energy.
4.16.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with utilities and service systems. No mitigation is required.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-1
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2( c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant levels. The environmental effects of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4. 16 of this Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Implementation of the Project would result in potentially significant impacts for the following topical issues: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of mitigation measures ( MMs) provided in Sections
4.1 through 4.16 would reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts are discussed below and in the respective section.
▪ Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigated GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 million metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO2e) per year threshold despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. Therefore, Project- related GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of a project. Examples include: primary or secondary impacts of a project that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements that would provide access to a previously inaccessible area); uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project (because a large commitment of such resources make removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely); and/or irreversible damage that could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the long -term commitment of natural resources and land. Development of the Project would result in the commitment of land resources with warehouse uses. The Project includes infrastructure to support the proposed land use and is located within the 2016 RSPA area, which was planned for future development to accommodate future needs of the City .
Construction and long -term operation of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of available nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle use, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures) and lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building construction , piping, and roadway infrastructure).
Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by Project implementation; examples include air quality, through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases and water supply, through the increased potable water demands for drinking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs. Potential impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, and water supply are further discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.5, Energy, Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-2
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a proposed project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The proposed Project would therefore have a growth-inducing impact if it would:
▪ Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
▪ Remove obstacles to population growth;
▪ Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
▪ Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment.
Directly or Indirectly Foster Economic or Population Growth, or the Construction of Additional Housing
Population and Employment
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF) the most recent estimated population of the City of Rialto (City) is 103,097 persons as of January 2024 .1 The California Employment Development Department (EDD) calculated the City’s workforce to be 47,100, with 44,100 of those persons employed and 2,900 unemployed.2 As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, and shown in Table 3-2, the proposed warehouse development would generate 147 jobs. Because this is less than the 2,900 unemployed persons within the City as estimated by the EDD, the proposed Project would not necessarily spur a boost in population since the employees could be found within the City’s existing residents. The
1 California Department of Finance. (2024). Table 2:E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed October 2024. 2 California Employment Development Department. (2024). Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Force-and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-/e6gw- gvii/data. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-3
proposed Project, at the time of its implementation, would likely only have an indirect effect on the City’s population through the expansion of economic activity within the City.
Housing
The project site is undeveloped and the Project does not include the development of residential units.
Further, upon approval of the proposed rezone, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 RSPA zoning for the project site. Therefore, the Project would not directly affect housing availability within the City.
Remove Obstacles to Population Growth or Require the Construction of New or Expanded Facilities that Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects The Project would not remove obstacles to growth through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities. Although the project site is undeveloped, it is bordered by existing uses and is planned for development in the City’s General Plan and the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment.
Existing utilities and service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, solid waste, and electricity) are available to provide services to the Project. While upgrades to the existing utilities may be necessary, major infrastructure is already present in the area. The utility improvements that are being implemented are distribution lines that would serve the land uses on-site. The Project does not propose improvements that would extend services to areas that currently are not served or provide additional capacity i n these infrastructure improvements, thereby facilitating new off -site development. There are no properties adjacent to the project site that would benefit by having the utilities extended. Therefore, the Project is not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth or through the provision of infrastructure.
Encourage and Facilitate Other Activities That Could Significantly Affect the Environment, Either Individually or Cumulatively
Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.1 6 of this SEIR. As discussed, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. GHG impacts associated with Project implementation are primarily a result of mobile source emissions, which are regulated by federal and State regulations. The Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
While these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, they would not encourage other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Implementation of the Project is anticipated to have a beneficial economic effect. During construction, design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. These jobs would span from planning to construction of the Project, lasting until the Project is completed and in use. This would be a direct but temporary growth-inducing impact of the Project. The Project would create employment positions.
5.4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant
The CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment, discussing the effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The City of Rialto (City), the lead agency for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project), is subject to Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-4
specific environmental review under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 provides that if a lead agency determines that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, an Initial Study is not required. In this case, the City determined that a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will need to be prepared based on the Project’s potential to create short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100 (c) states that an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that a project’s various possible significant effects were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. The Draft SEIR further evaluates all of the Project’s possible significant effects in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. Where it was determined that the Project would have “less than significant impact” or “no impact”, these threshold issues have not been addressed in the SEIR, except to be listed in this section as they were adequately addressed in the 2010 RSP EIR and are not relevant to the implementation of the proposed Project. The following identifies the threshold and a discussion of why the “less than significant” or “no impact” determination was reached.
Agriculture and Forestry Services
Impact 5.4-1: 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder the project site is comprised of Other Land.3 As such, the Project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. In addition, the project site is zoned Renaissance Specific Plan within the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) and has a land use designation of School, Public Park and Employment with a Designated Park overlay.
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Because implementation of the Project would not involve the conversion of Prime F armland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, no impact would occur.
Impact 5.4-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Level of Significance: No Impact
As previously discussed, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and consists of Other Land.4 The project site is currently zoned School, Public Park, Employment with a Designated Park overlay, none of which permit agricultural use. Additionally, the project site is not under an active Williamson Act contract.5 Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as
3 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2024a). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October 2024.
5 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 September 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-5
applicable. Therefore, no impacts associated with an active Williamson Act or agricultural zoning would occur.
Impact 5.4-3: 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))?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Impact 5.4-4: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) given that the project site and surrounding properties feature urban land uses and are not zoned for forest land uses.
The project site is currently undeveloped. As such, development of the project site would not resul t in rezoning of forest land as it proposes two warehouse buildings and associated site improvements.
Additionally, Project implementation would include the rezoning of Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center to accommodate the proposed warehouse development as well as the rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. Operational activities for the Project would not involve logging, forestry, or agricultural uses. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impacts associated with conflicts with existing zoning for forest land or timberland would occur.
Impact 5.4-5: 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Due to the lack of existing farmland, forest lands, or areas zoned for agriculture, or timberlands on the project site or immediately surrounding areas, development of the project site would not involve 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 nearest designated farmland and active agricultural operations are located approximately 4.9 miles west of the project site.
Construction of the Project would be limited to the boundaries of the project site and would not impact existing off-site agricultural operations. Further, operations for the Project would not involve logging, forestry, or agricultural uses. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project.
Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impact would occur.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-6
Geology and Soils
Impact 5.4-6i: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active fault traverses the project site. The nearest fault zone is the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately 2.6 miles east of the project site .6 In addition, the Project would be subject to the current California Building Code (CBC) guidelines, with respect to seismic design parameters. Conformance with these standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce potential seismic impacts . Therefore, the Project would not directly, or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4-6ii: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historic seismic activity. As previously discussed, the nearest fault zone to the project site is the San Jacinto Fault zone, located approximately 2.6 miles to the northeast. 7 During seismic events, the project site could experience moderate ground shaking associated with the fault described above. Strong levels of seismic ground shaking can cause damage to buildings. The intensity of ground shaking on the project site would depend upon the earthquake’s magnitude, distance to the epicenter, and geology of the area between the project site and the epicenter. The City would impose regulatory controls to address potential seismic hazards through the permitting process. The Project would be subject to the current CBC guidelines, with respect to seismic design parameters. Conformance with these standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. The project site is not located within an active fault zone. As such, the potential for damage to occur as a result of ground shaking is considered low. Following compliance with standard engineering practices and the CBC guidelines, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Additionally, it should be noted that development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
6 DOC. (2024b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed October 2024.
7 DOC. (2024b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.
Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-7
Impact 5.4-6iii: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake -induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. For liquefaction to occur, a project site must be subject to three factors: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of approximately 25 feet, and a potential for seismic shak ing from nearby large-magnitude earthquakes.
Soils on-site consist of Tujunga gravelly loamy sand and Tujunga loamy sand (Appendix D). According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the residential and commercial development at the Ri alto Municipal Airport , g roundwater depths on -site are approximately 450 feet below ground surface (bgs). Additionally, t he project site is not located within a liquefaction zone. 8 The project site consists of previously disturbed vacant land. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project- specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impacts associated with liquefaction would occur.
Impact 5.4-6iv: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Level of Significance: No Impact
Landslides can occur if ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall disturb areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils. The project site is previously disturbed land and is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 1,385 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,420 feet amsl and is not located within a landslide zone.9 Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impacts related to landslides would occur.
Impact 5.4-7: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Erosion is the movement of rock and soil by natural processes. Soil present within the project site generally consists of Tujunga gravelly loamy sand and Tujunga loamy sand ( Appendix D). The project site consists of previously disturbed land and is relatively flat. Given the project site’s topography and geology, the potential for loss of topsoil is considered low.
Ground disturbing activities associated with Project construction have the potential to expose soil to short-term erosion. The Project would be required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), which would include general Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure erosion and
8 DOC. (2024b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.
Accessed October 2024.
9 Ibid.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-8
sedimentation is prevented from leaving the project site. Erosion BMPs may include sandbag barriers, storm drain inlet protection, or hydroseeding. With compliance implementation of the SWPPP the Project’s potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Additionally, it should be noted that d evelopment of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project - specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Impact 5.4-8: 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
As discussed above, the project site is not located in a liquefaction zone, and the potential for liquefaction to occur is considered very low. As such, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered very low, as lateral spreading is a type of liqu efaction. The project site consists of previously disturbed and relatively flat land with elevation ranging from 1,385 feet amsl to 1,420 feet amsl. The project site is not located within a landslide zone. 10 Subsidence occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. Tujunga gravelly loamy sand and Tujunga loamy sand underlie the project site. The Rialto Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices and the CBC. Further, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit of soil that would become unstable and potentially result in subsidence. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4-9: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is underlain by Tujunga gravelly loamy sand and Tujunga loamy sand, which are not considered expansive soils. As previously discussed, the Rialto Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices and the CBC guidelines. The Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property concerning expansive soils. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects r elated to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable.
Impacts would be less than significant.
10 DOC. (2024b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.
Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-9
Impact 5.4-10: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project would not include the use of septic tanks of alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact would occur.
Impact 5.4-11: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would include the construction and operation of two warehouse buildings on previously disturbed land. The project site is located within an urbanized portion of the City and includes portions of the previous Rialto Municipal Airport, which ceased operations in 2014. As such, it is unlikely that existing paleontological resources are still present on-site due to previous extensive development and demolition.
Further, the Project would comply with applicable Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs).
Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mineral Resources
Impact 5.4-12: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the State? Level of Significance: No Impact
According to Exhibit 4.10-1 of the 2010 RSP EIR, the project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2. Areas identified as MRZ-2 includes areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is j udged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. 11 Although the area is classified MRZ -2, no mineral extraction activities occur on the project site and such uses are not allowed. The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133, which are zoned School, Public Park, and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively. The School, Public Park, and Employment zones do not allow for mineral extraction. The Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center, which would allow for the development of the proposed warehouse development. The Business Center zoning does not allow for mineral extraction.
Additionally, the Project would rezone Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.
11 City of Rialto. (2010). Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-10
Impact 5.4-13: 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land. The project site is currently zoned School, Public Park , and Employment with a Designated Park overlay. Neither the School, Public Park , nor Employment zoning designations allow for mineral extraction. Additionally, the project site is not identified by the City as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resour ce recovery site. Additionally, it should be noted that Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. No impact would occur.
Wildfire
Impact 5.4-14: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides comprehensive policy and guidance for emergency and response operations to natural and manmade hazards. Ayala Drive, Linden Avenue, and Miro Way are not designated evacuation routes for the City. Project construction would not require the full closure of existing roadways. Emergency access to the project site would be provided via the four proposed driveways to provide site access to emergency personnel and vehicles during Project operation. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4-15: Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the project site is located within a non- Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area.12 The project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land within an urbanized portion of the City. The project site would not include features which would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations of the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be
12 CAL FIRE. (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed October 2024.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-11
evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4-16: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would include construction of two warehouse buildings , with parking and landscaping included. Project implementation would comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code. The Project does not include components that would exacerbate wildfire risk. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project-specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.4-17: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land. Because the project site is located within an urbanized portion of the City , it would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As discussed above, the project site is not located within a landslide zone. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is classified as Zone X, which identifies areas of minimal flooding. Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as a part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.5 Mandatory Findings of Significance
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1)-(4) requires preparation of an EIR when certain specified impacts may result from construction or implementation of a project. An EIR is required if there is substantial evidence that a project has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1)-(4) and discussed below.
5.5.1 The project has the potential to s ubstantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-12
In practice, this is the same standard as a significant effect on the environment, which is defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial or potentially adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the pr oject including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” An SEIR has been prepared for the Project, which fully addresses all of the Mandatory Findings of Significance. This SEIR in its entirety addresses and discloses all known potential environmental effects associated with the development of the Project including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the following resource areas:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
A summary of all potential environmental impacts, level of significance and mitigation measures is provided in Section 1.0, Executive Summary.
Endemic and endangered animals within California and the Project’s potential effect on those species are fully discussed in Section 4.3 , Biological Resources, of this SEIR. Th is section found that although the project site features habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl, California horned lar k and loggerhead shrike, mitigation would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant, as further discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources.
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the SEIR analyzed the potential historic and cultural resource impacts that could occur due to the implementation of the Project and found no recorded historic or prehistoric resources located within the project site. Mitigation proposed within the section woul d include the retainment of a professional archaeologist to further minimize potential effects to the City’s historical and cultural resources. The mitigation presented in the section further lowered the significanc e of the potential impacts to less than significant levels.
5.5.2 The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The Project would occupy an area previously used by the former Rialto Municipal Airport, which ceased operations in 2014. The Project would be consistent with the 2016 RSPA upon the approval of the proposed rezone . Section 5.2, Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes , of this document addresses the short -term and irretrievable commitment of natural resources to ensure that the consumption is justified on a long -term basis. In addition, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, identifies all significant an d unavoidable impacts that could occur that would result in a long -term impact on the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-13
environment. Lastly, Section 5.3, Growth Inducing Impacts, identifies any long -term environmental impacts associated with economic and population growth that are associated with the Project.
5.5.3 The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable” as times when “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics provided in Sections 4.1 through
4.16 of this SEIR.
5.5.4 The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
A change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This standard relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on partic ular individuals. While changes to the environment that could directly or indirectly affect human beings would be possible in all of the CEQA issue areas previously listed, those that could directly affect human beings include aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems, all of which are addressed in their respective sections of this SEIR. Applicable mitigation is addressed within each section.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 5.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations City of Rialto 5-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-1
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Introduction
California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In selecting alternatives to the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project ( proposed Project or Project), the City of Rialto (City), as Lead Agency, is to consider alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.
Alternatives to the proposed Project are to be evaluated based on their feasibility within the rule of reason as set by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f). The rule states that “Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” The selection of alternatives would also take into consideration based on “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).”
6.2 Project Summary
The proposed Project would allow for the development of two warehouse buildings and associated on- site improvements on Planning Areas 126 and 133 . The Project proposes 399,715 square feet (sf) of warehouse space and 29,000 sf of office space. The warehouse development is comprised of 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) Planning Areas 126 and 133. Additionally, the Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay, for future development. The Project is described in further detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways along Ayala Drive and two driveways along the proposed alignment of Miro Way. The proposed Project would provide a total of 283 automobile parking spaces. Parking spaces would be located along the perimeter of each building.
The project site has a City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of Specific Plan.
According to the 2016 RSPA, the warehouse development is zoned Public Park and Employment with a Park overlay. The Project proposes a rezone to change the existing zoning of Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center. The Business Center zone would allow for the development of the proposed warehouses.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-2
6.3 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
Several criteria were used to select alternatives to the proposed Project, as described below.
Ability To Achieve Project Objectives
Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states:
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
For purposes of the alternative analysis, each alternative assessed in this Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was evaluated to determine the extent to which it could attain the following objectives identified for the proposed Project as set forth in Section 3, Project Description:
▪ To implement the approved Renaissance Specific Plan as amended; ▪ To facilitate the redevelopment of the former Rialto Municipal Airport; ▪ To implement and facilitate the rezone of Planning Area 123; ▪ To implement and facilitate the development of the Planning Area 126 and 133 industrial/warehouse development;
▪ To facilitate development through efficient land use planning and phased infrastructure design;
▪ To create a range of job and economic development opportunities for local individuals and businesses; and
▪ To continue to develop a master planned community that has a unique character and quality with a commitment to sustainability, flexible planning, high quality architecture and site design, and the provision of attractive on-site open space, public spaces, recreational facilities, and landscape design.
Elimination/Reduction of Significant Impacts
Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states that “Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-3
Potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this SEIR. With implementation of the respective Mitigation Measures (MMs) identified for each topical issue, all significant impacts resulting from the Project would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with the exception of greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts.
Considered but Rejected
Section 15126.6(c) notes that the EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. Reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination may include factors such as failur e to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The City of Rialto, as the Lead Agency, did not identify additional alternatives for consideration.
Feasibility
Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; see Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1753, fn. 1).
Each alternative was evaluated for its feasibility, its ability to attain the proposed Project’s objectives, and its ability to reduce and/or eliminate significant impacts associated with the Project.
6.4 Alternatives for Analysis
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion in this section of the EIR focuses on a reasonable range of alternatives. The analysis provides a comparison of the alternatives’ varying environmental effects and their merits and/or disadvantages in relation to the proposed Project and to each other; their feasibility and ability to achieve Project objectives are also discussed. The environmentally superior alternative is identified as required by CEQA.
Three alternatives to the proposed Project have been identified. ▪ Alternative 1: No Development
▪ Alternative 2: Reduced Development Intensity
▪ Alternative 3: Industrial Park
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-4
The evaluation of each alternative uses the same thresholds of significance identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 . Table 6-1. Summary of Proposed Project and Alternative Impacts , compares the alternative’s anticipated environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation, as required. Table 6-2: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis, summarizes each alternative’s ability to achieve the Project objectives.
Table 6-1. Summary of Proposed Project and Alternative Impacts Topic Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Aesthetics LS ─ = =
Air Quality LS/M ─ ─ +
Biological Resources LS/M ─ = =
Cultural Resources LS/M ─ = =
Energy LS/M ─ ─ ─
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU ─ ─ ─
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LS ─ = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LS ─ = =
Land Use and Planning LS ─ = =
Noise LS/M ─ ─ ─
Population and Housing LS ─ = =
Public Services LS ─ = =
Recreation LS ─ = =
Transportation LS ─ = ─
Tribal Cultural Resources LS/M ─ = =
Utilities and Services Systems LS ─ = =
Notes:
LS = Less than Significant
LS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation/Standard Conditions S/U = Significant Unavoidable Impact
(─) The alternative would result in less of an impact than the proposed Project or no impact. (+) The alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed Project. (=) The alternative would result in the same/similar impacts as the proposed Project. (*) The alternative would reduce/eliminate a significant and unavoidable impact.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-5
Table 6-2: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis
Project Objective
Alternative 1:
No Development
Alternative 2:
Reduced Density
Alternative 3:
Industrial Park
Consistent?
1. To implement the approved Renaissance Specific
Plan as amended; No Yes Yes
2. To facilitate the redevelopment of the former
Rialto Municipal Airport. No Yes Yes
3. To implement and facilitate the rezone of Planning
Area 123. No Yes Yes
4. To implement and facilitate the development of
the Planning Area 126 and 133
industrial/warehouse project.
No Yes Yes
5. To facilitate development through efficient land
use planning and phased infrastructure design. No Yes Yes
6. To create a range of job and economic
development opportunities for local individuals
and businesses.
No Yes Yes
7. To continue to develop a master planned
community that has a unique character and
quality with a commitment to sustainability,
flexible planning, high quality architecture and site
design , and the provision of attractive on -site
open space, public spaces, recreational facilities,
and landscape design.
No Yes Yes
For the alternatives, it is assumed that relevant regulatory requirements, applicable project design features, and project-specific mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project would also be implemented with each alternative, and thus serve to reduce or avoid potential significant impacts similar to the proposed Project.
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 project site would remain vacant.
Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that when the project is not a land use or regulatory plan, the “no project” alternative:
…is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others … this “no project” consequence should be discussed.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-6
Therefore, although this alternative assumes “No Development” (as required by CEQA), this is considered a speculative assumption as the land is assumed to remain in private ownership.
Alternative 1: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Under the Alternative 1 scenario, no development would occur, and the project site would remain vacant. There would be no buildings on -site and no related on -site improvements, including landscaping, would be provided. Because Alternative 1 would not involve development of the project site, there would be no new sources of lighting.
This alternative would have no impact on aesthetics, whereas impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Air Quality. With Alternative 1, because there would be no development, no air quality emissions would be generated. The Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts and would include mitigation measures to further reduce the significance of air quality impacts. Although this Alternative would not have any air quality impacts, air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.
Biological Resources. This alternative would have no impacts to biological resources . Trees and other vegetation on the project site that currently could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would remain because no existing vegetation would be removed.
Although Alternative 1 would not have any biological resources impacts, all potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current condition and would therefore prevent potential impacts to cultural resources. No construction or grading activities would occur. Therefore, the potential to discover and impact previously undisturbed cultural resources, including archaeological resources, would not occur. Although this alternative would have no impact on cultural resources, impacts associated with the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Energy. The energy usage during construction associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on -road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would not occur bec ause no construction or development would occur. However, it is noted that the proposed Project implementation would not result in significant impacts concerning energy usage. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on energy, whereas the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction activities or associated construction equipment operations or operational activities. Therefore, there would be no short -term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction activities or long -term GHG emissions from vehicles or the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water associated with operations of the land uses assumed as a part of the proposed Project. This alternative would not generate additional GHG emissions, in comparison to the Project’s impact , which would be significant and unavoidable based on the significance criteria set forth in this SEIR. Alternative 1 would result in no impacts to GHG emissions.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-7
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site is currently vacant and therefore does not generate, use, or transport any hazardous materials. The current uses on the project site do not generate any hazardous materials that could be accidentally released into the environment, and the y do not create a safety hazard as it pertains to an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan because the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. This alternative would have no impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials , whereas impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Alternative 1 assumes no development would occur on the project site.
The existing on-site drainage pattern and runoff quantities would remain the same, and this alternative would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
Site development under the proposed Project would alter the project site’s existing drainage pattern because the project site would change from a currently undeveloped to a developed project site.
However, the proposed drainage facilities would be sized to adequately treat runoff water from the project site, and the project site does not include discharge to any streams or rivers. The proposed Project would be required to prepare an erosion control plan and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize on-site and off-site erosion and siltation. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on hydrology and water quality, whereas the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain vacant. Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed Project would physically divide an established community through the introduction of physical or community barriers, or cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The propose d Project would comply with the design guidelines contained in the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment. This alternative would have no impact on land use and planning because no development would occur , whereas the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Noise. With Alternative 1, there would be no construction activities or associated construction equipment operations or development. Therefore, there would be no construction noise impacts. There would be no substantial temporary increase in noise levels or expos ure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards. Therefore, this alternative would avoid construction and operational noise impacts associated with the proposed Project, whereas the proposed Project’s noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. Alternative 1 would not create any new jobs; involve the development of additional housing; or cause increases in the residential population of the City. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with inducing substantial population growth. This alte rnative would maintain the project site in its existing condition. The proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population or displace any existing housing. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact, whereas the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Public Services. The public services evaluated in this SEIR are fire protection , police protection, school services, recreational facilities, and other public services . Because Alternative 1 would not involve new development, no impacts to public services would occur. Development of the proposed Project would incrementally increase the demand for fire and police protection services; however, the proposed Project Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-8
is not expected to substantially increase service demand such that new or physically altered fire and police facilities would need to be constructed of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire and police protection. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact on public services. The proposed Project would have a less than significant level on police and fire service.
Transportation. Because Alternative 1 would not involve new development, this alternative would not generate VMT or increase traffic within the Project area. Development of the proposed Project would result in an increase in traffic within the Project area. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact associated with transportation, whereas potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources. Tribal cultural resource impacts are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development , as well as depth of excavation. Alternative 1 would not involve any construction and excavation activities. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact on tribal cultural resources, whereas potential impacts associated with the proposed Project woul d be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Utilities and Service Systems. The SEIR evaluated potential impacts on the following: water supply and facilities, wastewater infrastructure and facilities, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste. Because Alternative 1 would not involve the development of industrial land uses or the generation of any new employees, no impacts would occur. Since this alternative would not provide new facilities or infrastructure, there would be no physical impacts associated with construction or operation of facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with increased usage of existing facilities. In addition, since there would be no development of industrial land uses or generation of new employees, demand for water, wastewater facilities, and solid waste disposal would not be generated. Although the proposed Project would increase demand, a less than significant impact would occur.
Alternative 1: Conclusion
Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts when compared to the proposed Project because no development would occur. Significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts associated with the proposed Project would not occur. No mitigation would be required to reduce potential significant impacts to a less than significant level. All impact areas which were anticipated to cause a less than significant impact, less than significant with mitigation measures, or a significant and unavoidable impact due to implementation of the proposed Project would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative; see Table 6-1.
However, this alternative fails to meet any of the Project’s basic objectives. The No Project Alternative would fail to provide expanded economic activity to the City and would not provide additional employment opportunities. This would conflict with the City’s goals of expanding its economic base and providing greater economic opportunity to the City’s residents.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-9
Alternative 2: Reduced Development Intensity Plan
The Reduced Development Intensity Plan Alternative would involve the development of one warehouse building. The building would be one level with approximately 200,000 sf of development. Alternative 2 would include approximately 96 automobile parking spaces and landscaping along the boundaries of the warehouse development and within parking areas. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require a rezone to the Business Center zone and a CDP, and would comply with the development standards of the 2016 RSPA. Table 6-3: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison , identifies a decrease of 228,715 sf compared to the Project.
Table 6-3: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison Development
Standard Alternative 2
Proposed Project
Building 1 Building 2 Total
Building Area 200,000 53,640 375,075 428,715
Alternative 2: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would comply with development requirements of the 2016 RSPA. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would comply with applicable light and glare regulations, such as compliance with General Plan Policy 2-15.3, which requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare. As a result, neither Alternative 2 nor the Project would result in significant visual impacts.
Further, similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would include surface parking and land scaping. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
Air Quality. The Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 2, construction maximum daily emissions would be the same or similar to the Project. Operational emissions associated with Alternative 2 would decrease as Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in 228,715 sf. Additionally, this Alternative would likely result in less daily trips during operation. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would include mitigation to reduce intensity of air quality impacts. Compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in less significant air quality impacts with mitigation.
Biological Resources. Biological resources are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development. Like the Project, Alternative 2 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts to biological resources. Therefore, as with the Project, Alternative 2 would result in a less than signif icant with mitigation incorporated impact on biological resources.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development. Like the Project, Alternative 2 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts for cultural resources. Therefore, as with the Project, this alternative would result in a less than signific ant with mitigation incorporated impact on cultural resources.
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 6.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
City of Rialto 6-10
Energy. The energy usage during construction associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on -road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would be reduced compared to the Project due to a reduced project footprint . Both Alternative 2 and the Project’s implementation would result in less than significant impacts concerning energy usage as both the Alternative 2 and the Project would require limited energy use during operation. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would include mitigation to further reduce potential impacts during operation. Under Alternative 2, energy impacts would be less than significant and reduced as compared to the less than significant impacts associated with the Project.