Exhibit H - Draft Subsequent EIR.pdf — Rialto City Council, January 13, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

SANTA ANA

TRUCK TERMINAL PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2023120143

CITY OF RIALTO
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
AUGUST 2024
TO,
s
-Bridge to Progrenn"
oRATED s0
Kimley»»Horn
5 .97 / A
6 s( OY
11/—2
%
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2024070224
DECEMBER 2024
MARCH 2025

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE PROJECT

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
SCH NO. 202 4070224

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

Prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego , California 92101
Date March 2025
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto i
Table of Contents

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

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

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

1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.4 Alternatives Analyzed ...................................................................................................... 1-2

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

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

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

2.1 Overview, Purpose, and Authority of the EIR .................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Scope of the Environmental Impact Report .................................................................... 2-4

2.3 EIR Scope and Content ..................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................... 2-6

2.5 Lead Agency and Contact Persons ................................................................................... 2-7

2.6 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................................ 2-7

2.7 List of Acronyms Used in the SEIR ................................................................................... 2-8

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

3.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning .................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-3

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

3.6 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.7 Intended Use of the EIR ................................................................................................... 3-9

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

4.0.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology .................................................................... 4.0-1

4.0.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 4.0-1

4.0.3 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................. 4.0-1 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto ii

4.0.4 Cumulative Impact Methodology ................................................................................. 4.0-3

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

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

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

4.1.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.1-3

4.1.4 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.1-3

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

4.1.6 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................... 4.1-6

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

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.1-10

4.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.1-11

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

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

4.2.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.2-6

4.2.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.2-13

4.2.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.2-14

4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.2-15

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.2-41

4.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.2-42

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

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

4.3.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.3-2

4.3.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.3-8

4.3.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.3-21

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

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.3-32

4.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.3-32 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iii

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

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

4.4.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.4-8

4.4.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.4-12

4.4.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.4-13

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.4-13

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.4-15

4.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.4-15

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

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

4.5.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.5-3

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

4.5.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................... 4.5-7

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

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.5-15

4.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.5-15

4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................... 4.6-1

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

4.6.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.6-3

4.6.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.6-17

4.6.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.6-17

4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.6-18

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.6-31

4.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.6-31

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.7-1 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iv

4.7.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.7-4

4.7.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.7-14

4.7.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.7-15

4.7.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.7-15

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.7-22

4.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.7-22

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................. 4.8-1

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

4.8.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.8-2

4.8.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.8-7

4.8.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................... 4.8-7

4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.8-8

4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.8-13

4.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.8-13

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................ 4.9-1

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

4.9.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 4.9-5

4.9.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................... 4.9-6

4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.9-6

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.9-30

4.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.9-30

4.10 NOISE .......................................................................................................................... 4.10-1

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

4.10.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.10-3 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto v

4.10.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.10-8

4.10.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.10-9

4.10.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.10-9

4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.10-19

4.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.10-21

4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................... 4.11-1

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

4.11.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.11-3

4.11.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.11-5

4.11.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.11-6

4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.11-6

4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.11-7

4.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.11-8

4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 4.12-1

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

4.12.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.12-1

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

4.12.4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 4.12-10

4.12.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................ 4.12-10

4.12.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 4.12-11

4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.12-15

4.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.12-16

4.13 RECREATION................................................................................................................ 4.13-1

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

4.13.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.13-2

4.13.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.13-3

4.13.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.13-3 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto vi

4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.13-3

4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.13-5

4.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.13-5

4.14 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................... 4.14-1

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

4.14.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.14-3

4.14.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.14-7

4.14.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.14-8

4.14.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.14-8

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

4.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.14-13

4.15 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4.15-1

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

4.15.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.15-2

4.15.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 4.15-4

4.15.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .................................................. 4.15-5

4.15.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.15-5

4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.15-7

4.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.15-8

4.16 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 4.16-1

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

4.16.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.16-5

4.16.4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 4.16-10

4.16.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................ 4.16-11

4.16.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 4.16-12

4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.16-18 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto vii

4.16.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 4.16-19

5.0 Other CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5-1

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

5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ...................................................... 5- 1

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................... 5- 2

5.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant ................................................................................ 5- 3

5.5 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 5-11

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-16

7.0 Preparers and Contributors ......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 EIR Preparers .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 EIR Contributors ............................................................................................................... 7-1 List of Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program ......................................................................... 1-7 Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation ..................................................... 2-5 Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations......................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary ...................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: Building Site Summary ............................................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-4: Truck Trailer Loading ................................................................................................................ 3-8 Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns ................................................ 4.2-3 Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data ................................................................................................... 4.2-4 Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................. 4.2-6 Table 4.2-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................................... 4.2-10 Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .............................. 4.2-14 Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations ............................................ 4.2-15 Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions ...................................................................................... 4.2-16 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto viii
Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions...................................................................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-9: Equipment-Specific Site Preparation Rates ..................................................................... 4.2-29 Table 4.2-10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions .......................................................... 4.2-30 Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions............................................................ 4.2-31 Table 4.2-12: Carconogenic Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 4.2-36 Table 4.2-13: Chronic Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................... 4.2-39 Table 4.3-1: Califronia Rare Plant Ranks and Definitions ....................................................................... 4.3-9 Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrance ............................. 4.3-11 Table 4.3-3: Potential Project Impacts of Vegetation Communities/Land Uses .................................. 4.3-29 Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Benardino County 2012-2022 .......................................... 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 ..................................... 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 .............................. 4.5-3 Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction ........................................................................................ 4.5-9 Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations ............................................................................ 4.5-12 Table 4.6-1: Description of Greenhous Gases ........................................................................................ 4.6-2 Table 4.6-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................... 4.6-19 Table 4.6-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 4.6-20 Table 4.6-4: Regional Transportaion Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency ............... 4.6-28 Table 4.7-1: Adjacent Properties ........................................................................................................... 4.7-1 Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis ..................................................................................... 4.9-8 Table 4.9-2: 2016 RSPA Consistency .................................................................................................... 4.9-29 Table 4.10-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2: Existing Noise Measurements ........................................................................................ 4.10-3 Table 4.10-3: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning .............................................................. 4.10-5 Table 4.10-4: Permitted Hours of Construction Work ......................................................................... 4.10-6 Table 4.10-5: Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.10-10 Table 4.10-6: Project Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.10-12 Table 4.10-7: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.10-16 Table 4.10-8: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... 4.10-17 Table 4.10-9: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels .............................. 4.10-21 Table 4.11-1: Population Projections for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .......................... 4.11-1 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto ix
Table 4.11-2: Housing for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .................................................. 4.11-2 Table 4.11-3: Labor Force Data for San Bernardino County and City of Rialto .................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.14-1: City of Rialto LOS Standards ........................................................................................... 4.14-8 Table 4.16-1: Projected Water Supplies .............................................................................................. 4.16-2 Table 4.16-1: Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ............................................................... 4.16-3 Table 4.16-2: Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ............................................................... 4.16-8 Table 4.16-3: Renaissance Specific Plan Water Demand Comparison .............................................. 4.16-14 Table 6-1: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternative Impacts .......................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis .................................................................................. 6-5 Table 6-3: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison ..................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-4: Alternative 3 and Project Comparison ................................................................................... 6-13 List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-3: Existing 2016 Renaissane Specific Plan Amenment Area ..................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-4: Proposed Rennaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area ..................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-5: Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 4.3-1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources .............................................................................. 4.3-33 Figure 4.3-2A: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species - USFWS ...................................................... 4.3-35 Figure 4.3-2B: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species - CNDDB ...................................................... 4.3-37 Figure 4.3-3: Proposed Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.3-39

List of Appendices
A Notice of Preparation
B Air Quality Assessment
C Health Risk Assessment
D Biological Technical Report
E Cultural Resources Memorandum
F Energy Memorandum
G Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
H Preliminary Drainage Report
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto x
I Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
J Acoustical Assessment
K Traffic Study
L Alternative Site Plan Memorandum

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this is a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project).

1.2 Project Overview
The project site is located on vacant, previously disturbed land between Ayala Drive and Linden Avenue within the City of Rialto (City), County of San Bernardino, California. The project site consists of previously disturbed land with elevations ranging from approximately 1,385 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,420 feet amsl. The project site is an irregularly shaped property, bordered by vacant land to the north, Ayala Drive and industrial uses to the east, industrial and commercial uses to the south, and Linden Avenue and industrial uses to the east.

As proposed, the Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 (north of Miro Way) from School to General Commercial with an 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 and associated on -site improvements. Building 1 would include approximately 47,640 square-feet (sf) of warehouse space and 6,000 sf of office space. Building 2 would include approximately 352,075 sf of warehouse space and approximately 23,000 sf of office space. The Project would include the extension of Miro Way from Linden Avenue to Ayala Drive, to provide vehicular access to the project site.

1.3 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project. The following objectives have been identified for the Project. ▪ 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;
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-2
▪ 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.

1.4 Alternatives Analyzed
Alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed Project and that would feasibly attain most or all of the basic Project objectives are discussed below. A detailed alternatives analysis is provided in Section 6.0, Alternatives to the 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 P roject would not be developed, which means there would be no warehouse facilities, landscape improvements, or surface lot improvements developed on the project site. In its existing condition, the site would remain vacant and previously disturbed.

Alternative 2: Reduced Development Intensity Plan
The Reduced Development Intensity Plan Alternative would involve the development of one warehouse building. The building would include approximately 200,000 sf of warehouse space. Alternative 2 would be required to provide approximately 96 parking stalls . Landscaping would be provided along the boundaries of the project site. The Project would include the rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133 and would comply with the development standards of the 2016 RSPA. Development of Alternative 2 would require a Conditional Development Permit (CDP) to allow for the proposed warehouse use.

Alternative 3: Industrial Park Alternative
Under the Industrial Park Alternative, the project site would be developed with approximately three warehouse buildings totaling 411,853 sf of warehouse space. Building 1 would include approximately 47,640 sf of warehouse space and approximately 6,000 sf of office/mezzanine space. Building 2 would include approximately 174,470 sf of warehouse space and approximately 10,000 sf of office space.

Building 3 would include approximately 163,743 sf of warehouse space and approximately 10,000 sf of office/mezzanine space. Additionally, Alternative 3 would provide 349 parking spaces. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would require a rezone of Planning Areas 126 and 133. Alternative 3 would be consistent with the development standards of the 2016 RSPA. Development of Alternative 3 would require a CDP to allow for the proposed warehouse use.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-3

1.5 Summary of Effects with No Impact
Throughout preparation of the SEIR, the City of Rialto Environmental Checklist was used to determine the impact categories that would require evaluation to determine the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. The following includes a discussion of the imp act categories where the Project would have “no impact” and a summary discussion of why this determination was reached. There is no further evaluation of these Environmental Checklist questions in the SEIR.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; ▪ Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; ▪ “Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as def ined by Government Code section 51104(g));
▪ Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use; or
▪ Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. For these reasons, no significant impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the SEIR.

Geology and Soils
The State CEQA Guideline ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Spe cial Publication 42.;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-4
o Landslides;
▪ Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil; ▪ Be location 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;
▪ 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; ▪ 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; or ▪ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

According to the DOC’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake zone, landslide zone, or liquefaction zone.1 As such, the potential for the project site to be affected by seismic hazards would be considered low. Additionally, the Project would comply with seismic requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) to reduce potential seismic impacts. The project site consists of previously disturbed land, and a portion of the project site features remnants of the previous Rialto Municipal Airport, which ceased operations in 2014. As such, it is unlikely that unknown paleontological resources occur on -site. For these reasons, no significant impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the SEIR.

Mineral Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

The City of Rialto General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally important mineral resources on the project site. The proposed Project would not remove any locally or regionally important mineral resources from production or preclude access to important mineral resources. For this reason, no significant impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the SEIR.

Wildfire
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

1 Department of Conservation (DOC). (2024b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app//. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-5
▪ 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;
▪ 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; or ▪ 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.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) 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 CalFire, or within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a local agency. CalFire is responsible for fire protection within State Responsibility Ar eas.

CalFire 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 classified as a Non-VHFHSZ (non-very high FHSZ).2 For this reason, no significant impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the SEIR.

1.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following table is a summary of significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the proposed Project as identified in this SEIR. Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.16, for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. All impacts of the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

2 CalFire. (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zone https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/.

Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-6
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-7
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Section 4.1: Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.1 -2: In non -urbanized areas, would the
project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.1 -3: Would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
LS 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 Pursuant to Section 15.32 of the City’s Municipal Code Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, evidence that all electrical distribution lines of 16,000 volts or less, telephone lines, cable antenna television and similar service wires or cable, which provide direct serv ice to the property being developed, shall be installed underground.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Impact 4.1 -3: Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.2: Air Quality
Impact 4.2 -1: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 Off-Road Diesel Equipment. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-8
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower will meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where feasible. In addition, where
feasible all construction e quipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the Air Resources Board (ARB). Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieve d by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by ARB regulations.

AQ-5 Construction Equipment Tier Specification. Prior to the mobilization of each applicable off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower, the
Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, a copy of the certified tier specification, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation, and Air Resources Board or South Coast Air Quality Management District’s operating permit for each shall be provided at the time of mob ilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-9
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
▪ Design warehouse/distribution centers such that any
check-in point for trucks is well inside the facility
property to ensure that there are no trucks queuing
outside of the facility.
▪ Establish area(s) within the facility for repair needs. ▪ Provide electrical service capacity for equipment at
facilities.

AQ-7 Truck Routes. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that the following truck access routes have been incorporated into the Projec t design, to the maximum extent practicable, to reduce air quality and potential future health risk impacts from the operation phase of the proposed Project, if feasible:
▪ Develop, adopt and enforce truck routes both for
entering and leaving the city and in and out of facilities; keeping in mind common pedestrian routes, especially
for schools.
▪ Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so trucks will not enter residential areas.
▪ Identify or develop secure locations outside of
residential neighborhoods where truckers that live in the community can park their truck, such as a Park & Ride.
▪ Where there are traffic impacts, improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.

AQ-8 Super-Compliant VOC Paints. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that the construction contractor shall be required to utilize Super-Compliant VOC paints, which are defined by SCAQMD as meeting the “super -compliant” VOC Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-10
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
standard of 10 grams per liter (g/L). Use of HVLP or
electrostatic spray equipment shall be encouraged.

AQ-9 Exterior and Interior Finishes. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that exterior and interior finishes that do not require painting shall be used where feasible.

AQ-10 Building Orientation. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that buildings have been oriented and incorporate
landscaping to max imize passive solar; heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons where feasible depending upon site condition and
topography.

AQ-12 Energy Efficiency Education. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that building tenants shall be encouraged to educate employees on energy efficiency measures.

AQ-13 Preferential Parking Spaces. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that preferential parking spaces shall be offered to car pools and van pools.

AQ-14 Electrical Hookup Capacity. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning
Division, evidence that building designs provide electrical capacity for installation of electrical hookups at onsite loading docks and for electric vehicle charging stations.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-11
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan specifies all off -road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50
horsepower shall meet California Air Resources Control
Board Tier 4 Final off -road emissions standards or
incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in
applicable bid documents and succe ssful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be maintained o n site and available upon request.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-12
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
▪ Each building shall provide a minimum of two shower
and changing facilities as part of the tenant
improvements.
▪ Provide on -site car share amenities for employees
who make only occasional use of a vehicle.
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use
through parking incentives and administrative
support, such as ride-matching service.
▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel
modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or
convenient designated parking spaces for
carpool/vanpool users.
▪ Provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the
facility and nearby meal destinations.
▪ Each building shall provide preferred parking for
electric, low‐emitting and fuel -efficient vehicles
equivalent to at least eight percent of the required
number of parking spaces.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant occupancy and not the building shell approvals.

Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project applicant during
construction document plan check, for the purpose of
accommodating the future installation of EV truck
charging stations at such time this technology
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-13
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
becomes commercially available and the buildings are
being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

MM AIR-4 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that truck exit driveway signs provide directional information to the truck route and that all truck access gates and loading docks within the project site shall have a sign posted that identifies that:
▪ Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. ▪ Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after two
minutes of continuous idling operation. Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.
▪ Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of
being a good neighbor by not parking in residential
areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AIR-5 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the tenant has been provided with information about Carl Moyer Program and
that compliance with the voluntary program including energy efficiency improvement features for vendor trucks for the industrial buildings through the Carl Moyer Program —
including truck modernization, retrofits, and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance tires — to reduce fuel
consumption but strongly encouraged. This mitigation
measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-14
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
MM AIR-6 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Tenant Improvements, not building shell, the Project tenants shall train staff on vehicle records in diesel technologies
requirements and compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, by attending CARB -approved
courses. Facility operators shall maintain records on -site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the City of Rialto, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and State upon request.

MM AIR-7 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, and not building shell, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
▪ All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard
trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity . Each
building shall include the necessary charging stations
for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD
Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule)
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce
Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for
electric/zero emi ssion yard truck/hostler usage. This
mitigation measure applies only to tenant
improvements and not the building shell approvals.
▪ All standard emergency generators shall meet
California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions
standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier
specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit
(if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Impact 4.2 -2: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures LS Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-15
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
non-attainment under an applicable State or
federal ambient air quality standard?
Further details regarding Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-10, and AQ-12 through AQ-14 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM AIR -2 through MM AIR -7 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

Impact 4.2 -3: Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
S Further details regarding 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4 and MM AIR-7 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

LS
Impact 4.2 -4: Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.3: Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the CDFW or USFWS?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1A Construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads adjacent to the project site o r the
right-of-way accessing the project site.

MM BIO-1B The Project applicant, or its contractors, shall screen, cover, or elevate at least one (1) foot above ground, all construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of three (3) inches or greater that are stored on-site overnight. There pipes, culverts , and similar
structures shall be inspected by the Project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or
capped.

City of Rialto 1-16
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
that they direct light downward and toward the active
construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted
towards adjacent lands, and shields or deflectors shall be installed on lights to reduce light spill. Nighttime
concrete pouring shall be performed in accordance with
the City of Rialto Municipal Code.

MM BIO-1D A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) from suitable habitat areas within the Project development footprint to the maximum
extent practicable immediately (e.g., within 24 hours)
prior to initial vegetation removal activities. The biologist shall flush wildlife by walking through habitat to be
immediately removed.

MM BIO-1E At the end of each workday during construction, the applicant, or its contractors, will cover all excavated, steep-sided holes or trenches more than eight inches
deep and that have sidewalls steeper than 1:1 (45
degree) slope with plywood or similar materials, or
provide a minimum of one escape ramp per 100 feet of
trenching (with slopes no greater than 3:1) constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. The Project biologist shall thoroughly inspect holes and trenched for trapped
animals during biological monitoring.

MM BIO-1F Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site.

MM BIO-1G If trash and debris need to be stored overnight during maintenance activities, fully covered trash receptacles that are animal -proof and weather -proof shall be used by the maintenance contractor to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage con tainers, and other
miscellaneous trash. Alternatively, standard trash
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-17
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
receptacles may be used during the day, but shall be
removed or emptied each night.

MM BIO-1H To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of work, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary visibility construction fence) prior to ground-disturbance activities, and all construc tion activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted
within the marked disturbance limits. The work limit
delineation shall be maintained throughout Project
construction.

MM BIO-2A If Crotch’s bumble bee is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of project construction, then these mitigation measures shall not be required.

Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct active Crotch’s bumble bee nest surveys during the typical colony active period (April – August) following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate
Bumble Bee Species. The qualifie d biologist shall be
familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

MM BIO-2B If suspected or active Crotch’s bumble bee nests are present, a qualified biologist shall establish an
appropriate non -disturbance buffer around each nest
immediately prior to initiation of construction activities using stakes and/or brightly colored flagg ing to avoid disturbance or incidental take of the species. If
avoidance buffers are not feasible during construction
activities, then CDFW shall be consulted.

MM BIO-2C Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-18
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight
season (February – October) following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA
Candidate Bumble Bee Species. The qualified biologist
shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumbl e bee identification and life history.

MM BIO-2D If occupied foraging habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee is present within Project impact areas, a Revegetation Plan shall be prepared which includes native shrubs and
native seed mixes that contain known nectar sources for Crotch’s bumble bee. The Revegetation Plan shall be
developed in consultation with a qualified Crotch’s
bumble bee biologist and implemented following Project
construction.

MM BIO-3A Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be
prepared, which will include a training presentation and key fact sheet. The training will instruct construction crews to be aware of and recognize burr owing owls and
other sensitive biological resources that may be
encountered within, or adjacent to, the project. The
training will provide workers with instructions to follow in the event a burrowing owl is observed or suspected to be on site.

Biologists shall provide WEAP training materials,
including but not limited to the key fact sheet, to
construction personnel before their commencement of
work on the project. Additionally, all construction staff shall attend the WEAP training presentation prior to
beginning work on -site. A refresher WEAP training will be completed on an annual basis thereafter. Note that
the fact sheet shall be provided in other languages, as Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-19
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
necessary, to accommodate non -English speaking
workers.

Upon completion of the WEAP training, each member of
the construction crew shall sign a form stating that they attended the training, understood the information
presented, and agreed to comply with the requirements
set out in the WEAP training. On an annua l basis, the
project proponent shall certify that WEAP training has
been provided to all construction personnel. Biologists shall provide updates relevant to the training to
construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”)
meetings, as needed.

MM BIO-3B During active construction, biological monitoring will be performed to ensure unauthorized impacts on
burrowing owl do not occur as a result of the project. A biologist shall be contracted to perform monitoring
during all construction activities approximat ely every other day. The definitive frequency and duration of
monitoring shall be dependent on project and site
conditions, such as the type of construction activity
occurring, whether it is the breeding versus non -
breeding season, if a burrowing owl has been recently
documented on site, and the efficacy of the exclusion
buffers, as determined by a qualified biologist.

MM BIO-3C No less than 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the
construction limits of the project site and a 500 -foot buffer for the presence of burrowing owls and/or
occupied nest burrows. A second survey shall be
conducted within 24 hours prior to the onset of
construction activities. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW survey
methods. The Project applicant shall submit at least one Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-20
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
burrowing owl preconstruction survey report to the
satisfaction of the City and CDFW to document
compliance with this mitigation measure. For the
purposes of this measure, ‘qualified biologist’ is a
biologist who meets the requirements set forth in the
CDFW BUOW Guidelines.

MM BIO-3D If burrowing owl is documented on site or within 500 - feet of the project site during either preconstruction surveys or biological monitoring, occupied burrowing
owl burrows shall not be disturbed. CDFW shall be
contacted within 48 hours of the burrowing owl
observation and disturbance avoidance buffers shall be
set up by a qualified biologist in accordance with the
recommendations from CDFW.

No work will occur within avoidance buffers until
consultation with CDFW and issuance of permits, if
required. If burrowing owl is no longer a candidate or
listed species under CESA at the time of project
construction, then permits shall not be required. I f
avoidance of burrowing owls is not possible, either
directly or indirectly, consultation with CDFW will
determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW may
require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Burrowing
Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan (Plan) . The
conditions of the permit or measures outlined in the plan would be adhered to by the Project proponent and any
required compensatory mitigation of habitat would be
provided.

MM BIO-4A To ensure compliance with CFGC sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities shall Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-21
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
be conducted outside of the bird nesting season
(generally February 15 through August 31). Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist will conduct a
nesting bird survey within three (3) days prior to any
disturbance of the site, including but not limited to
vegetation clearing, disking, demolition activities, and grading.

MM BIO-4B If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive
independently from the nests. During construction
activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by
the qualified biologist using their best professional
judgment. If nesting birds are documented, avoidance
and minimization measures may be adjusted, and
construction activities stopped or redirected by the
qualified biologist using their best professional
judgement to avoid take of nesting birds. If nesting birds are not documented during the preconstruction survey,
adherence to additional measures may not be necessary
to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Impact 4.3-2: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
CDFW or USFWS?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-22
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 4.3-3: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on State or federal protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required.

No Impact
Impact 4.3 -4: Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM BIO -4A through MM BIO -4C are included under Impact 4.3-1, above.

LS
Impact 4.3-5: Would the project conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM BIO -3A through MM BIO -3D are included under Impact 4.3-1, above.

LS
Impact 4.3-6: Would the Project conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 In the event that archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the
LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-23
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue du ring this
assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN)
shall be contacted, as detailed in MM TCR-1, regarding
any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/ her find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2 If significant pre -contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and
avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall
develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Plan), the
drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR -1. The
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and Implement the Plan accordingly.

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

Impact 4.4-2: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
S Mitigation Measures
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-24
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Further details regarding MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -3 are included under Impact 4.4-1, above.

Impact 4.4-3: Would the project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM CUL -3 are included under Impact 4.4 -1, above.

LS
Section 4.5: Energy
Impact 4.5 -1: Would the project result in
potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
See Section 4.2, Air Quality , for further discussion on MM AIR-2 and Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , for further discussion on GHG-1 and GHG-2.

LS
Impact 4.5 -2: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?

LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4. 6-1: Would the project generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could
have a significant impact on the environment?
SU 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR 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.

SU
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-25
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Tenant Improvements, not building shell, the project
shall install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other
source of renewable energy generation on -site, or
otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, that would
provide 100 percent of the 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 ), as feasible, based on the maximum net roof area available for solar (i.e.,
solar-ready zone). The solar -ready zone shall com ply
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
requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE).

SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering
requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s
distribution system. Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy
storage system (BESS) to lower off -site export while
maintaining on -site renewable generation to off -set
consumption. 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-26
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards:
▪ The Project shall be designed to achieve Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification at the time of building permit
application in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy
efficiency standards.
▪ 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 onsite shall be
100 percent electrically powered. This mitigation
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-27
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
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 of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures The 2016 RSPA EIR 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.

LS
Section 4.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-28
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.7 -6: Would the Project impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.7 -7: Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.8-1: Would the project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Impact 4.8-3i: Would the project substantially alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-29
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site?
Impact 4. 8-3ii: Would the project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
LS No mitigation measures are required.

LS
Impact 4. 8-3iii: Would the project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
LS No mitigation measures are required.

LS
Impact 4. 8-3iv: Would the project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
LS No mitigation measures are required.

LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-30
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 4. 8-4: Would the project in flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required.

No Impact
Impact 4.8-5: Would the Project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
LS No mitigation measures are required.

LS
Section 4.9: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4. 9-1: Would the project physically divide
an established community?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.9-2: Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.10: Noise
Impact 4.1 0-1: Would the project generate a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR 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.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-31
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 4.10-2: Would the project expose persons
to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
S Renaissance Specific Plan EIR 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., Able Storage) along
portions of the Project southern and southwestern
Project Boundary. The buffer zone shall be tie red 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. The buffer zone shall be enforced
around the existing commercial building between 7:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays from October 1
through April 30 and between hours of 6:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. from May 1 through September 30
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.50.070.

LS
Impact 4.1 0-3: For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-32
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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?
Section 4.11: Population and Housing
Impact 4.1 1-1: Would the project induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.1 1-2: Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.12: Public Services
Impact 4.1 2-1i: 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 signific ant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.1 2-1ii: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-33
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for police protection?
Impact 4.1 2-1iii: 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 significa nt environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for schools?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.1 2-1iv: 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 significa nt environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for parks?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.12 -1iv: 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
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-34
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for other public facilities?
Section 4.13: Recreation
Impact 4.13-1: 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?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.13 -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?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Section 4.14: Transportation
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?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.14-2: Would the proposed project conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.14 -3: Would the proposed project
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-35
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Impact 4.14-4: Would the proposed project result
in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.15: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.1 5-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC §21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
PRC §5020.1(k) or:
(b) A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR 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, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that
represents YSMN for the remainder of the Project,
should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to
YSMN. The Lead Agency, and/or appl icant shall, in good LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-36
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the
Project.

Section 4.16: Utilities
Impact 4.16-1: Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.16 -2: Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.16 -3: Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.16 -4: Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.16 -5: Comply with federal, State, and
local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 OVERVIEW, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY OF THE EIR
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to disclose information to the public and to the decision-makers about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. An EIR does not recommend either approval or denial of a proposed project. Rather, it is intended to provide a source of independent and impartial analysis of the foreseeable environmental impacts of a proposed course of action. This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) describes the proposed Project, analyzes its environmental effects, and discusses reasonable alternatives that would avoid, reduce, or minimize environmental impacts.

2.1.1 Overview
The approved 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) consists of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres located within the western/central portion of the City of Rialto (City), California. The 2010 RSP is planned as an integrated community of varied housing types located near and linked to places of employment, retail outlets, services and schools. The 2010 RSP accommodates 16.2 million square feet of business and commercial uses, 1,667 residential units, one school, a community park, and multiple neighborhood parks all located in close proximity and organized in a grid pattern.

The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) included the relocation of business and industrial uses to the west of Linden Avenue, relocation of all residential land uses and the public park to the east of Linden Avenue, implementation of the Renaissance Marketplace retail development in the northeastern segment of the 2016 RSPA area, and implementation of the Planning Area 108 industrial/warehouse development in the central segment of the 2016 RSPA area . The proposed Project is an amendment to the 2 016 RSPA and the proposed Project area is located within the previously approved 2010 RSP area as well as the current 2016 RSPA area. This SEIR assesses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to the RSPA at a programmatic level as appropriate, depending on the level of information available at the time of the preparation of the SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and development standards of the 2016 RSPA.

2.1.2 Purpose and Authority
This SEIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project). The SEIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 3, §§15000 et seq.).

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

CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in an EIR p rior to taking any discretionary action. This SEIR is intended to provide information to the Lead Agency and other public Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-2
agencies, the general public, and decision -makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. As the Lead Agency, the City will review and consider this SEIR in its decision to approve, revise, or deny the proposed Project.

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

2.1.3 Type of Environmental Impact Report
The City has determined that an SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project. In accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declarations due to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure of alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effect on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. “
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-3
This SEIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse and beneficial impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. This document analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis considers the activities associated with the Project, to determine the short -term and long -term effects associated with their implementation. This SEIR discusses both direct and indirect impacts of the Project, as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the construction and operational components of the proposed Project.

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis , discusses the regulatory environment, existing conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation program for the Project.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 sets forth criteria for determining if a project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide environmental significance. This proposed Project meets the following criteria and therefore is considered regionally significant:
▪ The project has the potential for causing effects on the environment that extend beyond the jurisdiction in which the project is located

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

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

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-4
In accordance with CEQA, public agencies are required to make appropriate findings for each potentially significant environmental impact identified in an EIR if it decides to approve a project. If an EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives, the Lead Agency (and responsible agencies using this CEQA document for their res pective permits or approvals) must decide whether the be nefits of the project outweigh any identified significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below a threshold of significance. If the agency decides that the overriding considerations, including project benefits, outweigh the unavoidable impacts, then the agenc y (Lead Agency or responsible agency) is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states the reasons that support its actions.

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

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

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

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Rialto prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to affected agencies and interested parties for a public review period beginning on July 8, 2024. The deadline to submit comments on the NOP was August 7, 2024 .

Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation, summarizes the comments received from agencies/persons during the NOP process and provides a reference, as applicable, to the section(s) of this SEIR where the issues are addressed. The NOP and comment letters are provided in Appendix A of this SEIR. This table identifies areas of controversy/unresolved issues and issues to be addressed in the SEIR.

2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statew ide, regional, or area -wide significance. A scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-5
of actions, alternatives, and environmental effects to be analyzed. The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on August 1, 2024, at 6:00 PM. No issues related to the SEIR were identified by participants at the Scoping Meeting.

Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation Commenter Name Summary of Comment and Section Addressed Regional and Local Agencies
State of California
Department of Justice
Recommendations and Comments:
▪ Avoid land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors ▪ Mitigate impacts of unavoidable land use conflicts
▪ Consider the information provided in the Attorney General Office’s Bureau of Environmental Justice which contains best practices and mitigation measures for warehouse projects and information related to Environmental Justice, as applicable to CEQA
See Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, and Section

4.10, Noise.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Recommendations and Comments:
▪ Recommends using the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website for guidance in preparing air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analyses ▪ Identify air quality impacts by phase, as well as construction and operations ▪ Recommends a mobile source health risk assessment to disclose the potential health risks associated with the Project
▪ Provide mitigation measures, as needed and Identify impacts of the mitigation measures
See Section 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Interested Parties
Native American Heritage
Commission
Recommendations and Comments:
▪ Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area ▪ Insists compliance with AB 52 and SB 18
See Section 4.4, Cultural Resources and Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources

2.3 EIR SCOPE AND CONTENT
This Draft SEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and was prepared following input for the public and the responsible and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process, as discussed below. The contents of this SEIR were established based on the findings in the NOP and public and agency input (Table 2-1). Based on the findings of the NOP, a determination was required to address potentially significant environmental effects on the following resources:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-6
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Services Systems
Through the completion of the City’s Environmental Check list for this Project, the City has determined that the SEIR for the proposed Project would not require the assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the San Bernardino County Important Farmland. The project site is not zoned for agric ulture. Additionally, the project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands. Regarding Geology and Soils, the project site is not located within a fault zone, landslide, zone, or liquefaction zone. Concerning Mineral Resources, the project site consists of previously disturbed land, including remnants of the previous Rialto Airport. The California Geological Survey (California Geological Survey, 2012) does not identify any mineral resources on or adjacent to the project site. Lastly, this project site is not a State Responsibility Area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, no impacts with respect to the topic of Wildfire would occur.

2.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this SEIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148, or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR and are available for review online. Information contained within these documents has been used for various sections in the SEIR.
▪ City of Rialto General Plan. 2010, as amended.
▪ City of Rialto General Plan Update Final EIR. 2010.
▪ Renaissance Specific Plan. 2010, as amended.
▪ Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. 2010.
▪ Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment. 2016, as amended. ▪ Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR. 2016.
▪ City of Rialto Zoning Ordinance
▪ City of Rialto Municipal Code

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-7

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

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

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

This Draft SEIR and the full administrative record for the Project, including all studies, is available for review during normal business hours Monday through Thursday at the City of Rialto Community Development Department. Additionally, c opies of the Draft SEIR and technical appendices are available at the reference desk of the following library and on the City’s website. ▪ City of Rialto, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 150 South Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376
▪ Rialto Library, 251 West First Street, Rialto, California 92376 ▪ City website: https://yourrialto.com
Following the close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, a Final EIR will be prepared to respond to all substantive comments related to environmental issues associated with the Project . The Final EIR will be made avail able prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing to consider this SEIR along with the actions within the City’s review and discretion of approval.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-8

2.7 LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE SEIR
AAQS Ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFY acre-feet per year
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMP Best Management Practice
BTU British Thermal Unit
BUOW burrowing owl
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Conditional Development Permit
CEC California Energy Commission
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund)
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGC California Geologic Survey
CH4 methane
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-9
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPP Clean Power Plan
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Ranks
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency (hazardous materials) cy cubic yards
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DEH Department of Environmental Health, San Bernardino County DHS Department of Health Services
DIF Development Impact Fee
DOF Department of Finance
DPH Department of Public Health Services
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of California EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EMMA Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements
ESA Endangered Species Act
FCCA Federal Clean Air Act
FE Federally Endangered
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FR Federal Register
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FP Fully Protected
FT Federally Threatened
GHG greenhouse gas
gpm gallons per minute
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-10
GWh gigawatt-hours
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
Hz hertz
IRUWMP Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LCI Land Use and Climate Innovation
Ldn Day-Night average noise level
Leq Equivalent noise levels
Lmax Maximum sound level
Lmin Minimum sound level
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD most likely descendants
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
mph miles per hour
mpg miles per gallon
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Deices
MWh megawatt-hour
NAAQS National ambient air quality standards
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOA Notice of Availability
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-11
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services, State of California
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less)
PM10 Fine particulate matter (10 microns or less)
PPD Precise Plan of Design
ppv peak particle velocity
ppm Parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
UST underground storage tank
RBC Rocks Biological Consulting
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROG reactive organic gases
RSP Renaissance Specific Plan
RSPA Renaissance Specific Plan Area
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RUSD Rialto Unified School District
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCOG San Bernardino Council of Governments
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-12
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SC Standard Condition
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SE State Endangered
sf square feet
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SSC Species of Special Concern
ST State Threatened
SEIR Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMDL total maximum daily load
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. EPA United State Environmental Protection Act
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOC Volatile organic compound
Wh watt-hours
WL Watch List Species
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-1

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

3.1 Project Location
The proposed project site (Accessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 0264-211-15 and -20; 0264-212-12, -17; -30; - 44; -45; -46; -54; and portions of 0264 -212-05 and -06) is located within the southern region of the Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) planning area. The RSP planning area is located within the City of Rialto, California (Figure 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map). The City of Rialto (City) is located in western San Bernardino County, approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles and 100 miles north of San Diego. The proposed Project is an amendment to the approved 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) and the proposed project site is located within the previously approved RSP planning area (Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map).

The project site is located within the western/central portion of the City, approximately 0.65 miles south of State Route (SR) 210. Specifically, the project site is located directly west of Ayala Drive, approximately 450 feet north of Baseline Road, and east of Linden Avenue within the 2016 RSPA area.

3.2 On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses
From the late 1970s to 2014, the northern portion of the project site was used for aviation purposes of the Rialto Municipal Airport. Upon the airport’s demolition, the project site has been vacant. There is an unpaved road that bisects the project site from east to west, connecting Miro Way to Ayala Drive.

Adjacent and surrounding land uses include the following:

North Vacant land and industrial uses
South Industrial and commercial uses
East Ayala Drive, Fitzgerald Avenue, and b usiness park, public park, and vacant land zoned for employment east of Ayala Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue West Linden Avenue, and industrial uses west of Linden Avenue Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-2

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

Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning , of this Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) includes a discussion of the General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed Project. The Focused General Plan Update was approved in November 2024, and includes an updated Safety Element, Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and includes the of an Environmental Justice Element.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designation requires the implementation of a specific plan. The project site is located within the Renaissance Specific Plan, which specifies the land use designations of the 2010 RSP area. Land use designations of the 2010 RSP must be consistent with the General Plan.

Zoning Designations
The 2010 RSP provides a long-range plan for development and a guide for future development within the planning area. As part of the adoption of the 2010 RSP, the City’s Zoning Map was amended to reflect the zoning of the 2010 RSP area. The RSP planning area, including the project site, is zoned as Specific Plan.1 The 2016 RSPA includes development and design guidelines, administrative procedures, and measures to accomplish cohesive development within the RSP planning area. Furthermore, the 2016 RSPA intends to maintain consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan.

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. A Conditional Development Permit (CDP) would be required for Project development, as a warehouse is a conditionally permitted use within an indu strial land use designation. Existing land use categories for each planning area are described in Table 3-1:

Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations, below.

1 City of Rialto. (2013). City of Rialto Official Zoning Map. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning- Map---July-2013. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-3
Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations
Planning Area Existing Land Use Category Proposed Land Use Category 123 School General Commercial (Residential Overlay)1
126 Public Park Business Center
133 Employment (Designated Park Overlay) Business Center Notes:

1. Planning Area 123 retains the option to become Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and can accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the Specific Plan, as described in Section 6 of the RSPA.

3.4 Existing Site Conditions
The approximately 35-acre project site consist s of vacant and undeveloped land and features ruderal vegetation and portions of pavement and gravel cover that remain from the runways and other infrastructure from the Rialto Municipal Airport which ceased operations in 2014 , and has since been demolished. Portions of the project site are partially fenced, and gravel piles are located at the southern portion of the project site. Sidewalks and streetlights exist at the project boundary along Ayala Drive and Linden Avenue, south of Miro Way.

The project site is generally flat and drain s from the northwest to the southeast, towards Ayala Drive .

Existing vegetation consists of an assortment of native and non-native plant species. An unpaved dirt road bisects the project site east to west, connecting Miro Way to Ayala Drive.

3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Project have been updated from the 2016 RSPA to reflect the current land use plan for the RSP Amendment. The following provides a summary of the Project objectives associated with submittal of the proposed RSP Amendment:
▪ 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-4

3.6 Project Characteristics
Proposed Zone Change
The existing approved 2016 RSPA area land use plan is displayed in Figure 3-3: Existing 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area. The revised land use for plan for the RSPA area reflecting the proposed changes to Planning Areas 123, 126 , and 133 is displayed in Figure 3-4: Proposed Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area. Related updates to the 2016 RSP text and figures are required based upon the revised land use plan as proposed by the RSP Amendment. However, the land uses proposed by the RSP Amendment represent a re-distribution of previously-identified land uses in the RSP.

The proposed Project would require a zone change for Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. A summary of the proposed 2016 RSPA Amendment land use changes is provided below in Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary . In addition, the Project would include improvements to Miro Way, providing a connection from the intersection of Miro Way and Linden Drive to Ayala Drive.

Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Total
Acres2
RSPA Land Uses Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres2 Target
Density/FAR3
Total Sq.

Ft.

Total
Units4 Jobs5 Pop.
6 Acres2 Sq. Ft.7 Jobs5
Residential Uses
Low Density
Residential (LDR) 50.5 50.5 8 du/ac - 404 - 1,252 - - - Medium Density
Residential (MDR) 29.0 29.0 12.5 du/ac - 363 - 1.124 - - - Medium High
Density
Residential
(MHDR)

19.7 19.5 16 du/ac - 312 - 967 - - -
High Density
Residential (HDR) 8.0 8.0 25 du/ac - 200 - 620 - - -
Proposed Project 0 0 - - - - - - -
Net Change
(Residential Uses) 0 0 - - - - - - -
Business Uses
Town Center 71.9 71.9 0.25 FAR 782,994 - 1,566 - - - - Corporate Center 19.7 19.7 0.75 FAR 643,599 - 1,287 - - - - Business Center 194.6 194.7 0.50 FAR 4,240,566 - 1,696 - 132.8 2,646,200 1,058 Freeway
Commercial 38.6 38.6 0.25 FAR 420,356 - 841 -
Employment 441.4 182.6 0.40 FAR 3,181,635 - 1,463 - 258.8 4,217,825 1,940 Freeway
Incubator 85.9 85.9 0.25-0.35
FAR 1,233,842 - 1,071 -
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-5
Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Total
Acres2
RSPA Land Uses Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres2 Target
Density/FAR3
Total Sq.

Ft.

Total
Units4 Jobs5 Pop.
6 Acres2 Sq. Ft.7 Jobs5
General
Commercial 6.2 2.4 0.25 FAR 26,136 - 52 - 3.8 14,880 30 Proposed
Business Center
Total
214.6 214.7 0.50 FAR 4,676,166 - 1,870 - 132.8 2,646,200 1,058 Proposed
Employment
Total
438 179.2 0.40 FAR 3,122,381 - 1,436 - 258.8 4,217,825 1,940 Proposed General
Commercial Total 19.2 15.4 0.25 FAR 17,706 - 111 - 3.8 14,880 30 Net Change
(Business Uses) 29.6 29.6 - 367,916 - 206 - - - -
Other Uses
School 1.48 1.48 - - - 0 - - - -
Public Parks 29.3 3.4 - - - - - 25.9 NA NA
Private
Recreation Center 2 2 - - - - - - - -
Buffer/Slope 4.8 4.8 - - - - - - - -
Utilities 13 0 - - - - - 12.9 NA NA
ROW2 275.4 275.4 - - - - - - - -
Proposed School -13.0 -13.0 - -

-
-50 - - - -
Proposed Park -16.6 -16.6 - -

25.9 NA NA
Net Change
(Other Uses) -29.6 -29.6 -

-
-50 - - - -
Total Net Change
(Business Uses +
Other Uses)
0 0 -

-
156 - - - -
Notes:

1. Does not include existing uses that are anticipated to remain.

2. Acreage is provided as net, which is everything between the major road rights-of-way (excluding local roads).

3. Target density/FAR is used to determine buildout of the Specific Plan.

4. As noted in Section 7, Implementation, residential units may be transferred within Renaissance.

5. Jobs Assumptions: (1) 500 square feet per employee in the Town Center, Freeway Commercial, Corporate Center, and General Commercial land use categories; (2) 1,000 square feet per employee in the Freeway Incubator land use categories (5% of the square footage of these uses is assumed to be in buildings exceeding 100,000 square feet where a 2,500 square feet per employee factor was used); (3) 2,500 square feet per employee in the Business Center land use category; (4) 2,174 square feet per employee in the Employment land use category (4) the school is assumed to accommodate 50 employees.

6. Based upon City direction, for purposes of this specific plan a factor of 3.1 persons per household is utilized for all units.

7. Existing square footage has been estimated from the footprint of existing buildings and from approved plans of recently constructed buildings.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-6
Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Total
Acres2
RSPA Land Uses Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres2 Target
Density/FAR3
Total Sq.

Ft.

Total
Units4 Jobs5 Pop.
6 Acres2 Sq. Ft.7 Jobs5

8. See Figure 2-2, Land Use Diagram, for the location of the various FARs within the land use category.

9. Planning Area 103 may develop under the Employment or Town Center land use categories. For purposes of estimating the buildout, it has been assumed that this area will develop as a Town Center use.

10. Planning Area 123 retains the option to become Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and can accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the Specific Plan, as described in Section 6 of the RSPA.

11. Planning Area 132 contains an existing Employment use. Upon redevelopment, it may be converted to the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use category. For purposes of estimating the buildout, it has been assumed that this area will retain its existing Employment use. Should the land use designation be converted to Low Density Residential, the total number of Future Units shall increase by 8 du/ac for a total of 23 additional units, while 17,202 Sq. Ft. of existing Employment shall be removed.

12. Planning Areas 17 and 80 may develop under the Employment or General Commercial land use categories. For purposes of estimating the buildout, it has been assumed that these areas will develop as Employment uses.

Source: 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment
Project Warehouse Development
As proposed, the Project would allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings ranging from approximately 53,640 square feet (sf) to 375,075 sf , for a total of approximately 399,715 sf of warehouse space and 29,000 sf of ancillary office space on approximately 20.76 acres, as shown in Figure 3-5: Conceptual Site Plan . The warehouse development is comprised of Planning Areas 126 and 133.

Existing land use categories for each planning area are described in Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations. Based on the uses being proposed, the Project would require 277 automobile parking spaces and the project proposes 283 automobile parking spaces. Table 3-3: Building Site Summary , summarizes the proposed project site development.

Table 3-3: Building Site Summary
Building
Site
(ac)
Office
(sf)
Mezzanine
(sf)
Warehouse
(sf)
Total
Building
(sf)
Dock
Doors
Drive Thru
Door
Automobile
Parking Stalls
Required Provided
Building 1 2.98 3,000 3,000 47,640 53,640 6 1 66 70
Building 2 17.78 18,000 5,000 352,075 375,075 65 3 211 213 Total 20.76 21,000 8,000 399,715 428,715 71 4 277 283
The proposed buildings are currently planned as “speculative buildings,” meaning that there are not business uses identified for the buildings. Without knowing the specifics in terms of the future tenants or buyers, the Project is mandated to provide the p arking as shown in Table 3-3: Building Site Summary .

Therefore, this SEIR and associated technical reports use City approved numbers for the approximate potential on-site employees, hours of operation, and vehicular traffic generation based on the Project’s proposed square footage and use as warehouse buildings as dictated by t he City guidelines. In an abundance of caution, this SEIR and the associated technical reports have assumed uses and intensities that may be greater than what might actually be expected at buildout and operation, resulting in a possible conservative estimation of impacts.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-7
Building 1
Building 1 would be a rectangular building located on the northwestern portion of the project site. The building would have dimensions of approximately 260 feet wide (east-to-west) by 180 feet long (north-to- south). The building would be one story and would include two -story office space at the northeastern corner of the building. Access to Building 1 would be provided by one driveway shared with Building 2 on Miro Way. The east side of the building would have 6 dock doors and one drive -thru door. The building frontage would be setback approximately 99 feet from Miro Way and approximately 49 feet from Linden Avenue.

Building 2
Building 2 would be a rectangular building located within the central portion of the project site. The building would have dimensions of approximately 792 feet wide (east-to-west) by 440 feet long (north-to- south). The warehouse space would be one story and the two-story office space would be located at the northeastern corner of the building. Access to Building 2 would be provided via two driveways on Miro Way (including a shared driveway with Building 1) and two driveways on Ay ala Drive. Dock doors would be located along the northern and southern sides of the building. The building frontage would be setback approximately 40 feet from Ayala Drive and approximately 243 feet from Miro Way.

Site Access and Parking
Vehicular access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways on Ayala Drive and two driveways on Miro Way. The nearest major freeways to the project site include SR 21 0, located approximately 0.65 miles to the north, and Interstate 215 (I-215), located approximately 5.5 miles to the east. Trucks would enter the project site from the State Route 210 ( 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 head to the SR-210 freeway would he ad 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.

As shown above in Table 3-3: Building Site Summary , the proposed Project would meet the parking requirements for each of the proposed buildings. According to Municipal Code Section 18.58.050 (L), the Project is required to include 66 parking spaces for Building 1 and 211 parking spaces for Building 2. The Project would provide 70 parking spaces for Building 1 and 213 parking spaces for Building 2. The Project would be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.

Project truck trailer parking and loading dock requirements are identified in Table 3-4: Truck Trailer Loading. As shown in Table 3-4: Truck Trailer Loading, the Project would be in compliance with Municipal Code Section 18.58.030 (O).

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-8
Table 3-4: Truck Trailer Loading
Type Requirement Required Provided
Building 1
Loading Docks 2 spaces for uses of 40,000 sf to 100,000 sf 2 6 Building 2
Loading Docks 6 spaces for uses of 320,000 sf to 400,000 sf 6 65 Notes:
sf = square feet
Source: City of Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.030.

Building Design, Landscaping, and Lighting
Development of the proposed warehouse buildings would be consistent with the development standards of the 2016 RSPA and applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, as further discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. The architectural design of the proposed warehouse buildings would be consistent with existing commercial and industrial uses in the Project area.

Landscaping would be included along the boundaries of the warehouse development and within parking areas. The Project would include approximately 154,929 sf of landscaping (approximately 17.1% of the project site). The proposed landscaping would include a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers.

The Project would include the reconfiguration and construction of Miro Way and associated curb, gutter, and streetlight improvements. Sidewalks would be provided on the south side of Miro Way, along the Project frontage.

Site lighting would be used to provide adequate lighting for circulation, safety, and security. Outdoor lighting would be included within parking areas, landscape areas, and on building frontages. Night lighting would be provided seven days per week. Outdoor lighting would be provided consistent with the requirements set forth in the Municipal Code. Outdoor lighting levels would not exceed 1.0 candle/foot measured at ground level throughout the parking areas. A point-by-point lighting plan is required by the City and would be submitted with construction plans.

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

Drainage and Water Quality Treatment
The Project Applicant would be responsible for drainage and water quality treatment before discharging into the City's existing storm drainage infrastructure located within Miro Way and Ayala Drive. Building 1 would have one subsurface biofiltration basin and Building 2 would have three subsurface biofiltration Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-9
basins. Stormwater would be captured and conveyed via roof drains, inlets, trench drains, and the proposed underground storm drain network, which would treat and infiltrate runoff. The four proposed subsurface basins would serve as a water quality best man agement practice (BMP) and the proposed underground storage facility will detain and mitigate peak flows.

Wastewater Collection and Disposal
The City has an existing sanitary sewer mainline located within Ayala Drive. The Project proposes sewer service connections to the existing sanitary sewer mainline.

Dry Utilities and Services
Along the project site boundary on Linden Avenue, there are existing utility poles that contain electrical power, communications, and cable television lines. The Project would include connections to existing utilities.

Off-Site Improvements
Access to the project site would be provided via Miro Way and Ayala Drive. The project would include the reconfiguration and construction of Miro Way along the project frontage and associated curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlight improvements. The intersection at Ayala Drive and Miro Way would be signalized, and overhead utility lines along Linden Avenue, south of the existing signalized intersection at Miro Way and Linden Avenue, would be undergrounded.

Offsite utility and roadway improvements would extend slightly north of Miro Way and along the right - of-way of Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive at the project frontage. With off -site improvements, the total construction footprint is approximately 27.19 acres.

Construction Phasing
Construction of the proposed Project is expected to commence in 2025 with a construction duration of approximately 13 months and would be completed in one phase of construction. Total excavation and fill of soils for the proposed Project is anticipated to require 44,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 103,200 cy of fill, with approximately 59,200 cy of imported soil.

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

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

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-10
City of Rialto
▪ Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment: the Project proposes to change the existing land use designations of Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center, and Planning Area 123 to General Commercial with a Residential overlay
▪ Tentative Parcel Map
▪ Conditional Development Permit
▪ Amended Development Agreement
▪ Precise Plan of Design
In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project would be subject to other discretionary and ministerial actions by the City as part of Project implementation. Additional City approvals include but are not limited to site development permits, grading permits, use permits, sign permits, and building permits.

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

FIGURE 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Lowell and Locust, Rialto, CA
Untitled layer
Lowell and Locust, Rialto, CA
Untitled layer
Rialto, CA
Source: Google Maps, 2023
Project Location
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-12
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE 3-2: Project Vicinity Map
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
210
Baseline RdBaseline Rd
Miro WayMiro Way
Linden AveLinden Ave
Fitzgerald AveFitzgerald Ave
Ayala Dr
Ayala Dr
Source: Nearmap, 2023
Proposed Warehouse
Development and Rezone
Proposed Rezone
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Fitzgerald Ave
Maple Ave
Laurel Ave
Tamarind Ave
Palmetto Ave
Walnut StAlder Ave
Locust Ave
Linden Ave
Renaissance Pkwy
Casmalia St
Baseline Rd
Lieske Dr
210210
210Easton St
Figure 2-2 Land Use Diagram
(Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment)
Low Density Residential - 3-8 du/ac (Target 8)
LEGEND
Medium Density Residential - 8-14 du/ac (Target 12.5)
Medium High Density Residential - 14-20 du/ac (Target 16 ) High Density Residential - 20-35 du/ac (Target 25)
Town Center - .25 FAR
General Commercial - .25 FAR
Freeway Commercial - .23 FAR
Freeway Incubator - .23 FAR
Corporate Center - .30 FAR
Business Center - .5 FAR
Employment - .4 FAR
Schools
Utilities/Public Facilities
Public Park
Private Rec. Center
Commercial Overlay
Existing Uses to Remain (Existing uses as of April 2016) Residential Overlay
Employment Overlay
Designated Park Overlay
NOTES:

1. The boundaries of the land use
designations are approximate
and generally follow streets and
property lines. Minor changes in
boundary alignment and location are
permissible as described in Section 6,
Implementation.

2. The transfer of residential units and
square footage in the Business Center
land use categories is allowed as
described in Section 6, Implementation.

3. If the school is relocated or if the school
district chooses not to develop a school
within Renaissance, then the underlying
land use shall revert to the Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR) land
use designation and can accept the
transfer of residential units from other
in Section 6, Implementation.

4. See city zoning code for non-
conforming uses.

Residential it will be calculated at 8 du/
ac for a total of 23 dwelling units.

6. Existing uses noted based on approved

7. intersection.

of Town Center, and it was analyzed

analysis purposes. Subsequent analysis
is required if Employment Overlay is
implemented.
20A
Corporate Center

6.4 ac
.3 FAR
20B
Business Center

7.0 ac
.5 FAR
Ayala Dr
Miro Way
Project SiteRenaissance Speci/f_ic Plan area
FIGURE 3-3: Existing 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2. The transfer of residential units and
square footage in the Business Center
land use categories is allowed as
described in Section 6, Implementation.

4. See city zoning code for non-
conforming uses.

Residential it will be calculated at 8 du/
ac for a total of 23 dwelling units.

6. Existing uses noted based on approved

7. intersection.

of Town Center, and it was analyzed

analysis purposes. Subsequent analysis
is required if Employment Overlay is
implemented.
20A
Corporate Center

6.4 ac
.3 FAR
20B
Business Center

7.0 ac
.5 FAR
Ayala Dr
Miro Way
Project SiteRenaissance Speci/f_ic Plan area
FIGURE 3-4: Proposed Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-18
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE 3-5: Conceptual Site Plan
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Not to Scale
Source: HPA Architecture, 2023
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-20
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.0.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) discusses the potential environmental impacts that would result with implementation of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project). The following environmental topics are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this SEIR:
▪ 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
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128, “An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The City of Rialto (City) determined that the proposed Project would have no impact on the following CEQA environmental topics: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources , and Wildfire . As such, these topics are addressed in Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations, and not addressed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this SEIR.

4.0.2 Environmental Setting
This environmental setting provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the Project and describes the existing physical environmental conditions on the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant. The existing conditions are the on- site physical environmental conditions at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1). For purposes of this analysis, the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the City of Rialto, as Lead Agency, determines whether an impact is significant.

4.0.3 Environmental Analysis
As described in detail in Section 2, Introduction, this Draft SEIR has been prepared as a SEIR in accordance with Section 1516 2 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This SEIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The analysis contained within this Subsequent EIR provides environmental information Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-2
to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City as part of the Project’s implementation.

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

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

The following is an explanation of the significance determinations used in this SEIR:
▪ No Impact: Due to the nature of the Project or location of the project site, the proposed Project would not have any measurable impact on the environment. For example, underground facilities do not have the potential for long-term visual impacts. ▪ Less Than Significant: An impact that is adverse but that does not exceed the defined thresholds of significance. Although an impact may occur, it will not be at a significant level based on applicable standards and thresholds. For example, construction -related air emissions t hat fall below the standards are less than significant and do not require mitigation. ▪ Less Than Significant With Mitigation : An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and would or could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment.

Mitigation Measures are recommended to prevent the impact, eliminate the impact, or reduce it to a level that is considered less than significant.
▪ Significant and Unavoidable : This determination is made for a potentially significant impact where there is either no feasible mitigation available, or the recommended mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. To approve a project with Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-3
unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determinin g whether to approve the project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)).

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

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

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

There are two commonly used approaches for establishing the cumulative impact setting or scenario. One approach is to use a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” (14 CCR Section 15130(b)(1)(A)). The other is to use a “summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect” (14 CCR Section 15130(b)(1)(B)). This Draft SEIR uses the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-4
summary approach of projections based on the buildout assumptions contained in the 2010 General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2008071100).

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 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 degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings through changes in the existing landscape. Potential effects are evaluated relative to important visual features (e.g. scenic highways, scenic features), and the existing visual landscape and its users.

Degradation of the visual character of a site is usually addressed through a qualitative evaluation of the changes to the aesthetic characteristics of the existing environment. This analysis evaluates if the implementation of the proposed Project would alter the visual setting.

The term “visual blight,” as referred to in this SEIR, is a condition where real property, as a result of its appearance, is detrimental to the appearance of surrounding properties, or reduces the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood.

4.1.2 Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Because each person’s attachme nt to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) are expected to have a high concern for scenery and landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at industrial si tes generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close -up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a land scape is also affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (e.g., high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence). Visual resources, as they relate to tribal cultural resources, include triba l cultural landscapes which may be defined temporally (with regard to time) or geographically (such as by natural features such as a stream, boulder or outcrop) and through oral traditions and cultural practices. For more information on tribal cultural resources, see Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this SEIR.

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-2
The following terms and concepts are used in the discussion below to describe and assess the aesthetic setting and potential Project impacts.

Scenic Vista. As described in the Rialto General Plan (General Plan), scenic vistas can generally be defined as natural landscapes that form views of unique flora, geologic, or other natural features that are generally free from urban intrusions. Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains and hills, large, uninterrupted open spaces, and waterbodies. 1 Scenic vistas are often designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Environmental Setting
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.

1 City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/653/General-Plan. Accessed October 2024. 2 American Planning Association. (2004). A Planner’s Dictionary. Page 444. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-3
The project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land. On-site elevations range from approximately 1,385 to 1,420 feet above mean sea level (ams l). The project site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses and vacant land to the north.

Scenic Vistas
The General Plan identifies the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains as scenic vistas, views of which are visible from certain parts of the City of Rialto (City). The San Gabriel Mountains are approximately 10 miles northwest of the project site and the San Bernardino Mountains are approximately 18 miles east of the project site.

Scenic Resources
The General Plan identifies examples of scenic resources as including rock outcroppings, trees, and prominent ridgelines as well as architecturally distinctive or historic buildings. The General Plan identifies Box Spring Mountains, La Loma and Jurupa Hills, Lytle Creek, and the Santa Ana River as scenic resources within the City . Lytle Creek is approximately 2.8 miles east of the project site ; Santa Ana River is approximately 6.8 miles southeast of the project site; Box Spring Mountains are approximately 10.4 miles south of the project site; La Loma Hills are approximately 6.3 miles south of the project site; and the Jurupa Hills are approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the project site. Due to distance , and intervening topography and development, the scenic resources are not visible from the project site.

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

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

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

The nearest designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 38 (Rim of the World Scenic Byway), located Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-4
approximately 30.3 miles east of the project site. 3 The nearest eligible scenic highway is the portion SR 330 between SR 30 and SR 18, located approximately 11.7 miles east of the project site. 4 The 20 22 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. The CBC, as amended and adopted by each local jurisdiction, regulates the design of all new buildings within the State of California. Part 6 of Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. The 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023.

California Building Standards Code
The 2022 CBC, Title 24 of the CCR, is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. The CBC, as amended and adopted by each local jurisdiction, regulates the design of all new buildings within the State of California. Part 6 of Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. The 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023.

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

Goal 2-15 Protect scenic vistas and scenic resources.

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.

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.

Policy 2-15.3 Ensure use of building materials that do not produce glare, such as polished metals or reflective windows.

3 Caltrans. (2024).List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap- landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed October 2024. 4 Ibid.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-5
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 the development standards to regulate development 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. Although the 2016 RSPA does not contain policies related to aesthetics, the Development Standards identify standards for site design elements that aim to enhance the visual quality of the Specific Plan area.

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. The purpose of Title 18 is also to promote the consistent aesthetic character of the City and balance that character with continued development. Title 18 also contains provisions to manage light and glare levels in the City. In coordination with the Rialto General Plan, Title 18 presents guidelines to promote appropriate land use and City design and designed to:
▪ lessen congestion in the streets;
▪ secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers;
▪ promote health and the general welfare;
▪ provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; ▪ avoid undue concentration of population; and
▪ facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.

4.1.5 Methodology
The analysis of visual quality of the proposed Project is based on the land use plan and conceptual landscape plan, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description . The assessment of aesthetic/visual changes is based on field reconnaissance; the evaluation of the 2016 RSPA Design Guidelines, and other regulatory requirements; and the evaluation of the proposed site development in comparison to existing conditions. Aesthetics may be defined as visual qualities within a given field of view, and may include such Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-6
considerations as size, shape, color, contextual and general composition and the relationships between these elements; the potential aesthetic impacts of a project can be evaluated by considering such factors as scale and mass, landscaping, and setbacks.

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

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

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

4.1.6 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:
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
▪ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway;
▪ In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, the project has a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
▪ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

4.1.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located on land with a Specific Plan land use designation in the General Plan. The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 of the 2016 RSPA. Planning Area 123 is zoned School, Planning Area 126 is zoned Public Park , and Planning Area 133 is zoned Employment with a designated Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-7
Park overlay. Adjacent properties include existing commercial uses, Jerry Eaves Park to the east, single - family residential uses to the south across Baseline Road, and industrial uses to the west. The project site and surrounding parcels are not located within an area classified as a scenic vista by the City. As described in General Plan Policies 2-15.1 and 2-15.2, the General Plan encourages the protection of scenic resources and views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, and the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by limiting building heights. Views of these resources from the area surrounding the project site are already limited and interrupted by existing development.

Views of a scenic vista can be affected by the development of buildings and structures which may block visibility at different angles. After development of the Project, the distant views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains from uses north of the project site may be partially obstructed, and views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, and Box Spring Mountains may be partially obstructed when viewed from south of the project site; however, those views are currently partially obstructed by intervenin g urban development including structures, walls, landscaping, and overhead utility lines. The project site is west of Jerry Eaves Park and would not obstruct distant views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north from sensitive viewers engaged in recreational activities at the park. Views to the west from sensitive viewers at Jerry Eaves Park would continue to be partially obstructed by the existing urban development. Likewise, development of the Project would partially obstruct views of moderately sensitive viewers in the residential area south of the project site, less sensitive viewers in the adjacent employment/commercial uses, and those of motorists along Baseline Road. As noted above, those views are currently partially obstructed by existing development.

The height of the warehouse buildings associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the 75-foot maximum height allowed by the 2016 RSPA Development Standards. Further, the proposed Project would provide a minimum setback of approximately 99 feet from Miro Way, approximately 49 feet from Linden Avenue, and approximately 40 feet from Ayala Drive, which is more than the required 25 feet minimum as identified in Table 3 -5 of the 2016 RSPA. The proposed Project has minimized any potential adverse impact to views through s ite design that has a larger than required front setback and the proposed buildings heights would be under the 75 -feet maximum limit. Further, as described above, while development of the Project would partially obstruct distant views of mountains and foothills from properties adjacent to the project site, those views are already limited and interrupted by existing urban development. Accordingly, inclusion of these features on the site design minimizes potential impacts to a less than significant level. 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.

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 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-8
Impact 4.1-2 Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an urban area, surrounded by existing development. The General Plan does not identify any designated scenic corridors. In addition, there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. According to the Caltrans California State Scenic Highway System Map, the nearest designated scenic highway is SR 38, located approximately 30.3 miles east of the project site. The nearest eligible scenic highway is the portion SR 330 between SR 30 and SR 18, located approximately

11.7 miles east of the project site.5
The 2010 RSP EIR determined that any future development that is consistent with the 2010 RSP would not result in any adverse aesthetic impacts. To accommodate the proposed uses of the Project, the Project would include a zone change for Planning Areas 126 and 133 from Public Park and Employment to Business Center. Upon approval of the proposed zone change, the Project would adhere to the development standards of the Business Center Zone to ensure implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2016 RSPA. The warehouse development would adhere to the 2016 RSPA Development Standards for Business Center uses. 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.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.1-3 Would the Project, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21071, an urbanized area includes an incoporated city which a) has a population of at least 100,000 persons or b) has a population of 100,000 persons if the population of the city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equal 100,000

5 Caltrans. (2024). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-9
persons. As of January 2024, the City has a population of approximately 103,097 persons, and is therefore considered an urbanized area.6
The project site is currently zoned School, Public Park and Employment, with a designated Park overlay, within the Specific Plan. The Project proposes to change the existing zoning of Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center and of Planning Area 123 to General Commercial with a Residential overlay (See Figure 3-5: Proposed Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area ). The proposed Project would change the appearance of Planning Areas 126 and 133 from undeveloped land to the two proposed warehouse buildings and associated on - and off --site improvements. The project site design would comply with Business Center development standards included in the 2016 RSPA. The proposed Project would include the use of colors and materials to create a cohesive and authentic architectural style and inc lude landscaping to complement the buildings. Warehouse development would comply with Businsess Center development standards included in the 2016 RSPA. In additon, the Project would incoporate Mitigation Measure AES-1 of the 2016 RSPA EIR, which requires all electrical distribution lines of 16,000 volts or less, telephone lines, and similar service wires or cables be installed underground. The Project would include the undergrounding of aboveground utilities along Linden Avenue. 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 the compliance with the 2016 RSPA development standards and incorporation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 Pursuant to Section 15.32 of the City’s Municipal Code Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, evidence that all electrical distribution lines of 16,000 volts or less, telephone lines, cable antenna television and similar service wires or cable, which provide direct service to the property being developed, shall be installed underground.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.1-4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is in an urbanized area of the City, which includes nighttime lighting associated with industrial and commercial businesses including parking lot lighting, residential uses, and Jerry Eaves Park (parking lot and lighted sports fields), as well as street lighting and vehicle lights traveling at night. The nearest light-sensitive receptor to the project site is the neighborhood of single-family residences located

6 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-10
south of Baseline Road. The project site would be developed on vacant property in an urbanized area.

Developed and urbanized areas often have higher levels of light and glare than rural or undeveloped areas.

New sources of lighting on the project site would include parking lot illumination and various security lights around the property for safety and security concerns. Additional lighting would be included indoors and not visible to the surrounding area. To reduce potential impacts associated with outdoor lighting, the Project would comply with the 2016 RSPA Development Standards which require that all outdoor lighting be shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and public right-of-way.

As discussed above, the project vicinity includes existing nighttime lighting from surrounding sources including vehicle headlights, streetlights, and intermittent nighttime field lighting at Jerry Eaves Park. The Project would introduce additional nighttime lighting on the warehouse development site, which would be visible from the surrounding area. The lighting used for the warehouse development would be consistent with the existing sources of nighttime lighting in the area from the surrounding uses and street lighting along Baseline Road, Cactus Avenue, and Ayala Drive. 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. Compliance with the Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, Project implementation would have less than significant aesthetic impacts. When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors must be considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the project site and surrounding areas. The context in which a project is being viewed will also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may actually be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. If most of an area is , or is becoming more urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surrounding may be relatively less because it would not stand out in contrast as much. In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the proposed elements of the cumulative projects would need to be seen together or in proximity to each other. If the projects were not near each other, the vi ewer would not perceive them in the same scene.

The project site is bordered by existing and planned development and infrastructure. Vacant properties to the west of the project site are within the Specific Plan area. The Project proposes to change the existing zoning of Planning Areas 126 and 133 to Business Center , which accommodates larger industrial, distribution, and manufacturing uses.7 The Project would change the existing zoning of Planning Area 123

7 City of Rialto. (2017). Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-11
to General Commercial with a Residential overlay, which accommodates convenience retail and service use such as gas stations, drug stores, car washes, medical offices, and restaurants.8 As with the proposed Project, development to the west of the project site would alter the visual character of the area. However, views from these areas are currently partially obstructed by intervening urban development. Further, current development and future development in the area would be required to comply with the 2016 RSPA and Municipal Code Title 18, w hich would require setbacks and maximum building heights that would further minimize impacts to views and the visual character of the area.

With respect to nighttime illumination, nighttime lighting effects may be considered in a regional context because of the potential for night glow that can extend beyond the boundaries of a site. Therefore, with respect to night lighting, the proposed Proj ect is considered in context to the forecasted growth for the area and with cumulative projects in the area that may contribute to the increased nighttime lighting.

Because the proposed Project is adjacent to existing and planned development with nighttime lighting and the Project would be required to comply with lighting requirements to preclude glare and light spillage, the Project’s contribution to nighttime lighting would not be cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the Project’s incremental effects inv olving scenic vistas, consistency with zoning/other regulations governing scenic quality, and light and glare are not cumulatively considerable.

4.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics. With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, the Project would further reduce the significance of aesthetics impacts.

8 Ibid.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.1
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-12
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY
Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) identifies and evaluates potential impacts that will be generated by construction and operation of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project). The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, and local air pollutant regulations. The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Assessment (January 2025) and Health Risk Assessment (January 2025) prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, which are included as Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernadino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.1 Air quality in this area is determined by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645 square -mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum tem peratures than inland areas. Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brough into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climate features, especially along the coast. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern potions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on -shore winds during the day and easterly and northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (1993). https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-2
the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high -pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are established.

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

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

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

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are primary criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O 3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NO X in the prese nce of sunlight. O 3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-3
Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate
Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood -
burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles
and others.

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

Ozone
(O3)
Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC) 1 and nitrogen
oxides (NO X) in the presence of sunlight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Appendix B
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-4
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (i.e. chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e. injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy -duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs.

Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

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

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana – Arrow Highway Monitoring Station (located approximately 5.6 miles to the southwest). Local air quality data from 2020 to 2022 are provided in Table 4.2 -2: Ambient Air Quality Data which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of State or federal air quality standards for each year.

Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant1 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.151 0.125 0.144
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.112 0.104 0.108
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 56 44 44
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 89 81 68
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-5
Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant1 2020 2021 2022
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.665 1.931 1.565
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 66.4 67.2 68.7
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM 10)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 76.8 73.8 62.4
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 73.6 70.7 59.8
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 6 3 6
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM 2.5)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 57.6 55.1 38.1
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 57.6 55.1 38.1
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 4 2 1
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Fontana – Arrow Highway Monitoring Station at 14360 Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, California, 92335 (CARB# 36197)
Source: Appendix B
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptors to the to the proposed warehouse development are the single -family re sidences located approximately 520 feet to the south and Jerry Eaves Park located approximately 800 feet to the northeast. Future residential uses would be located approximately 1,400 feet to the north of the proposed warehouse development.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-6
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the cr iteria air pollutants including ozone (O 3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine particulate matters 10 microns or less and

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

The United States EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the United States EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation -related criteria p ollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The United States EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9
24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-7
Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (0.15 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one -half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1 -hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one.

The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the 4 th highest daily conc entrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24 -hour PM 10 standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the 99 th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m 3. The 24 -hour PM 2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the United States EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8 -hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm.

United States EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017.

Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the United States EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the United States EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following United States EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In December 2012, United States EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the United States EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: Appendix B
State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) administers air quality policies for the State of California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. Table 4. 2-1 identifies the CCAQS and NAAQS standards. The State standards are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of t he State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the United States EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-8
CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc., are not considered violations of a State standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

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

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

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

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24 -hour PM 2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. Specifically, the 2016 AQMP covers the following federal standards: 1979 1-hour O3 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

On October 1, 2015, the United States EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when co st- effective and feasible, and low NO X technologies in other applications), best management practices, co - benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8 -hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-9
The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Localized Significance Thresholds [LSTs] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

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

The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State O3, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards, as well as the national 8 -hour O 3 and PM 2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and federal standards.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-10
Table 4.2-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: Appendix B
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-11
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
▪ Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or wh ich cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
▪ Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. 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 will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically 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.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
▪ Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. ▪ Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021 to reduce NO X and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to tra ck annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck t rip data and emission reduction measures.

Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-12
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 commun ity. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner tru cks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto (City) 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 include 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 that the City of Rialto has identified for implementation to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community.

Goal 2-36 Reduce air pollution emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the City.

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.

Policy 2-36.3 Establishing a balanced land use pattern, and facilitate developments that provide jobs for City residents in order to reduce vehicle trips citywide.

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.

Goal 2-37 Reduce the amount of fugitive dust released into the atmosphere.

Policy 2-37.1 Put conditions on discretionary permits to require fugitive dust controls.

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. 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. 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-13
Amendment (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 contains goals associated with climate change to reduce impacts as a result of implementation of the 2016 RSPA.

Methodology
The Air Quality Assessment prepared for the proposed Project considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off -road, fugitive dust, and on -road emissions factors in CalEEMod.

Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage and off -site electrify generation), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The Project vehicle trip generation was obtained from the Traffic Study for the Proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Warehouse Project in the City of Rialto (see Appendix K), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (October 2024). According to the Traffic Study, the Project would generate 733 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 293 daily truck trips.2 As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

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

2 Construction and operations were modeled with a slightly higher acreage and building footprint (37.92 acres; 739,653 square feet) when compared to the proposed Project (37.31 acres; 727,423 square feet). Therefore, construction and operational emissions presented in this Air Quality Assessment are conservative.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-14
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 or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ▪ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard; ▪ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ▪ Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.

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

Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Maximum Pounds Per Day
Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction-Related Operational-Related Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: Appendix B.

Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the project site are above the State and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8 -hour). The SCAB has been designated as in attainment under the 1 -hour and 8- hour standards.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-15
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO 2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off -site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent State or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within a project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The City of Rialto is located within SCAQMD SRA 3 4. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed warehouse development are the single-family residences with the 100 -meter threshold are provided in Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations for informational purposes and to demonstrate that the thresholds increase as acreages increase.

Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 211/211 2,141/2,141 33/8 9/3
2 Acres 263/263 2,738/2,738 42/10 12/3
5 Acres 378/378 4,142/4,142 65/15 17/5
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Based on a receptor distance of 100 meters in SRA 34.

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

The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs). The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-16
the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

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

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

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 4.2- 7: Construction-Related Emissions, the Project -generated mitigated construction emissions would not exceed construction emission standards. However, as shown in Table 4.2 -7, the Project-generated mitigated operational emissions would not exceed operational emission standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.

Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 1 (2024) 3.52 42.77 37.17 0.13 9.26 5.25
Year 2 (2025) 190.46 22.44 34.78 0.05 3.88 1.48
Maximum Emissions 190.46 42.77 37.17 0.13 9.26 5.25
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions1,2
Year 1 (2024) 1.62 31.99 44.26 0.13 7.99 4.09
Year 2 (2025) 27.31 19.18 37.44 0.05 3.59 0.99
Maximum Emissions 27.31 31.99 44.26 0.13 7.99 4.09
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-17
Table 4.2-7: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Notes:

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Red uctions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-8, as well as MM AIR-1 which require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.

Source: Appendix B

Table 4.2-8: Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions1,2
Area 13.42 0.16 18.64 0.00 0.03 0.03
Energy 0.12 2.19 1.84 0.01 0.17 0.17
Mobile – Trucks 0.47 30.84 15.40 0.27 9.03 2.71
Mobile – Passenger Cars 1.41 1.14 19.22 0.05 4.85 1.24
Off-Road2 8.49 71.96 105.31 0.19 4.55 4.19
Emergency Generators 3.37 9.42 8.60 0.02 0.50 0.50
Total Emissions 27.28 115.71 169.00 0.54 19.13 8.83
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions1,2
Area 10.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.12 2.19 1.84 0.01 0.17 0.17
Mobile – Trucks 0.47 30.84 15.40 0.27 9.03 2.71
Mobile – Passenger Cars3 1.41 1.14 19.22 0.05 4.85 1.24 Off-Road4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators4 3.37 1.65 8.60 0.02 0.07 0.07
Total Emissions 15.73 35.82 45.05 0.34 14.12 4.19
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Note: Total values are from CalEEMod and may not add up 100% due to rounding.

1. The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst-case scenario.

2. Off-road emissions include two yard trucks and 9 forklifts. Emissions were calculated with CARB OFFROAD 1.0.5.

3. Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to AIR-7 (unmitigated emissions assume diesel off-road equipment [i.e., forklifts and yard trucks]).

Source: Appendix B
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-18
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project proposes an industrial warehouse use in accordance with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan codifies the development standards, design guidelines, and implementation strategies for the Project. The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment that would allow for a land use category (i.e., zone) change from Public Park and Employment to Business Center on the project site. Permitted Business Center uses include but are not limited to offices, light industrial, warehousing, and distribution. In addition, the Specific Plan Amendment would allow for a land use category change for Planning Area 123 from School to Ge neral Commercial with a Residential overlay, for future development.

The City’s population estimate, as of January 2024, is 103,097 persons.3 While the Project does not involve residential development, as discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing , the warehouse development is anticipated to generate approximately 147 employees and could indirectly induce population growth if future employees move into the City to work at the proposed warehouse. However, the Project would consist of a source of employment within a City with substantial housing stock.

Therefore, the Project would improve the City’s jobs -housing balance making it more likely that the Project would employ current residents of the City. In the event that the operator of the proposed facility draws employees that are not from the local community, the Project would not directly result in the development of new housing stock.

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. The approximate 147 Project- generated jobs represent 1.9 percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2050, and only 0.4 percent of the City’s total projected 2050 employment.4
As the Project would not directly result in the development of new housing stock, the Project would not cause the City’s General Plan buildout population forecast to be exceeded. The population and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the AQMPs, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections. Thus, no impact would occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.

Based on these criteria, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMPs and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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.

3 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (2022). Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Accessed October 2024. 4 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics & Growth Forecast, adopted April 4,2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-19
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 Off-Road Diesel Equipment. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower will meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where feasible. In addition, where feasible all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the Air Resources Board (ARB). Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by ARB regulations.

AQ-5 Construction Equipment Tier Specification. Prior to the mobilization of each applicable off - road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, a copy of the certified tier specification, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation, and Air Resources Board or South Coast Air Quality Management District’s operating permit for each shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

AQ-6 Truck Building Access. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that the following truck access routes have been incorporated into th e Project design, to the maximum extent practicable, to reduce air quality and potential future health risk impacts from the operation phases of the proposed Project:
▪ Design warehouse/distribution centers such that entrances and exits discourage that trucks from traversing past neighbors or other sensitive receptors. ▪ Design warehouse/distribution centers such that any check -in point for trucks is well inside the facility property to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.
▪ Establish area(s) within the facility for repair needs. ▪ Provide electrical service capacity for equipment at facilities.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-20
▪ Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so trucks will not enter residential areas.
▪ Identify or develop secure locations outside of residential neighborhoods where truckers that live in the community can park their truck, such as a Park & Ride. ▪ Where there are traffic impacts, improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.

AQ-8 Super-Compliant VOC Paints. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that the construction contractor shall be required to utilize Super-Compliant VOC paints, which are defined by SCAQMD as meeting the “super-compliant” VOC standard of 10 grams per liter (g/L). Use of HVLP or electrostatic spray equipment shall be encouraged.

AQ-9 Exterior and Interior Finishes. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that exterior and interior finishes that do not require pain ting shall be used where feasible.

AQ-10 Building Orientation. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that buildings have been oriented and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar; heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons where feasible depending upon site condition and topography.

AQ-12 Energy Efficiency Education. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that building tenants shall be encouraged to educate employee s on energy efficiency measures.

AQ-13 Preferential Parking Spaces. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that preferential parking spaces shall be offered to car pools and van pools.

AQ-14 Electrical Hookup Capacity. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Division, evidence that building designs provide electrical capacity for installation of electrical hookups at onsite loading docks and for electric vehicle charging stations.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan specifies all off -road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off -road emission s standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-21
equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be maintained on site and available upon request.

MM AIR-2 Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the tenant/facility operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
▪ Provide a transportation information center and on -site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options. ▪ Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site. ▪ Each building shall provide secure bicycle storage space equivalent to two percent of the automobile parking spaces provided.
▪ Each building shall provide a minimum of two shower and changing facilities as part of the tenant improvements.
▪ Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle.
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service.
▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users. ▪ Provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
▪ Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low‐emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant occupancy and not the building shell approvals.

MM AIR-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall 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. Conduit should be installed from the electrica l room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time t his Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-22
technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations. ▪ Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AIR-5 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the tenant has been provided with information about Carl Moyer Program and that compliance with the voluntary program including energy efficiency improvement features for vendor trucks for the industrial buildings through the Carl Moyer Program —including truck modernization, retrofits, and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance tires— to reduce fuel consumption but strongly encouraged . This mitiga tion measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AIR-6 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Tenant Improvements, not building shell, the Project tenants shall train staff on vehicle records in diesel technologies requirements and compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, by attending CARB - approved courses. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the City of Rialto, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and State upon request.

MM AIR-7 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, , and not building shell , the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
▪ All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emi ssion yard truck/hostler Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-23
usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
▪ All standard emergency generators shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Impact 4.2-2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short -term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e. ROG and NO X) and PM 10 and PM 2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surface s. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Construction activities associated with the Project are estimated to be completed within 1 3 months.

Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB -approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the Project are summarized in in Table 4.2-7.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations ( LOR) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations although unmitigated emissions for PM 2.5 and PM 10 are not exceeding SCAQMD’s thresholds. The Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and identified in LOR AQ-1.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-24
Table 4.2-7 shows the Project’s unmitigated construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s standards for ROG. However, mitigated construction emissions for all criteria air pollutants would remain below the thresholds. The Project would implement 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) SEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-8, as well as MM AIR -1 which require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. With implementation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-8, as well as MM AIR -1 all criteria pollutant construction emissions would be below their respective thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g. landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off- road equipment. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8. The operational emissions sources are described below.
▪ Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on -site equipment, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. ▪ Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water hea ting, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
▪ Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NO X and ROG react with sunlight to form O 3, known as photochemical smog.

Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM 10 and PM 2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Study and have been incorporated into CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Traffic Study, the Project would generate 733 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 293 daily truck trips. ▪ Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. Although the Project is a speculative warehouse development and the final end user is not known, it was conservatively assumed that the Project would include nine diesel forklifts and two diesel yard trucks per SCAQMD data.5 ▪ 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 two emergency backup generators (one for each building) were included to be

5 SCAQMD. (2014). High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-25
conservative. Emissions from emergency backup generators for the warehouse buildings were calculated separately from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B. 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 Technolog y (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel -Fueled Internal C ombustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.

Operational Emissions Summary
As shown in Table 4.2-8, unmitigated operational (i.e., area, energy, mobile, off -road, and emergency generators) emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of NOX. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. However, numerous mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible and to below the SCAQMD thresholds. 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-14, as well as MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7, have been identified to reduce operational emissions. 2016 SEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-14 would reduce emissions through efficient building and site design, as well as establishing truck routes away from residential uses. 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 drivers to turn off their engines when not in use. Mitigation Measure AIR-5 requires that information about the Carl Moyer Program be provided to tenants and that tenants are strongly encouraged to comply by including energy efficiency im provement features through the Carl Moyer Program for vendor trucks for the industrial buildings. 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 . Additionally, LOR AQ -3 through LOR AQ -6 would further reduce operational emissions. Table 4.2-8 shows that operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds with implementation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through , as well as Project Mitigation Measures MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Construction Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. The SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contra ry.6 The mass -based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both

6 SCAQMD. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-26
NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4.2-7 above, mitigated Project construction -related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD r ules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Pro ject construction -related impacts. Therefore, Project -related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Operational Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant ad verse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

Table 4.2-8 shows that the Project’s mitigated operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quali ty impacts. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts would be less than significant with implementation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-10 and AQ-12 through AQ-14, as well as Project Mitigation Measures MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7.

Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations:

Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations are existing requirements that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical LORs include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because LORs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-27
LOR AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 4 03 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. ▪ All on -site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
▪ All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

LOR AQ-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less. It should be noted that 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-8 requires the volatile organic compound rating to be reduced to 10 g/L or less during construction.

LOR AQ-3 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

LOR AQ-4 Install water -efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 12.50 of the City’s Municipal Code).

LOR AQ-5 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

LOR AQ-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirem ents include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water -efficient. Install water -efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-28
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

LOR AQ-7 The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NO X and PM 10 emissions during operations.

Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis.

Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their reporting process and is required for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 square feet.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-10, and AQ-12 through AQ-14 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

Impact 4.2-3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single -family residences located approximately 520 feet (158 meters) to the south of the proposed warehouse development. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I -4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project -specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-9: Equipment- Specific Site Preparation Rates , is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO 2, PM10, and PM 2.5.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-29
The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size.

Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.

Table 4.2-9: Equipment-Specific Site Preparation Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 4 0.5 8 2
Graders 0 0.5 8 0
Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Scrapers 0 1.0 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: Appendix B
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off -site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on - site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 520 feet (158 meters) to the south of the proposed warehouse development. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.

Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 100 meters were conservatively utilized in this analysis. Table 4.2- 10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions , presents the results of unmitigated localized emissions during each construction phase. Table 4.2-10 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, localized construction emissions would be less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-30
Table 4.2-10: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation (2025) 31.64 30.18 9.03 5.20
Grading (2025) 29.68 28.31 4.85 2.57
Infrastructure Improvements (2025) 10.18 9.42 0.44 0.41 Infrastructure Improvements (2026) 9.38 8.97 0.40 0.37 Building Construction (2025) 10.44 13.04 0.43 0.40
Building Construction (2026) 9.85 12.97 0.38 0.35
Paving (2025) 7.12 9.94 0.32 0.29
Architectural Coating (2026) 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02
Building Construction/Paving /Architectural Coating (2025) 20.62 22.46 0.87 0.80 Building Construction/Paving /Architectural Coating (2026) 19.23 21.93 0.78 0.72 Building Construction/Paving (2026) 16.97 22.90 0.70 0.64 Building Construction/Architectural Coating (2026) 10.71 14.10 0.40 0.37 Maximum Daily Emissions 31.64 30.18 9.03 5.20
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted for 3.5
acres at 100 meters) 321 3,440 54 15
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: Appendix B
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g. warehouse or transfer facilit ies). Since the Project includes development of warehouse buildings, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both on-site area source and on- site mobile source emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single -family residences located approximately 520 feet (158 meters) to the south of the proposed warehouse development. Therefore, the LST thresholds for 100 meters were conservatively utilized in this analysis. Additionally, the maximum LST threshold (5-acre) was utilized as the warehouse development encompasses 20.76 acres.

The LST analysis only includes on -site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively include all on-site Project- related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts, yard trucks, and generators), and three percent of the Project-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site.7 Table 4.2-11 shows that the maximum unmitigated daily emissions of these pollutants during

7 The on-site one-way trip length is conservatively anticipated to be up to one mile, which is approximately three percent of the

33.2-mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-31
Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, localized operational emissions would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions 84.65 134.86 5.52 4.95 SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 100 meters)
378 4,142 16 5
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: Appendix B
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. Coun ty of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783).

The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the South Coast Air Basin) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent w ith attainment of health -based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and would not result in criteria pollutant health impacts.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 4.2-10 and Table 4.2-11). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the United States EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Environmental Setting section. As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-32
receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health -based ambient air quality standards.

CalEnviroScreen
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) has developed CalEnviroScreen 4.0, which is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the State. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

According to CalEnviroScreen, the project site and the nearest residences to the east are located within Census Tract 6071003503, which is within the 84th percentile. It should be noted that the CalEnviroScreen scores are relative to other census tracts and are not an expression of health risk, and do not provide quantitative information on increases in cumulative impacts for specific sites of projects. Fur ther, as a comparative screening tool, the results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to public health or the environment.

Assembly Bill (AB) 617 focuses on the reduction of exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. Communities are selected and community air monitoring plans and community emission reduction programs are implemented. The community of Muscoy is the nearest AB 617 community to the project site, approximately 1.5 miles to the east.8
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NO X reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM 2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane.

There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions. Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision-making that will apply throughout an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region -wide health effects of pollutants so that regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation t hat applies to an entire category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only very small incrementa l effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a project-specific analysis may be modest in relation to that cost. F urthermore, the results, while costly to produce, may not be particularly useful. For regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be misleading because the margin of error in such modeling is large enough that, even if the modeled results report a given health effect, the model is sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the

8 California Air Resources Board. Community Air Protection Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-33
reported results; that is, the modeled results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be that precise on a project level.

As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project -related regional changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.

Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of O 3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of emissions is taken into account. Regional -scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial, temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.

Emissions from Project construction and operation would vary by time of day, month, and season, and the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources driving to and from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people travelling to and from the proposed Project. As SCAQMD has stated “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”9 Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NO X and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O 3. Based on its recent experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD stated in its Amicus Brief in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NOX or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.” 10 The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA documents prepared for individual projects. Any attempt to quantify the proposed Project's health risks would be considered unreliable and misleading. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NO X or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O 3-related health impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant (refer to Table 4.2-10 and Table 4.2-11). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an

9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 2015. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 2015.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-34
adequate margin of safety to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the United States EPA and CARB have been summarized above (See Table 4.2-1). As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards.

Although it may be misleading and unreliable to attempt to specifically and numerically quantify the Project’s health risks, this analysis provides extensive information concerning the Project's potential health risks. The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at a particular receptor (e.g., parts per million by volume of air, or micrograms per cubic meter of air).

The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emis sion thresholds were established primarily in conjunction with federal permitting “major source” thresholds. If emissions were below these “de minimis” emission rates, then the proposed Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS. 11 While based on the status of an air basin level of attainment of the health-based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mass emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher ground level concentrations, or mo re frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS.

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground -level ozone concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health -related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.

Table 4.2-1 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects. Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making. Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project -level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associated with the Project cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project.

Potential health risks as a result of Project implementation are discussed in the project -specific Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C). Impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant with implementation of MM AIR -7. Additionally, non -carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. It should be noted that the impacts assess the Project’s incremental contribution to health risk impacts, consistent with the SCAQMD guidance and methodology. The SCAQM D has not established separate cumulative thresholds and does not require combining impacts from cumulative projects. The SCAQMD considers projects that do not exceed the Project-specific thresholds to generally not be cumulatively significant. Additionally, the Project would implement 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation

11 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Frequent Questions about General Conformity. https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-35
Measure AQ-4 and Project Mitigation Measure MM AIR -1 which would require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment. Impacts related to health risk from the Project would be less than significant with implementation of 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4 and Project Mitigation Measure s MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-7.

Air Toxics Control Plan
The Air Toxics Control Plan is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of the SCAQMD’s air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically.

Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
The SCAQMD conducted an in-depth analysis of the toxic air contaminants and their resulting health risks for all Southern California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES V) shows that carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB, based on the average concentrations at the ten monitoring sites, is approximately 40 percent lower than the monitored average in MATES IV and 843 percent lower than the average in MATES II.

MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks associated with the SCAB emissions. Therefore, MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level risk form exposure to TACs is 424 in one million basin wide. In comparison, the MATES IV basin average risk was 897 per million. These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are near the project site. However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 455 in one million for the Proje ct area. DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all other TAC sources. DPM accounts for a majority of the total risk shown in the MATES V in this area.

Construction activities would result in project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation paving, application of architectural coatings, on -road truck travel, and other construction activities. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the project site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 4.2-12: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, the unmitigated maximum construction risk at residential receptors would be 0.70 in one million, , and worker receptors would be 0.13 in one million. Additionally, the unmitigated maximum operational cancer risk at residential receptors would be 277.42 in one million, park receptors would be

99.73 in one million, and worker receptors would be 143.87 in one million. Further, the unmitigated maximum combined construction and operational cancer risk at residential receptors would be 173.77 in one million, park receptors would be 63.06 in one million, and worker receptors would be 137.71 in one million. Therefore, the maximum unmitigated operational cancer risk and unmitigated combined construction and operational cancer risk would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The Project would implement MM AIR-7 from the proposed Project’s Air Quality Assessment to reduce cancer risk. MM AIR-7 requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment (yard trucks and forklifts) shall be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators to be Tier 4 certified.

Implementation of MM AIR-7 would reduce cancer risk from Project operations to below the SCAQMD’s Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-36
10 in one million threshold. With MM AIR-7 incorporated, the maximum operational cancer risk would be reduced to 0.76 in one million for residential receptors, 0.09 in one million for park receptors, and 0.04 in one million for worker receptors. Further, the maximum combined construction and opera tional cancer risk would be reduced to 1.88 for residential receptors, 1.19 for park receptors, and 0.17 for worker receptors. Therefore, the Project’s cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 10 in one million threshold and impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-12: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario Receptor Location Unmitigated/
Mitigated1
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)2
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Construction
Residential
Receptors
Single-Family
Residential
(463240.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 0.70 10 No
Single-Family
Residential
(463190.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 0.69 10 No
Park Receptors
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66,
3776149.04)
Unmitigated 0.57 10 No
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66,
3776099.04)
Unmitigated 0.55 10 No
Worker Receptors
Industrial
(463139.43,
3775964.8)
Unmitigated 0.13 10 No
Commercial
(463262.08,
3775813.68)
Unmitigated 0.08 10 No
Operation
Residential
Receptors
Single-Family
Residential
(463240.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 277.42 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.76 10 No
Single-Family
Residential
(463190.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 267.70 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.76 10 No
Park Receptors Jerry Eaves Park Unmitigated 97.86 10 Yes Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-37
Table 4.2-12: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario Receptor Location Unmitigated/
Mitigated1
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)2
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
(463845.66,
3776149.04) Mitigated 0.09 10 No
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66,
3776099.04)
Unmitigated 99.73 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.09 10 No
Worker Receptors
Industrial
(463139.43,
3775964.8)
Unmitigated 60.51 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.04 10 No
Commercial
(463262.08,
3775813.68)
Unmitigated 143.87 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.04 10 No
Combined Construction + Operation
Residential
Receptors
Single-Family
Residential
(463240.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 173.77 10 Yes
Mitigated 1.88
10 No
Single-Family
Residential
(463190.66,
3775653.15)
Unmitigated 167.70 10 Yes
Mitigated 1.85
10 No
Park Receptors
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66,
3776149.04)
Unmitigated 61.94 10 Yes
Mitigated 1.19 10 No
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66,
3776099.04)
Unmitigated 63.06 10 Yes
Mitigated 1.16 10 No
Worker Receptors
Industrial
(463139.43,
3775964.8)
Unmitigated 58.01 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.17 10 No
Commercial
(463262.08,
3775813.68)
Unmitigated 137.71 10 Yes
Mitigated 0.12 10 No

1. The mitigated exposure scenario accounts for implementation of MM AIR-7 in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment. 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.

The unmitigated construction cancer risk is presented for all exposure scenarios (i.e., Construction and Combined Construction + Operation).

2. The reported annual pollutant concentration is at the closest maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the project site.

3. The unmitigated operational cancer risk includes conservative cargo handling equipment rates. The Project’s cargo handling eq uipment rates were calculated based on data from OFFROAD, including cargo handling equipment population, horsepower hours, and emis sion factors. OFFROAD incorporates CARB’s 2022 Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions Inventory , which indicates emissions in early 2020 are higher due to increased population, but drop faster than previously estimated due to the updates in emission factors. CARB’s 2022 Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions Inventory, Figure 3: Statewide PM Emissions from Cargo Handling Equipment, shows year 2026 (i.e., Project’s Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-38
Table 4.2-12: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario Receptor Location Unmitigated/
Mitigated1
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)2
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
operational year) comprised of Tier 3 and Tier 4 cargo handling equipment. The emission rates for Tier 3 (0.09 grams per horsepower-hour [g/hph]) and Tier 4 (0.01 g/hph) are much lower than the emission rates calculated for the Project (i.e. 0.14 g/hph for yard trucks and 0.16 g/hph for forklifts). Therefore, the unmitigated cancer risk shown in this table is conservative.

Source: Appendix C
Chronic non-carcinogenic impacts are shown in Table 4.2-12: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment . A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest annual average concentration at the maximally exposed individual receptor. It should be noted that there is no acute REL for DPM and acute health risk cannot be calculated. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from project construction would be 0.00093 a t the residential receptors, 0.00075 at the park receptors, and 0.00966 at the worker receptors. Additionally, the highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Project operations would be 0.06158 at the residential receptors, 0.0 2214 at the park receptors, and 0.46 492 at the worker receptors.

Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within the acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. The Project would implement MM AIR-7 to further reduce chronic non - carcinogenic impacts by requiring 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-39
Table 4.2-13: Chronic Hazard Assessment
Exposure Scenario Receptor Location Annual Concentration (μg/m3)1 Chronic Hazard
Construction
Residential Receptors
Single-Family Residential
(463240.66, 3775653.15) 0.00467 0.00093
Single-Family Residential
(463190.66, 3775653.15) 0.00457 0.00091
Park Receptors
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66, 3776149.04) 0.00376 0.00075
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66, 3776099.04) 0.00365 0.00073
Worker Receptors

Industrial
(463139.43, 3775964.8) 0.04831 0.00966
Commercial
(463262.08, 3775813.68) 0.03030 0.00606
Operation
Residential Receptors
Single-Family Residential
(463240.66, 3775653.15) 0.30792 0.06158
Single-Family Residential
(463190.66, 3775653.15) 0.29712 0.05942
Park Receptors
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66, 3776149.04) 0.10862 0.02172
Jerry Eaves Park
(463845.66, 3776099.04) 0.11069 0.02214
Worker Receptors
Industrial
(463139.43, 3775964.8) 0.97767 0.19553
Commercial
(463262.08, 3775813.68) 2.32461 0.46492
SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No

1.The reported pollutant concentration is at the closest receptor (maximally exposed individual receptor).

Source: Appendix C
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-40
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO excee dances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections, do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections as the Project would result in 733 daily trips. Therefore, impacts specific to CO hotspots would be less than significant.

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.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures Further details regarding Mitigation Measure AQ-4 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-7 are discussed under Impact 4.2-1, above.

Impact 4.2-4 Would the Project Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance states:

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-41
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

Odors may be generated during construction activities such as, equipment diesel exhaust, architectural coatings volatile organic compounds, and paving activities. However, these odors would be temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people, and would disperse rapidly. In addition, the Project would implement 2016 RSPA EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-8, requiring the use of Super- Compliant VOC Paints, which would further reduce odor impacts. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with Project construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, compositing facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, Project operation would not create objectionable odors and 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.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM 2.5 for federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project -specific SCAQMD regional thresh olds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.2
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-42
Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. Project construction-related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROG (refer to Table 4.2-8). The Project would implement MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 and 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-14 to reduce impacts associated within Project construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality.

Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Operational Impacts
Operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of MM AIR-2 through MM AIR-7 and 2016 RSPA SEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-14. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.

Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) is required for all existing and proposed warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet ( sf). Warehouse operators are required to implement additional emission reduction strategies or pay mitigation fee to reduce emissions. Compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce project emissions below what is currently analyzed and also reduce cumulative emissions.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts regarding air quality would be reduced to less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-1

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) identifies and evaluates potential impacts related to biological resources in the Project area for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project). The analysis is this section is based in part on the Biological Technical Report (BTR) prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting (March 2025) which is included as Appendix D of this SEIR.

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special -status plants and animals, as designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and, with respect to plant species, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Biological resources also include waters of the United States and the State of California, as regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), an d streambed resources regulated by CDFW.

General Site Survey
Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) biologists visited the project site on October 11, 2022 and July 31, 2024 to conduct general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments for special -status plant and wildlife species and to examine the project site for potential jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the United States.

Vegetation Mapping and General Plant and General Biological Surveys Vegetation within the project site was mapped including a 100 -foot buffer, which included all observed flora and fauna for inclusion in plant and wildlife lists applicable to the project site. The project site consists of developed land ( 5.2 acres), disturbed habitat (29.4 acres), and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub ( 0.7 acres). The vegetation communities/land uses that occur within the project site are described below.

Developed. Developed areas within the project site consist of compacted dirt roads and ornamental landscaping.

Disturbed. Disturbed habitat is present throughout the majority of the project site . The project site is primarily vegetated by non -native species including short -pod mustard ( Hirschfeld incana), red brome (Bromus rubens), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). Additionally, there are a few scattered native species throughout the disturbed habitat including short winged deerweed (Acmispon glaber var. brevialatus), common sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ) California Croton (Croton californicus) mule fat (Baccharis salicfolia), and Menzie’s fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii); however, these are isolated occurrences and do not function as separate vegetation communities or land cover types.

Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub. Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub present on -site is a marked disturbance resulting in an atypical vegetation community. The disturbed Riversidean sage scrub within the project site supports small to medium sized woody scrubs dominated by California buckwheat, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-2
Spanish lotus ( Acmispon americanus ) and brittlebush ( Encelia farinosa ) and contains an overgrown understory of non-native grasses.

Biological Resource Database Review
Prior conduction field surveys and existing information regarding biological resources present or potentially present within the project site were obtained through a review or pertinent literature and databases, including, but not limited to:
▪ CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
▪ CNPS Electronic Inventory
▪ USFWS Special-Status Species Database
▪ USFWS Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) Database ▪ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database
▪ United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Database ▪ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Survey Database Database results, along with local biological knowledge, were used for assessment of special -status species’ potential for occurrence on or adjacent to the project site. The potential for occurrence tables created for the Project include federally and State-listed species, candidate species, and other State - designated special -status species that have been reported within three miles of the project site and determined to be potentially present in the IPaC database, as well as California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR 1 and two species that occur within the ‘Nine Quads’ search for the elevational range of the project site; 1,385 to 1,420 feet above mean seal level (amsl). The CNPS ‘Nine Quads’ search queries that USGS quadrangle in which the project site is located and the surrou nding eight quadrangles. The potential for special-status species to occur within the project site was refined by considering the habitat affinities of each species, field habitat assessments, vegetation mapping, and knowledge of local biological resources.

4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides for the listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and the designation of critical habitat for these listed species. The FESA regulates the “taking” of any endangered fish or wildli fe species, per Section 9 of the FESA. As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowner is required to consult with the USFWS to assess potential impacts on listed species (including plants) or the critical habitat of a listed species, pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the FESA. The USFWS is required to determine the extent a project would impact a particular species. If USFWS determines that a project is likely to potentially impact a species, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified.

Following consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion, USFWS may issue an incidental take statement which allows for the take of a species if it is incidental to another authorized activity and will not adversely affect the existence of the species. Section 10 of the FESA provides for issuance of incidental Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-3
take permits to non-federal parties in conjunction with the development of a habitat conservation plan.

Section 7 of the FESA provides for permitting of projects where interagency cooperation is necessary to ensure that a federal action/decision does not jeopardize the existence of a listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Section 703 et seq.) is a federal statute that implements treaties with several countries on the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The number of bird species covered by the MBTA is extensive and is listed at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.13 .

USFWS enforces the MBTA, which prohibits “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird, or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation.

Rivers and Harbors Act 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ( United States Code Section 401 et seq.) prohibits discharge of any material into navigable waters, or tributaries thereof, of the United States without a permit. The act also makes it a misdemeanor to excavate, fill, or alter the course, condition, or capacity of any port, harbor, or channel; or to dam navigable streams without a permit. Many activities originally covered by the Rivers and Harbors Act are now regulated under the C lean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 U nited States Code Section 1251 et seq.), discussed below. However, the 1899 act retains relevance and created the structure under which the USACE oversees CWA Section 404 permitting.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands), which includes those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register [FR] 37104, June 29, 2015). The USACE, with oversight from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The United States ACE would require a Standard Individual Permit for more than minimal impa cts to waters of the U nited States as determined by the United States ACE. Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit or Regional General Permit.

A water quality certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The RWQCB, divisions of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the Section 401 certification proce ss in California. The RWQCB is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity that may result in the discharge to waters of the United States will not violate water quality standards.” Water Quality Certification mus t be based on the finding that a proposed discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-4
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the State. California also lists species of special concern (SSC) based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishi ng habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. CESA defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overe xploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” CESA defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the CFGC has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the CFGC. Unlike FESA, CESA does not list invertebrate species.

Sections 2080 through 2085 of CESA address the take of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under CESA, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the State to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

CFGC Sections 1901 and 1913 provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. The CDFW is responsible for assessing development projects for their potential to impact li sted species and their habitats. State-listed species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 Permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was established in 1970 as California’s counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC Section 4321 et seq.). This statute requires State and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts related to their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, where feasible.

A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a "project." A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity that must receive some Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-5
discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the CFGC, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider.

CDFW jurisdictio n does not extend to tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to an applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually ag reed upon by CDFW and an applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3800, 4700, 5050, and 5515 Within California, fish, wildlife, and native plant resources are protected and managed by CDFW. The California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the CFGC address protected species:

Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and Section 5515 (fish). In addition, the protection of birds of prey is provided for in Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the CFGC.

California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900–1913) The California Native Plant Protection Act requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. The California Native Plant Protection Act prohibits the take of such plants, with certain exceptions.

California Desert Native Plants Act (California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 80001– 80201)
The California Desert Native Plants Act prohibits the removal of certain species of California desert native plants on public and privately owned lands without a valid permit from the sheriff or commissioner of the county where collecting would occur. This act applies within the boundaries of Im perial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The SWRCB is the primary a gency responsible for protecting water quality Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-6
in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, the State is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the C WA is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

Regional and Local Regulations
San Bernardino County, Countywide Policy Plan
The 2020 Countywide Policy Plan outlines countywide goals and policies as they relate to biological resources. Natural Resource goals and policies applicable to the project include:

Goal NR-5 Biological Resources: An interconnected landscape of open spaces and habitat areas that promotes biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, both for their intrinsic value and for the value placed on them by residents and visitors.

Policy NR-5.1 Coordinated habitat planning. We participate in landscape‐scale habitat conservation planning and coordinate with existing or proposed habitat conservation and natural resource management plans for private and public lands to increase certainty for both the conservation of species, habitats, wildlife corridors, and other important biological resources and functions; and for land development and infrastructure permitting.

Policy NR-5.7 Development review, entitlement, and mitigation. We comply with State and federal regulations regarding protected species of animals and vegetation through the development review, entitlement, and environmental clearance processes.

Per the policies outlined in the Countywide Policy Plan, the San Bernadino County (County) reviews land development permits for adequacy in assessing potential impacts on natural resource s. The Planning Division of the County’s Land Use Services has developed Biotic Resources Overlay Maps to identify sensitive biotic resources that may occur within specific areas of the County. All discretionary permit applications must disclose or reduce significant impacts.

According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. The burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species for listing under CESA .

Therefore, land development permit applications must include an analysis of potential impacts on burrowing owl and provide proposed mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Though the project site does not occur in unincorporated County land, the mapping provides a useful guide for identifying potential habitat for this species. The County’s owl requirements fall within State requirements and are followed herein.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-7
County of San Bernardino Land Use Services, Planning Division According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the County ’s Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone.1 The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is listed as an SSC by CDFW.

City of Rialto General Plan
The primary role of Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply, of the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) is to direct the use of the City’s land resources in the most equitable and productive manner possible, with the aim of providing a high quality of life for residents and the overall community. The General Plan notes that Rialto is predominately developed but some areas remain substantially undisturbed. Most undisturbed areas are in the northern portion of the City. The General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element indicates that t he City will continue to protect l ocal biological resources through careful land designation of resource areas, and by requiring development projects proximate to wildlife corridors to incorporate mitigation measures to minimize impacts to such biological resources.

Relevant General Plan policies for biological resources are noted below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.

Goal 2-40 Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.

Policy 2-40.2 Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
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 (RSPA) builds off the previous 2010 RSP, and serves as the zoning ordinance for properties within the Specific Plan area. The project site is zoned as School, Public Parks, and Employment within the 2016 RSPA. The 2016 RSPA area encompasses approximately 1,405.7 acres within the northwestern portion of the City. The 2016 RSPA provides a framework to future land use and development decisions in the 2016 RSPA area. For projects within the 2016 RSPA area, policies and standards in the 2016 RSPA will take precedence over more general policies and standard s applied throughout the rest of the City. The 2016 RSPA does not identify the presence of sensitive plant species or wildlife species within the 2016 RSPA area.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 18 Zoning Ordinance

1 County of San Bernardino. (2012). Biotic Resources Map. https://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/BioMaps/cnty_all_biotic_resources_map_final.pdf. Accessed April 2023.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-8
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. Upon approval of the proposed zone change, the project site would be zoned Business Center and General Commercial with a Residential overlay. As discussed above, the development guidelines for the Business Center and General Commercial zones are identified within the 2016 RSPA.

4.3.4 Methodology
RBC biologists conducted vegetation mapping, habitat assessments for special -status species, and an initial general biological survey on October 11, 2022 as well as a follow -up survey on July 31, 2024 .

Additionally, RBC examined the project site for the presence of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources; however, a formal aquatic resources delineation to identify areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, under the RWQCB pursuant to S ection 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and under the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFGC, was not conducted.

The general biological survey, vegetation mapping, and habitat assessments were conducted within the approximately 35-acre project site and a surrounding 100 -foot buffer. The constraints -level aquatic resources assessment was conducted within the project site plus a surrounding 50-foot buffer. Note that buffer areas are included in this analysis to assess the potential for special -status species or resources in areas immediately adjacent to the project site that could be impacted by the project analyzed her ein.

Such information should not be considered comprehensive for all biological resources or aquatic resources that may occur in buffer areas, and buffer mapping is intended only for the Project analysis outlined herein; such information is not intended for impact analysis of any potential future projects within or adjacent to Project buffer areas.

Vegetation Mapping and General Biological Surveys
On October 11, 2022 and July 31, 2024 , RBC biologists conducted vegetation mapping, habitat assessments, for special -status species, and an initial general biological survey. A follow -up general biological survey was conducted on July 31, 2024. RBC conducted vegetation mapping by walking throughout the survey area and mapping vegetation communities on aerial photographs at a 1:2400 scale (1 inch = 200 feet). Existing biological resources identified on -site and shown in Figure 4.3 -1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources.

The extent of each habitat type (delineated as a habitat polygon on the vegetation maps) was calculated using the Geographic Information System (GIS) application ArcGIS Collector. Habitats were classified based on the dominant and characteristic plant spec ies in accordance with vegetation community classifications outlined in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. The vegetation communities were also crosswalked with The Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition, and the equivalent classification is provided.

RBC biologists conducted a general biological survey for plants and wildlife concurrently with vegetation mapping. Photos taken during the general biological survey are provided in Appendix D. Plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notebooks. Plant species that Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-9
could not be identified were brought to the laboratory for identification using the dichotomous keys in the Jepson Manual. A list of the vascular plant species observed in the survey area is presented in Appendix D.

RBC conducted habitat assessments for special -status plants during the general biological field survey.

Special-status plant species include those that are: 1) listed or proposed for listing by federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered; 2) CRPR 1 or 2 species; or 3) considered rare, endangered, or threatened by the CDFW or other local conservation organizations or specialists.

In the State of California, CNPS is a statewide resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California’s sensitive plant species. The CRPR system is recognized by the CDFW and essentially serves as an early warning list of potential candidate species for threatened or endangered status. The CRPR system is categorized as outlined in Table 4.3-1: California Rare Plant Ranks Definitions.

Table 4.3-1: California Rare Plant Ranks Definitions
CRPR
1A Presumed extirpated in California and rare or extinct elsewhere
1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere 2A Presumed extirpated in California but more common
elsewhere
2B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
3 Plants for which more information is needed
4 Plants of limited distribution
CRPR Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no
current
threats known)
Source: Appendix D
Wildlife species were documented during the field survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs, and were recorded in field notebooks. Binoculars (10X42 magnification) were used to aid in the identification of wildlife. In addition to species observed during the surveys, expected wildlife use of the project site was assessed based on known habitat preferences of local species and knowledge of their biogeographic distribution in the region. RBC conducted habitat assessments for special-status wildlife during the general biological field survey. Special-status wildlife species include those that are: 1) listed or proposed for listing by federal or State agencies as threatened or endangered; or 2) considered endangered, threatened, or rare by the CDFW.

A list of wildlife species observed in the project site is presented in Appendix D; scientific and common names of wildlife follow CDFW’s Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-10
California. Twilight/nighttime surveys were not conducted, therefore crepuscular and nocturnal animals are likely under-represented in the project species list; however, habitat assessments were performed for all special-status species to ensure that any p otentially present rare species are adequately addressed herein.

If observed, the location of biological resources designated as special-status by the USFWS, CDFW, and/or CNPS, were recorded in field notebooks, on aerial maps, and/or through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) units.

Special-Status Species Surveys
Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
RBC biologists conducted focused burrowing owl (BUOW) surveys during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW BUOW Guidelines). RBC qualified biologists conducted four burrowing owl surveys during the breeding season; one survey was conducted between February 1 to April 15 and three surveys, at least three weeks apart, were conducted between April 15 and July 15, in accordance with CDFW BUOW Guidelines. Surveys were conducted during favorable weather conditions.

The burrowing owl survey area consisted of a larger area than the project site, including approximately six additional acres to the northwest plus a 500 -foot (150-meter) buffer. Surveys were conducted by walking transects spaced approximately 20 meters apart throughout all suitable habitat within the survey area. At the beginning of each transect, and approximately every 100 meters, RBC biologists used binoculars (10x42) to scan the survey area for burrowing owl, active and potential burrows, and/or sign of burrowing owl. Any inaccessible areas of the 500-foot buffer were surveyed with binoculars to greatest extent possible. All observed burrows suitable for burrowing owl occupatio n were examined for sign, including feathers, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, and/or decoration at or near burrow entrances.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys
Focused Crotch’s bumble bee surveys were conducted by RBC biologists two to four weeks apart in July and August within the time period when detection of Crotch’s bumble bee is greatest. Three surveys were performed in accordance with CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species .

Surveys were conducted by walking transects through the survey area focusing on areas where amply nectar sources were present, with a minimum of one person-hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat. Surveyors were prepared to record the location of any observed Crotch’s bumble bee, along with population size and nesting status, and to collect non-lethal photo vouchers captured at various angles to confirm accurate identification. All arthropods and potential nectar sources were identified and recorded.

Full surveys methods, details, and species lists can be found in Appendix D.

Constraints-Level Aquatic Resources Assessment
RBC biologists conducted a constraints -level assessment to identify areas that may be considered potentially jurisdictional. Areas with depressions, drainage patterns, wetland vegetation, and/or riparian vegetation within the project site and 50-foot buffer were assessed for potential jurisdictional status, with focus on the presence of defined channels, soils, and hydrology. No aquatic resources were identified Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-11
within the project site and 50 -foot buffer during desktop review of the NWI and NHD databases. During the constraints-level aquatic resources assessment, no aquatic resources potentially jurisdictional per the Corps, RWQCB, and/or CDFW were observed within the project site. A concrete v -ditch located immediately off-site to the north of the project site and runs directly parallel to the northern boundary of the project site was identified . The concrete v-ditch collects and convey s stormwater east from the associated commercial development to the street gutter on located within North Fitzgerald Avenue. RBC biologists observed sediment within the concrete v -ditch. Based on the lack of hydrophytic vegetation within the concrete v-ditch, this feature is not anticipated to meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S./state per the Corps and the RWQCB or associated wetlands potentially jurisdictional by the CDFW. The concrete v-ditch would also not qualify as non-wetland waters of the United States per the Corps as the concrete v -ditch appeared excavated in uplands based on the field assessment and an initial review of Google Earth aerial imagery . the survey area also supports one swale that is not expected to be jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW, as it did not appear to display an observable ordinary high water mark , bed and bank, or other evidence of conveying regular flows on-site. Lastly, the survey area supports one vegetated, earthen-bottom detention basin to the west of the project site.

Special-Status Plant Species
No special -status plant species were observed on -site, and none are expected to occur based on the relatively disturbed nature of the project site from previous development. Special-status plants assessed for their potential to occur on-site are presented in Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence, below (See Figure 4.3-2a: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species : USFWS and Figure 4.3-2b: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species: CNDDB. No federally or State threatened or endangered plant species or other special-status plant species were observed during the field survey and none have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site based on the highly disturbed nature of t he site and lack of suitable habitat. Although there are documented occurrences of special - status plant species within three miles from the project site, the significant disturbances on the undeveloped portions of the project site make it highly unlikely to support populations of these or other special-status plants, as detailed further in Table 4.3-2, below.

Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
Plant Species
Aparejo grass
(Mulhenbergia utilis)
CRPR 1A Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
October-May. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, marshes
and swamps, and meadows and
seeps.

Elevation 80-7,630 feet.

None. Species occurs in wet
habitats which are not naturally
occurring on-site. A detention basin
with intermittent surface water
occurs adjacent to the project site
and within the survey buffer but is
unnatural and surrounded by
development.

Black bog-rush
(Schoenus nigricans)
CRPR 2B.3 Perennial glasslike herb. Blooms
August-September. Marshes and
swamps.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-12
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
Elevation 490-6,650 feet. detention basin in the project buffer
is not suitable for this species.

Bristly sedge (Carex
cornosa)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
May-September. Coastal prairie,
marshes and
swamps (lake margins), valley and
foothill grasslands. Elevation 0-2,050
feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. Grassland
habitat on-site is dominated by
invasive species.

California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
September-May. Chaparral, coastal
scrub,
meadows and seeps, Mojavean
desert scrub, and riparian scrub.

Elevation 0-3,985.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. Species
occurs in wet springs, meadows,
streambanks, and floodplains
which are not present in the
disturbed scrub habitat on-site.

California saw-grass
(Cladium californicum)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
June-September. Marshes and
swamps, and
meadows and seeps. Elevation 195-
5,250 feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
detention basin in the project
buffer is not suitable for this
species.

Chaparral ragwort
(Senecio aphanactis)
CRPR 2B.1 Annual herb. Blooms January-April.

Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and coastal scrub. Elevation 50-2,625
feet.

Low. Native scrub habitat on-site is
isolated and disturbed and
woodland habitat is not present in
the project site or surrounding
landscape. Not recently
documented within the Project
vicinity.

Greata’s aster
(Symphyotrichum
gratae)
CRPR 1B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
June-October. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub.

Elevation 985-6,895 feet.

None. Species occurs damp
canyons which are not present in
the native scrub habitat on-site.

Horn’s milk-vetch
(Astragalus hornii var.
hornii)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms May-October.

Lake margins, alkaline, meadows and
seeps,
playas. Elevation 195-2,790 feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
detention basin in the project
buffer is not suitable for this
species.

Hot springs fimbristylis
(Fimbristylis themalis)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
July-September. Meadows and
seeps. Elevation 360-4,395 feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
detention basin in the project
buffer is not suitable for this
species.

Intermediate mariposa-
lily (Calocortus weedii
var. intermedius)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Blooms
May-July. Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation 345-2,805 feet.

Low. On-site native scrub and
grassland habitat is disturbed.

Chaparral, coastal scrub, and native
grasslands are not found in the
surrounding adjacent areas. Not
known from Project vicinity.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-13
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
La Panza mariposa-lily
(Calchortus simulans)
CRPR 1B.3 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Blooms
April-June. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation 1,065-3,775
feet.

None. Grassland habitat on-site is
dominated by invasive species and
other preferred habitats are not
present on-site. There are no
records of this species in San
Bernardino County.

Latimer’s woodland
gilia (Saltuglia laimeri)
CRPR 1B.3 Annual herb. Blooms March-June.

Chaparral, Mojavean desert scrub,
pinyon and juniper woodland.

Elevation 1,310-6,235 feet.

None. Preferred native scrub and
woodland habitats not present on -
site. Not known from Project
vicinity.

Los Angeles
sunflower
(Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii)
CRPR 1A Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
August-October. Marshes and
swamps (coastal
salt and freshwater). Elevation 30-
5,005 feet.

None. No suitable aquatic habitats
present in the vicinity. Species is
presumed extinct. Not documented
within the Project vicinity in 100
years.

Mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Blooms February-
September. Maritime chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal
scrub. Elevation 230 - 2,657 feet.

Low. Native scrub habitat present
in the project site is disturbed.

Species prefers foothills which are
not present on-site.

Nevin’s barberry
(Berberis nevinii)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Blooms
(February) March-June. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
and Riparian scrub. Elevation 230-
2,705 feet.

None. Native scrub habitat present
in the project site is disturbed.

Occurs in riparian habitat and/or
washes that are not present on-
site. This species would have been
observed if present.

Parish’s bush-mallow
(Malacothamnus
parishii)
CRPR 1A Perennial deciduous shrub. Blooms
June-July. Chaparral and coastal
scrub. Elevation 1,000-1,495 feet.

None. Native scrub habitat present
in the project site is disturbed. This
conspicuous perennial shrub would
have been observed if present.

Species is presumed extinct.

Parish's desert-thorn
(Lycium parishii)
CRPR 2B.3 Perennial shrub. Blooms March-
April. Coastal scrub and Sonoran
Desert scrub. Elevation 445-3,280
feet.

None. Native scrub habitat present
in the project site is disturbed.

Prefers rocky slopes and canyons
which are not present on-site. This
species would have been observed
if present.

Parry's spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms April-June.

Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation 900-4,000 feet.

Low. Disturbed native scrub habitat
with sandy soil present on-site that
could support this species;
however, repeated disturbance to
the site reduces the likelihood of
species presence. This species has
not been recorded in the vicinity of
the project site since 1938. Nearest
modern records are from the Lytle
Creek Wash approximately two
miles northeast of the Project site.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-14
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
Prairie wedge grass
(Sphenopholis
obtusata)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms April - July.

Cismontane woodland, meadows
and seeps. Elevation 984-6,561 feet.

None. Woodland habitat not
present. Species prefers wet
meadows, streambanks, and ponds
which are not present on
the project site.

Prostrate vernal
pool navarretia
(Navarretia prostrata)
CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms April - July.

Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools. Elevation 10-3,970
feet.

None. Species occurs in alkaline
floodplains, vernal pools, and
wetland habitats which are not
present on-site.

Salt spring
checkerbloom
(Sidalcea neomexicana)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms March-June.

Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forests,
Mojavean desert scrub, and playas.

Elevation 50-5,020 feet.

None. Species occurs in alkaline
springs, marshes, and playas which
are not present in the vicinity.

San Bernardino
aster (Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
July-November. Cismontane
woodlands, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps, and vernally mesic
valley/foothill grasslands. Elevation 7
- 6,690 feet.

Low. Disturbed native scrub habitat
with sandy soil present on-site that
could support this species;
however, repeated disturbance to
the site reduces the likelihood of
species presence. This species has
been recorded within two miles of
the project site, but the project site
is located just outside the
estimated species range.

San Diego
Ambrosia (Ambrosia
pumila)
FE;
CRPR1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
April-October. Sandy loam or clay
soils in chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools. Elevation 65 - 1,350
feet.

Very Low. Although disturbed scrub
habitats occur on-site, there are no
records of this species in San
Bernardino County.

Sanford’s
arrowhead (Sagittaria
sanfordii)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
May-October (November). Marshes
and swamps. Elevation 0-2,135.

None. No suitable aquatic habitats
present in the vicinity. The
detention basin in the project
buffer is not suitable for this
species.

Santa Ana River
woollystar (Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum)
FE; SE;
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial herb. Blooms April-
September. Chaparral and coastal
alluvial fan scrub. Elevation 298-
2,000 feet.

None. Species occurs in washes,
floodplains, and dry riverbeds
which are not present in the scrub
habitats on-site.

Short-joint
beavertail (Opuntia
basilaris var.
brachyclada)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial stem. Blooms April-June
(August). Chaparral, Joshua tree
woodland, Mojavean desert scrub,
pinyon and juniper woodland.

Elevation 1,395-5,905.

None. No suitable native habitats
present in the vicinity.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-15
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
Singlewhorl
burrowbush (Ambrosia
monogyra)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Blooms August-
November. Chaparral, Sonoran
desert scrub. Elevation 35-1,640
feet.

None. Occurs in washes and
riverbeds which are not present on-
site.

Slender-horned
spineflower
(Dodecahema
leptoceras)
FE; SE;
CRPR 1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms April-June.

Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
alluvial fan coastal scrub. Elevation
655-2,490 feet.

Very Low. No suitable native
habitats present in the vicinity. This
species has not been documented
within the Project vicinity in 100
years.

Smooth tarplant
(Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms April-
September. Chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playa, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation 0 -2,100 feet.

Low. Project site contains disturbed
habitat. This species is tolerant of
some disturbance; however, the
on-site grassland and disturbed
land have undergone extensive
anthropogenic alterations (e.g.,
weed abatement, inactive
agriculture, infill and leveling) that
reduce the likelihood of this
species’ occurrence.

Southern mountains
skullcap (Scutellaria
bolanderi ssp.
austromontana)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms
June-August. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Elevation 1,395-
6,560 feet.

None. No suitable native habitats
present in the vicinity.

Thread-leaved
brodiaea (Brodiaea
filifolia)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Blooms
March-June. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools. Elevation 80-3,675
feet.

Low. Native scrub and grassland
habitats occur on-site; however,
they are highly disturbed. Weed
abatement practices, such as
discing, occur regularly which
results in upturned and tilled soils
that have a detrimental impact on
bulbiferous species, which rely on
underground bulbs to store energy.

Not known form Project vicinity.

White rabbit-tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms (July)
August-November (December).

Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland.

Elevation 0-6,890 feet.

Low. Species occurs on sandy or
gravelly benches and is known to
occur in disturbed sand; however,
this species is most commonly
associated with washes, streams,
and canyon bottoms, which are not
found on-site. Not known from
Project vicinity.

White-bracted
spineflower
(Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca)
CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms April-June.

Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland.

Elevation 985-3,935 feet.

Low. Species occurs in sand and
gravel in native scrub habitats
which are present, though
disturbed, on-site. This species is
primarily known from the San
Jacinto and San Bernardino
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-16
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
Mountains and has not been
recorded within the vicinity of the
project site.

Reptiles
California glossy
snake (Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSC Found in arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral habitats.

Prefers habitats containing open
areas and loose soils for burrowing.

Low. Disturbed scrub habitat
on-site is marginally suitable for
this species. Loose soils suitable for
burrowing occur on-site.

Coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC A variety of rocky, sandy, dry
habitats including sage scrub,
chaparral, woodlands on friable
loose soil.

Moderate. Disturbed scrub habitat
on-site is marginally
suitable for this species.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
SSC A variety of habitats including sage
scrub,
chaparral, and coniferous and
broadleaf woodlands. Found on
sandy or friable soils with open
scrub. Requires open areas, bushes,
and fine loose soil.

Moderate. Sandy and friable soils
are present in the disturbed scrub
habitat on-site which is marginally
suitable for this species. Harvester
ants, the primary diet of the
species, are also present on-site.

Orange-throated
whiptail (Aspidoscelis
hyperythra)
WL A variety of habitats including sage
scrub, chaparral, and coniferous and
broadleaf woodlands. Found on
sandy or friable soils with open
scrub.

Very low. Disturbed scrub
habitat on-site is marginally
suitable for this species. Species
prefers washes, stream sides, rocky
hillsides which are not present on-
site.

Southern California
legless lizard (Anniella
stebbinsi)
SSC Found in a variety of habitats
including coastal dunes, sandy
washes, and alluvial fans, containing
moist, loose soils.

Low. Disturbed scrub habitat on-
site is marginally suitable for this
species. Leaf litter under shrubs and
loose sandy soils present on-site.

Southern rubber boa
(Charina umbratical)
SE Found in oak-conifer and mixed-
conifer forests at elevations between
roughly 5,000 to 8,200 feet. where
rocks and logs or other debris
provide shelter.

Very Low. Suitable habitat not
present; project site is outside
elevation range.

Invertebrates
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
SE
(Candidate)
Arid shrublands and grasslands in
coastal and foothill areas of
southern California. Nectar plants
include milkweeds, buckwheat, and
lupines.

Absent/Low-to-Moderate. Focused
surveys conducted in 2024 were
negative for Crotch’s bumble bee;
however, this species changes
nesting locations each year and
potential for future project site
inhabitance is low-to-moderate.

This species can persist in semi-
natural habitats surrounded by
intensely modified landscapes, such
as the sparse disturbed buckwheat
scrub habitat within the project
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-17
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
site, and inhabits abandoned
rodent burrows.

Delhi Sands flower-
loving
fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis)
FE Found in sandy areas composed of
Delhi fine sands, stabilized by sparse
native vegetation.

Very Low. Delhi fine sands are not
present on or in the immediate
vicinity of the project site; on-site
soils are Tujunga loamy sands,
which are not suitable habitat for
this species.

Monarch butterfly,
California
overwintering
population (Danaus
plexippus plexippus
pop. 1)
FE
(Candidate)
Found in a variety of habitats across
the United States and Mexico (e.g.,
grasslands, urban land, mountains,
and coastal habitats). Exclusively
oviposit on milkweed. Nectivorous
adults require flowering plants.

Roost in eucalyptus, Monterey pines,
and Monterey cypresses in
California.

Present; potential for
overwintering is low. Observed on-
site during general biological survey
on October 11, 2022. No milkweed
observed; thus, the site does not
have potential to support
reproduction. Eucalyptus grove
exists in survey area on the eastern
boundary but is unlikely to provide
the necessary conditions for a
suitable overwintering site, which
require protection from high wind
and storms, absence of freezing
temperatures, varying levels of
sunlight, high humidity, and the
presence of water.

Fish
Santa Ana sucker
(Catostomus
santaanae)
FT Found in small permanent streams. None. Suitable aquatic habitats do not occur within the project site.

Birds
American Peregrine
falcon (Falco
peregrinus
anatum)
Delisted Found in open country, cliffs
(mountains to coast), sometimes
cities. Over its wide range, found in
wide variety of open habitats, from
tundra to desert mountains. Often
near water, especially along coast,
and migrants may fly far out to sea.

Present; no potential for nesting.

Species observed foraging north of
the project site during general
biological project survey on
October 11, 2022. Suitable nesting
habitat is not present on-site.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
SE
(Candidate)
Found in grasslands and open scrub
from coast to foothills. Strongly
associated with California ground
squirrel and other fossorial mammal
burrows.

Present/Moderate. Small mammal
burrows occur within the project
site including California ground
squirrel burrow complexes. This
species is known to occur within
the general area and has been
historically recorded at the Rialto
Airport within 500 feet of the
project site. Observed on-site
during focused burrowing owl
surveys.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-18
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
California condor
(Gymnogyps
Californianus)
FE; SE; FP Found in rocky scrubland, coniferous
forest, and oak savannah. Nest near
cliffs or large trees in forested
mountain regions up to about 6,000
feet elevation. Foraging areas are in
open grasslands and can be far from
primary nesting sites.

Very Low. Suitable nesting sites are
not present. Although scrubland
such as that found on-site can be
utilized for foraging, the on-site
habitat is isolated from other native
habitats by surrounding
development and unlikely to
support condor foraging.

California gull (Larus
californicus)
WL Found foraging in pastures or
parking lots and breeding along
inland lakes and rivers.

Present; no potential for nesting.

Species observed during focused
burrowing owl surveys. Foraging
habitat is present; however,
roosting and nesting habitat is
absent.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica
californica)
FT; SSC Found in sage scrub habitats, often
on slopes. Nests in shrubs including
sagebrush, buckwheat, and sage.

Diegan coastal sage scrub and other
similar open scrub habitats in coastal
areas, with most populations
occurring below 1,500 feet in
elevation.

Low. Isolated patches of
buckwheat scrub are present
surrounded by large areas of
disturbed habitat. Amount of
suitable shrub habitat on and near
the project site are not large
enough to support individuals of
this species.

California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris
actia)
WL Found from coastal deserts and
grasslands to alpine dwarf-shrub
habitat above treeline. Also seen in
coniferous or chaparral habitats.

Present. Species observed on-site
during general biological survey on
October 11, 2022, and during
focused burrowing owl surveys on
June 12, 2023 and July 3, 2023.

Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
FP; WL Found in open and semi open
country featuring native vegetation
across most of the northern
hemisphere. Nest on cliffs and steep
escarpments in grassland, chapparal,
shrubland, forest, and other
vegetated areas.

Present; no potential for
overwintering or nesting.

Species observed circling high
above the site during general
biological survey on October 11,
2022. Suitable nesting and
overwintering habitat is not present
on-site.

Least Bell's vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE; SE Riparian woodland with understory
of dense young willows or mulefat
and willow canopy. Nests often
placed along internal or external
edges of riparian thickets.

Very Low. Suitable habitat does not
occur within the project site.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
SSC Found within grassland, chaparral,
desert, and desert edge scrub,
particularly near dense vegetation
used for nesting.

Present. Species observed foraging
on-site during general biological
survey on October 11, 2022. The
site has limited suitable nesting
habitat.

Merlin (Falco
columbarius)
WL Found in edges of grasslands and
deserts. In open country, clumps of
Present; no potential for
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-19
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
trees or windbreaks are required for
roosting.
nesting. Species observed during
focused burrowing owl surveys.

Foraging habitat is present;
however, roosting habitat is absent,
and this species is not known to
nest in California.

Prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus)
WL Found in desert shrubland and
grasslands. Primarily forage in
grassland habitats.

Present; no potential for
nesting. Species observed during
focused burrowing owl surveys.

Foraging habitat is present;
however, roosting and nesting
habitat is absent.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
FT; SE Western yellow-billed cuckoo
inhabits riparian areas exclusively,
typically nesting in low to moderate
elevation riparian woodlands with
native broadleaf trees. The species is
generally observed in cottonwood-
willow-dominated habitats, although
riparian cover can vary. In California,
habitat often consists of willow
species and Fremont cottonwoods
(Populus fremontii).

Very Low. Suitable habitat does not
occur within the project site; tree
species typically associated with
this species are not present.

Southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii)
FE; SE Found in in thick riparian areas with
willows near standing or running
water.

Very Low. No suitable habitats
present; riparian vegetation is not
found within the project site.

Mammals
Los Angeles pocket
mouse (Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
SSC Found in low elevation grassland,
alluvial sage scrub, and coastal sage
scrub.

Very low. Non-native grassland and
disturbed scrub on-site are
marginally suitable for this species.

Frequent disturbance and
surrounding development make it
unlikely for this species to occur.

This species occurs sparingly in, or
is absent from, many historic
localities in the San Bernardino
valley.

Northwestern San
Diego pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub, sage
scrub/grassland ecotones, and
chaparral communities.

Very low. Non-native grassland and
disturbed scrub on-site are
marginally suitable for this species.

Frequent disturbance and
surrounding development make it
unlikely for this species to occur.

Pocketed free-tailed
bat (Nyctinomops
femorosaccus)
SSC Rugged cliffs, rocky outcrops, and
slopes in desert shrub and pine oak
forests.

Very Low. Suitable habitat does not
occur within the project site; cliffs
and outcrops are not present.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-20
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
(Callospermophilus
lateralis bernardinus)
FE; SE; SSC Found along floodplains, washes and
alluvial fans in scrub and chaparral
habitats. Soft soil required to
burrow.

Very low. Scrub habitat occurs
on-site, however it is disturbed,
surrounded by development, and
impacted by regular weed
abatement that alters the soil
structure and vegetation. Critical
habitat for the species occurs less
than two miles from the site in Lytle
Creek Floodway, which is also the
location of the nearest suitable
floodplains and washes.

Development occurs between
designated critical habitat and
project site.

Western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
SSC Occupies a range of habitats in arid
and dry areas. Inhabits secluded
woodlands, agricultural lands, and
sometimes even residential areas.

Very Low. Suitable habitat does not
occur within the project site.

Species prefers trees over three
meters (10 feet) in height, which
occur outside of the project area,
but within the survey area. All trees
over three meters in height are
eucalyptus, which is not a primary
roosting tree for this species.

Notes:

FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
FP: Fully Protected
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List Species
Source: Appendix D

4.3.5 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact could be considered significant and may require mitigation if it meets one of the following criteria:
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-21
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
▪ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or
▪ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
▪ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.3-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Special-Status Plants
No special-status plant species were observed within the project site and none are expected to occur on- site due to the relatively disturbed nature of the site . Further, no federally or State threatened or endangered plant species or other special -status plant species were observed during the field survey of the project site, and none have a moderate of high potential to occur within the project site. As such, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to special -status plant species, as n one are present on-site and none have a moderate to high potential to occur within the project site due to lack of suitable habitat and the overall disturbed nature of the site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Special-Status Wildlife
Nine special status species were observed during the general biological surveys and focused burrowing owl surveys, as detailed below, and three additional species have a low -to-moderate or moderate potential to occur on site. Special-status wildlife species detected during the biological surveys and owl surveys include Monarch butterfly, California Overwintering Population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California gull ( Larus californicus ), California horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris actia ), Golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos), Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Merlin (Falco columbarius), and Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). Special-status wildlife species with a moderate to high potential to occur include Burrowing owl ( Athene cucicularia ), Coastal whiptail ( Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri ), and Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilli ). Potential impacts to these species as a result of Project implementation are discussed below.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-22
Monarch butterfly. The monarch butterfly, a candidate for listing under FESA when overwintering in California, was observed during the initial general biological survey on October 11, 2022, However, the project site has a low potential to support overwintering individuals due to lack of suitable habitat. As such, potential impacts on monarch butterfly as a result of Project implementation would be less than significant.

Crotch’s bumble bee. Crotch’s bumble bee, a State candidate for listing under the CESA, has a low -to- moderate potential to occur within the project site and may be impacted by Project implementation.

Crotch’s bumble bee was not documented during biological surveys, however, suitable nectar sources and marginally suitable habitat occur within the project site and the potential for this species to occur is considered low-to-moderate. Although Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed on-site, the Project could result in direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee in the event of death, injury, or harassment if Crotch’s bumble bee were to occur within the project site. Therefore , the analysis conservatively assumes that significant impacts to the species could occur as a result of direct impacts to nesting sites. Accordingly, potential direct Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be avoided or minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure ( MM) BIO-2A and MM BIO -2B, which would require nesting surveys prior to ground disturbing activities, and implementation of non -disturbance buffer areas surrounding any identified nesting sites. Potential indirect impacts to the species could occur through the destruction of viable nectar sources of occupied habitat. To reduce potential indirect impacts, the Project would implement MM BIO-2C, which would require a focused survey within one year prior to ground disturbing activities to determine the presence of occupied habitat on -site. Additionally, implementation of MM BIO-2D would require on -site revegetation with suitable nectar sources. With implementation of MM BIO-2A through MM BIO-2D, potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant.

However, if Crotch’s bumble bee is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of Project construction, then these mitigation measures would not be required.

Burrowing owl. Burrowing owl is currently a candidate species under the CESA as of October 10, 2024.

Burrowing owl (State candidate for listing under the CESA) was detected on -site during focused surveys and has potential to inhabit the site in the future; therefore, this species may be impacted with Project implementation. The project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl. No burrowing owl, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed during the biological surveys. As such, the absence of burrowing owl during the peak breeding season suggests that the project site is not currently used by burrowing owl for nesting. However, there is evidence that the project site is used by burrowing owl for refuge and foraging outside of nesting season and burrowing owl may occur on-site in the future. Project implementation would result in direct impacts to burrowing owl in the event of death, injury, or harassment. Such impacts would be considered significant. To reduce potentially significant impacts to burrowing owl, prior to Project construction, construction workers shall complete training with instructions on how to be aware of and identify burrowing owls ( MM BIO-3A) and the Project would require pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls within and adjacent to the project site (MM BIO-3C). A qualified biologist shall perform monitoring during all construction activities to ensure avoidance of impacts to burrowing owl (MM BIO-3B) and in the event avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, consultation with CDFW will determine the appropriate course of action. Consultation with CDFW may require Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan (MM BIO-3D). Additionally, the Project would implement MM BIO-1A and MM BIO-1B, which would require enforcement of a speed limit (15 miles per hour) for unpaved roads adjacent to the project site and any construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures of a minimum of 3 inches in diamete r to be Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-23
screened, covered, or elevated overnight. With the above-mentioned mitigation measures, direct impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant.

Indirect impacts on burrowing owl could occur if burrowing owl is present within suitable habitat north of the project site, and construction occurs at night and uses lighting. Such impacts are potentially significant because lights could reduce burrowing owls’ hunting success and make burrowing owls easier targets for predators. Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, construction personnel would be provided with instructions to follow in the event burrowing owl is observed, or suspected to be, on -site (MM BIO-3A).

Additionally, pre -construction burrowing owl surveys would be conducted to ensure no occupied burrowing owl burrows are present within or adjacent to construction areas during ground disturbing activities ( MM BIO-3C). To avoid impacts on burrowing owl from nighttime construction and lighting, Project construction would occur during the day. However, in the event Project construction should occur during nighttime, lights shall be oriented in such a way that they direct light downward and tow ard the active construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted towards adjacent lands (MM BIO-1C). Indirect impacts on burrowing owl, if present in suitable habitat north of the project site, could occur during construction due to elevated noise, vibration, and dust levels generated by equipment. These disturbances are temporary and relatively short in duration, thus unlikely to affect burrowing owl behavior. In addition, burrowing owl pre-construction surveys would include a 500-foot buffer around the project site; therefore, burrowing owls occurring near to the project site would be detecte d, if present (MM BIO-3C). If burrowing owls are detected within 500 -feet of the project site, CDFW would be contacted within 48 hours and disturbance avoidance buffers would be implemented by a qualified biologist in accordance with recommendations from CDF W, and no work would occur within avoidance buffers until consultation with CDFW (MM BIO -3D). As such, indirect impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

California horned lark and Loggerhead shrike. Both the California horned lark and Loggerhead shrike were observed within and adjacent to the project site . Direct impacts to these species would occur through loss of suitable foraging habitat. However, suitable foraging habitat for these species is present within proximity to the project site and is abundant throughout the region and removal of suitable foraging habitat during Project implementation wou ld result in a less than significant impact. Project construction activities could result in direct impacts on nesting California horned lark and loggerhead shrike, if nests are present. Vegetation trimming or removal of suitable habitat within an active breeding territory could result in harassment, injury, dam age or destruction of an active nest, and/or death of adults, eggs, and/or young during construction activities. Impacts that result in injury or death of California horned lark or loggerhead shrike, or loss of genetic diversity of these special -status species is potentially significant. To reduce potential direct impacts to these species, vegetation trimming and removal, grading, and other construction activities within suitable nesting habitat would occur outside of breeding season (February 15 through August 31) and pre-construction surveys would be conducted three days prior to any disturbance of the Project site (MM BIO-4A). In the event either species are documented on-site, no- work exclusion buffers would be established and maintained around each active nest (MM BIO-4B). With implementation of MM BIO-4A and MM BIO 4B, direct impacts to California horned lark and Loggerhead shrike would be less than significant.

Indirect impacts to California horned lark and Loggerhead shrike could occur during construction due to elevated noise, vibration, and dust levels generated by construction equipment. These disturbances are Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-24
temporary and relatively short in duration, thus unlikely to affect these species behaviors. As such, indirect impacts to the California horned lark and Loggerhead shrike would be less than significant.

Coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard. The coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard have a moderate potential to occur within the project site . Potential direct impacts to these species could occur during vegetation clearing, grading, and other construction activities, which could result in harassment, injury, or death. Impacts that result in harassment, injury, or death would be considered potentially significant.

Therefore, the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to these species. Prior to ground disturbing activities, a biologist would walk through habitat to be imminently removed to flush any coastal whiptail or coast horned lizard that may be present , from the project site (MM BIO-1D) and all limits of works would be clearly demarcated (MM BIO-1H). Speed limits would be set and enforced to minimize risk of vehicle collisions with the species (MM BIO-1A). Any holes and trenches excavated during Project construction would be covered or equipped with escape ramps to prevent entrapment of the species (MM BIO-1E). Pets, which could harass, injure, or kill the species, would be prohibited from the proj ect site ( MM BIO -1F). And lastly, all trash would be properly stored and disposed of to avoid attracting predators of the species to the project site (MM BIO-1G). Implementation of the previously mentioned mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant direct impacts to coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard to less than significant.

Golden Eagle. American Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Merlin, and California Gull. Golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, merlin, and California gull were observed during the 2022 biological survey. American peregrine falcon is delisted from the ESA and CESA and is no longer considered a CDFW Fully Protected species. Although Golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and merlin were viewed flying over the project site during the biological surveys, these species were not observed directly using the project site and are not expected to rely on the project site as it is dominated by developed and disturbed habitats. Suitable nesting habitat is not present for any of these species.

Golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, and prairie falcon primarily nest on ledges and cliffs which are absent from the project site, and merlin is not known to nest is southern California. In addition, California gull was observed during the biological surveys; however, there is no potential for the project site to support nesting colonies as colonies are always located near large bodies of water. Thus, impacts on Golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, merlin, and California gull as a result of Project implementation are determined to be less than significant.

Development of Planning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to Planning 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. Biological impacts as a result of Project implementation are shown in Figure 4.3-3: Proposed Project Impacts . With the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO -1A to MM BIO -1H, MM BIO-2A to MM BIO-2D, MM BIO-3A to MM BIO-3D, and MM BIO-4A to MM BIO-4B, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-25
MM BIO-1A Construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads adjacent to the project site or the right-of-way accessing the project site.

MM BIO-1B The Project Applicant, or its contractors, shall screen, cover, or elevate at least one (1) foot above ground, all construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of three (3) inches or greater that are stored on -site overnight. The pipes, culverts, and similar structures shall be ins pected by the Project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.

MM BIO-1C Construction activities shall occur during daytime hours to the greatest extent feasible. If construction must occur at nighttime, lights shall be oriented in such a way that they direct light downward and toward the active construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted towards adjacent lands, and shields or deflectors shall be installed on lights to reduce light spill. Nighttime concrete pouring shall be performed in accordance with the City of Rialto Municipal Code.

MM BIO-1D A biologist shall flush special -status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) from suitable habitat areas within the Project development footprint to the maximum extent practicable immediately (e.g., within 24 hours) prior to initial vegetation removal activities. The biologist shall flush wildlife by walking through habitat to be immediately removed.

MM BIO-1E At the end of each workday during construction, the Applicant, or its contractors, will cover all excavated, steep-sided holes or trenches more than eight inches deep and that have sidewalls steeper than 1:1 (45 degree) slope with plywood or similar materi als, or provide a minimum of one escape ramp per 100 feet of trenching (with slopes no greater than 3:1) constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. The Project biologist shall thoroughly inspect holes and trenched for trapped animals during biological monitoring.

MM BIO-1F Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site.

MM BIO-1G If trash and debris need to be stored overnight during maintenance activities, fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof and weather-proof shall be used by the maintenance contractor to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Alternatively, standard trash receptacles may be used during the day, but shall be removed or emptied each night.

MM BIO-1H To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of work, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary visibility construction fence) prior to ground-disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the marked disturbance limits. The work limit delineation shall be maintained throughout Project construction.

MM BIO-2A If Crotch’s bumble bee is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of project construction, then these mitigation measures shall not be required. Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct active Crotch’s Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-26
bumble bee nest surveys during the typical colony active period (April – August) following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

MM BIO-2B If suspected or active Crotch’s bumble bee nests are present, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate non -disturbance buffer around each nest immediately prior to initiation of construction activities using stakes and/or brightly colored flagging to avoid disturbance or incidental take of the species. If avoidance buffers are not feasible during construction activities, then CDFW shall be consulted.

MM BIO-2C Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight season (February – October) following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

MM BIO-2D If occupied foraging habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee is present within project impact areas, a Revegetation Plan shall be prepared which includes native shrubs and native seed mixes that contain known nectar sources for Crotch’s bumble bee. The Revegetation Plan shall be developed in consultation with a qualified Crotch’s bumble bee biologist an implemented following Project construction.

MM BIO-3A Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared, which will include a training presentation and key fact sheet.

The training will instruct construction crews to be aware of and recognize burrowing owls and other sensitive biological resources that may be encountered within, or adjacent to, the project. The training will provide workers with instructions to follow in the event a burrowing owl is observed or suspected to be on site. Biologists shall provide WEAP training materials, including but not limited to the key fact sheet, to construction personnel before their commencement of work on the project. Additionally, all construction staff shall attend the WEAP training presentation prior to beginning work on site. A refresher WEAP training will be completed on an annual basis thereafter. Note that the fact sheet shall be provided in other languages, as necessary, to accommodate non - English speaking workers. Upon completion of the WEAP training, each member of the construction crew shall sign a form stating that they attende d the training, understood the information presented, and agreed to comply with the requirements set out in the WEAP training. On an annual basis, the project proponent shall certify that WEAP training has been provided to all construction personnel. Biologists shall provide updates relevant to the training to construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”) meetings, as needed.

MM BIO-3B During active construction, biological monitoring will be performed to ensure unauthorized impacts on burrowing owl do not occur as a result of the project. A biologist shall be contracted to perform monitoring during all construction activities approximately every other day. The definitive frequency and duration of monitoring shall be dependent Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-27
on project and site conditions, such as the type of construction activity occurring, whether it is the breeding versus non -breeding season, if a burrowing owl has been recently documented on site, and the efficacy of the exclusion buffers, as determined by a qualified biologist.

MM BIO-3C No less than 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the construction limits of the project site and a 500 -foot buffer for the presence of burrowing owls and occupied nest burrows. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to the onset of construction activities. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW survey methods. If burrowing owls are not observed during the clearance survey, no addit ional conditions are required to avoid impacts to burrowing owl.

The Project applicant shall submit at least one burrowing owl preconstruction survey report to the satisfaction of the City to document compliance with this mitigation measure. For the purposes of this measure, “qualified biologist” is a biologist who meets the requirements set forth in the CDFW BUOW Guidelines.

MM BIO-3D If burrowing owl is documented on site or within 500-feet of the project site during either preconstruction surveys or biological monitoring, occupied burrowing owl burrows shall not be disturbed. CDFW shall be contacted within 48 hours of the burrowing ow l observation and disturbance avoidance buffers shall be set up by a qualified biologist in accordance with the recommendations from CDFW.

No work will occur within avoidance buffers until consultation with CDFW and issuance of permits, if required. If burrowing owl is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of project construction, then permits shall not be required. If avoidance of burrowing owls is not possible, either directly or indirectly, consultation with CDFW will determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW may require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan (Plan) . The conditions of the permit or measures outlined in the plan would be adhered to by the Project proponent and any required compensatory mitigation of habitat would be provided.

MM BIO-4A To ensure compliance with CFGC sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (generally February 15 through August 31).

Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within three (3) days prior to any disturbance of the site, including but not limited to vegetation clearing, disking, demolition activities, and grading.

MM BIO-4B If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independ ently from the nests. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment. If nesting birds are documented, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted, and construction Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-28
activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement to avoid take of nesting birds. If nesting birds are not documented during the preconstruction survey, adherence to additional measures may not be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Impact 4.3-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would impact three vegetation communities or land uses as identified below in Table 4.3 -3: Potential Project Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Uses . Developed land and disturbed habitat are not considered native vegetation communities; however, impacts on isolated native upland habitat (e.g., disturbed Riversidean sage scrub), will occur with Project implementation. Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA and impacts on this community are not anticipated to be significant due to its abundance in the region. 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 to native vegetation communities resulting from the Project would be less than significant.

Table 4.3-3: Potential Project Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Uses

Vegetation
Impacts within Project Site
(acres)

acres) aac(acres)
Developed 5.2
Disturbed habitat 29.4
Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub 0.7
Total 35.3
Source: Appendix D
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-29
The proposed Project would not impact State or federally protected wetlands as no jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed within the project site. No aquatic resources were identified within the project site or 50-foot buffer during desktop review of the NWI and NHD databases. A concrete v-ditch is located immediately off-site to the north, which runs parallel to the northern boundary of the project site. The concrete v-ditch appears to collect and convey stormwater from the east to the street gutter located within North Fitzger ald Avenue. The concrete v -ditch may qualify as a non -wetland water of the State jurisdictional per the RWQCB. However, it should be noted that to receive an official determination from the Corps and concurrence from the RWQCB, a project -specific aquatic resources del ineation and reporting per RWQCB standards and guidelines would be required. Although the off-site concrete v-ditch has potential to qualify as a non-wetland water of the State, Project impacts are not proposed within or near that area. The survey area also supports one swale. However, the swale is not expected to be jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW, since It does not display an observable ordinary high water mark. As such, the Project would not result in impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources and permitting through the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW would not be required. 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. No impacts would occur.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-30
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated The proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground disturbing activities are initiated during the nesting season. The disturbed habitat and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub within the project site have the potential to support avian nests and impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503. To avoid potential direct impacts on nesting birds, removal of suitable habitat would occur outside of the breeding season (MM BIO-4A), when feasible. Additionally, within three days prior to ground disturbance or construction activities, a qualified biologist would conduct a nesting bird survey ( MM BIO -4A). If active nests are found, construction activities would be avoided in a buffer area around the nest until nestlings have fledged and the nest is determined to be inactive, a biologist would be retained to monitor nesting activity (MM BIO-4B).

Additionally, the project site does not serve as part of a wildlife corridor. The project site is composed of highly disturbed undeveloped areas that are surrounded by development. No large areas of native vegetation are contiguous with the disturbed habitat on-site, nor do such areas of native habitat occur in proximity to the project site. As such, the project site and surrounding area do not serve as a wildlife corridor. No impact would occur to wildlife corridors.

Furthermore, d evelopment of P lanning Area 123 is not proposed as part of the Project. Future development projects related to P lanning Area 123 would be evaluated on a project -specific level in compliance with CEQA, as applicable. With implementation of MM BIO-4A and MM BIO-4B, impacts would be less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-31
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM BIO-4A and MM BIO-4B are included under Impact 4.3-1, above.

Impact 4.3-5 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As previously discussed, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. As such, focused surveys and preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl would be conducted to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the project site prior to construction . As previously discussed, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to burrowing owl with the implementation of MM BIO-3A to MM BIO-3D. With compliance with applicable mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM BIO-3A to MM BIO-3D are included under Impact 4.3-1, above.

Impact 4.3-6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The project site is not located within an active Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). 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, and no mitigation is required.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-32
Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources.

The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. With mitigation, the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. As discussed in this section, the project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources. Additionally, the site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project site is not located within a designated protected area, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biologi cal resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

4.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts regarding biological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

FIGURE 4.3-1: Existing On-Site Biological Resources
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Miro Way
Linden Ave
AyalaDr
S-1 D-1
Project Boundary
Survey Area
Review Area
Swale*
Concrete V-Ditch*
Riversidean Sage Scrub - Disturbed
Disturbed Habitat
Developed
Special-Status Species
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)

Not to Scale
Vegetation
Observed
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-34
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE 4.3-2A: Special-Status Plants and Wildlife Species -USFWS Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Project Boundary
1-mile Buffer
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Critical Habitat
USFWS Species Locations
Least Bell's Vireo
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Santa Ana River Woolly-star

Not to Scale
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-36
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE 4.3-2B: Special-Status Plants and Wildlife Species -CNDDB Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving flyDelhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
white cuckoo bee
pocketed free-tailed bat
Crotch's bumble bee
Southern California legless lizard
coast horned lizard
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
southern rubber boa
Crotch's bumble bee
western yellow bat
burrowing owl
burrowing owl
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Southern California legless lizard
Parish's desert-thorn
mesa horkelia
Parish's bushmallow
marsh sandwort
salt marsh bird's-beak
Parry's spineflower
Project Boundary
1-mile Buffer
CNDDB Plant Species Locations
CNDDB Wildlife Species Locations

Not to Scale
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-38
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE 4.3-4: Proposed Project Impacts
Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Rialto, CA
Miro Way
Linden Ave
AyalaDr
D-1S-1

Project Boundary
Development Footprint
Survey Area
Review Area
Swale*
Concrete V-Ditch*
Vegetation
Riversidean Sage Scrub - Disturbed
Disturbed Habitat
Developed
Observed Special-Status Species
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
Not to Scale
Source: Rocks Biological Consulting
FIGURE 4.3-3: Proposed Project Impacts
FIGURE 4.3-3: Proposed Project Impacts
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.3
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-40
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-1

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) provides contextual background information on resources on or near the project site for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project), including the Project area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. The extent to which development of the Project could impact existing historic or prehistoric resources is evaluated. The analysis in this section is based in part on the Cultural Resources Assessment Letter Report (Cultural Report) prepared by ASM Affiliates (May 2024) and included as Appendix E.

State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15064.5 refers to “historical resources” as being a resource listed in or eligible for listing as a significant resource in State or local registers of historical resources, or by determination of a lead agency which is supported by substantial evidence. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to California Public Resources Code [PRC] §5020.1(k), or id entified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC §5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074 (sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objectives with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) are addressed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this SEIR.

4.4.2 Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The City of Rialto (City) is located approximately 40 miles east of the City of Los Angeles, situated within the San Bernardino Valley and northwest of the Santa Ana River channel. Elevation within the largely flat project site ranges from approximately 1,390 to 1,405 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with the natural topography sloping gently to the southeast. The project site lies within the extreme southeast corner of the boundary of the Grapeland Irrigation District as illustrated on the Rialto General Plan (General Plan) Exhibit 7.1. The City is largely urbanized and surrounded by other developed cities; the setting surrounding the Project area is primarily business/industrial. The project site is flanked on all sides by vacant land, commercial or industrial facilities.

Prehistoric Cultural Setting
Lake Mojave Period (Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic; ca. 12,000 - 7000 B.P.) The Lake Mojave complex represents the earliest human occupation in the Mojave Desert region, beginning at about 12,000 B.P. Considered a Paleo-Indian assemblage, it is thought to be ancestral to the Early Archaic cultures of the subsequent Pinto period. C laims for archaeological assemblages dating to periods earlier than Lake Mojave period, such as those made for Tule Springs, China Lake, and Manix Lake, are controversial and, even if eventually proven to be authentic, these manifestations appear to have no Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-2
relationship to later cultural developments in the region. This era, at the close of the Pleistocene, was a time of extreme environmental change as the relatively cool and moist conditions of the terminal Wisconsin glacial age were gradually replaced by th e warmer and drier conditions of the Holocene.

Desertification continued throughout the period with mesquite appearing by ca. 8000 B.P.

Cultural materials characteristic of the Lake Mojave Complex include Lake Mojave, Parman, Silver Lake, and rare fluted projectile points. Other artifacts typically found in these assemblages include lunate and eccentric crescents, small flake engravers, te chnical scrapers, leaf -shaped knives, drills, and heavy choppers or hammer stones. Milling stones are generally absent in the Lake Mojave Complex.

In the Mojave Desert and southern Great Basin, this assemblage is typically (but not exclusively) found in association with Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene lake stands and outwash drainages, although the role of the lakes in the overall adaptation remains in dispute. Some researchers have argued that lacustrine resources were the subsistence focus, while others suggest that grasslands suitable for the grazing of Late Pleistocene megafauna would have surrounded the lakes, and that these were the primary subs istence focus of the Lake Mojave cultures. Warren postulated that the assemblages are the remains of a widespread, generalized hunting adaptation found throughout the western Great Basin. Bedwell, Hester, and others interpret the same assemblages as indica ting a specialized exploitation of the lacustrine resources of the pluvial lakes and call the complex the “Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition.” Jonathan O.

Davis proposes a combination of these models positing a generalized hunting and collecting economy, in which lakeside sites represent the seasonal exploitation of marsh resources.

This complex represents Early Man in the Mojave Desert and exhibits similarities to sites in the western Great Basin and to the San Dieguito complex of the southern California culture area. Alternate designations for the manifestation of the complex in the interior desert area include Lake Mojave Culture, San Dieguito Complex and Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition. Establishing strong temporal definition of the period is also hampered by the shortage in datable sites throughout the Great Basin and Mojave Deser t.

Few sites dating to the early portion of the Lake Mojave period have been excavated and little direct evidence of subsistence practices has been reported. When sites do contain datable materials, artifacts are generally found on the surface with no stratigraphic separation. Unlike sites in the Southwest, no early Great Basin projectile point types have been found in undisputed association with the large mega -fauna known to have existed during that time. Characterization of this period of prehistory in Ca lifornia is extremely complex due to the large number of competing models.

Pinto Period (Middle Archaic; ca. 7000 - 4000 B.P.)
The transition from pluvial to arid conditions at the end of the early Holocene appears to have been the most extreme environmental change in the southern Great Basin during post -Pleistocene times.

Increasingly arid conditions prevailed throughout the regi on between about 7500 and 5000 B.P.

Woodland environments reached their approximate modern elevations and the modern desert scrub communities appeared with the migration of plant species such as creosote bush into the area.

Warren sees the cultural manifestations of this period as indicative of adaptation to increasing aridity. As the Pleistocene lakes and rivers dried up and plant and animal life changed, human populations adapted or withdrew to more desirable areas. Pinto populations appear to have withdrawn to desert margins and scattered oases, undergoing the changes as the Pinto Basin Complex assemblages gradually replace those Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-3
of the preceding Lake Mojave period. As in the Lake Mojave period, Pinto period sites are usually found in open settings in relatively well -watered locales representing isolated oases of high productivity.

Artifacts dating to the Pinto period include Pinto series projectile points, leaf-shaped points and knives, domed and elongated keeled scrapers, and occasional Lake Mojave and Silver Lake points. Simple flat milling stones, occasional shallow-basined milling stones, and hand stones also occur in Pinto period sites.

Warren attributes the latter development to the exploitation of hard seeds, which is seen as part of a process of subsistence diversification brought on by increased aridity and reduced ecosystem carrying capacity. Big-game hunting probably continued as an important focus during this time, but the economic return of this activity likely decreased as artiodactyl populations declined in response to increased aridity.

The appearance of Pinto projectile points in the archaeological record denote this period in the Mojave Desert, although their dating remains controversial. Warren and Crabtree and Warren postulate that the Pinto Complex represents a continuation and evolution from the hunting complexes of the Lake Mojave period. During this period, small, mobile populations continued to be dependent upon hunting and gathering. The use of grinding implements is expanded; however, these were poorly developed as might be expected in a newly acquired technology. This development suggests that the processing of hard seeds was becoming more important in the subsistence system, although it is believed that Pinto period people maintained a mobile subsistence strategy focused primarily on the hunting of highly ranked large game.

The question of how people adjusted to environmental change is central to varying interpretations of the Pinto period. Some argue the desert was essentially abandoned between 7000 and 5000 B.P., while others argue that no evidence of an occupational hiatus of such magnitude exists in the archaeological record.

The ongoing debate revolves around the definition and dating of Pinto projectile points.

Gypsum Period (Late Archaic; ca. 4000 - 1500 B.P.)
Gradual improvement of the climate began by around 5000 B.P. culminating in the Neoglacial at about 3600 B.P. A period of greater effective moisture emerged in the latter part (by 3000 -4000 B.P.) of the middle Holocene. At this time, the barren pans in the Mojave Sink intermittently held perennial water, although it is not known if this was the case for other closed basins in the region.

The Gypsum period is characterized by population increases and broadening economic activities as technological adaptation to the changing environment evolved. Hunting continued to be an important subsistence activity, but the increase in the occurrence and diversity of ground stone artifacts indicate that plant foods were becoming a more important subsistence item. The reduction in the size of projectile points about 1350 B.P. marks the introduction of the bow and arrow, increasing the efficiency of hunting and possibly indicating a shift from larger to smaller game. Perhaps as a result of these new adaptive mechanisms, the increase in aridity during the late Gypsum period (after ca. 2500 B.P.) seems to have had relatively little consequence on the distribution and increase in human populations.

The use of rock shelters appears to have increased at this time although the occupation of open sites continues. Base camps with extensive midden development are a prominent site type in well -watered valleys and near concentrated subsistence resources. Additionally, several types of special purpose sites in upland settings begin to appear during this period. Considerable evidence is present indicating increased contact with the California coast and the Southwest, and the presence of split -twig figurines and zoomorphic petroglyphs, thought to date to this period, suggest a rich ritual life was present. Evidence Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-4
of this increased ritual life is clearly seen in the archaeological record at Newberry Cave, where split-twig figurines, ritual bows, arrows, pictographs, and what was interpreted as a wand were recovered supporting what was interpreted as ritual hunting magic.

Gypsum period artifact assemblages are characterized by medium - to large -stemmed and notched projectile points (i.e., Elko series, Humboldt Concave Base, and Gypsum types). The assemblages also include rectangular -based knives, flake scrapers, infrequently large scraper planes, choppers, and hammer stones. Milling equipment becomes more common and the mortar and pestle appear for the first time.

Sites dated to the Gypsum period are well represented in the mountains and in adjoining areas toward the coast. The Siphon site in Summit Valley, a middle to late Millingstone horizon base camp, has been dated to about 1550 B.C. Other sites in the area fro m this period include those at Yucaipa and at Prado Basin. In general, the Gypsum period was a time of intensified settlement and exploitation of the desert valley floor and surrounding mountains.

Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500 - 750 B.P.)
During the Saratoga Springs period, marked regional diversification in artifact and site types is evidenced throughout the region (Warren and Crabtree 1986). The primary projectile point types of the southern Mojave Desert —and by extension, the San Bernard ino Mountains—are Cottonwood and Desert Side - notched points. The Rose Spring types common to the north are rarer in the San Bernardino Mountains but have found around Baldwin Lake, while Eastgate and Rose Spring points began to dominate assemblages in othe r parts of the Mojave Desert and southern Great Basin. These regional variations might have been the result of intensified contact with neighboring groups along the coast, in the mountains, and in the southwest. Evidence from the Oro Grande site on the Moj ave River below the northern slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains indicates trade with coastal groups during this period and a more structured settlement hierarchy centered on large village sites. Cultural developments south of the Mojave River and Providence Mountains diverge from those in the northern area during this period, reflecting influence from Hakataya developments along the lower Colorado.

Ceramics were likely introduced into the region during this period, through evidence is scarce. Lower Colorado Buff Ware and Tizon Brown Ware ceramics are often associated with Cottonwood and Desert side-notched points and likely date from the very end of the Sara toga Springs period into protohistoric times. Unlike some communities. For example, marine shell beads are much more common at Saratoga Springs period sites, suggesting trade with the southern California coast, probably along the Mojave River valley route later known as the Mojave Trail.

Evidence for Ancestral Puebloan influence or occupation is limited to the occurrence of pottery, which has been found as far west as the Halloran Spring and the Cronise Basin in California. It is unclear whether the pottery was left by small foraging or hunting parties, the result of Ancestral Puebloan people working the turquoise mines near Halloran Springs, or if it was being traded along the Mohave trading route along with shells, obsidian and salt. Overall, the nature of the Ancestral Puebloan presence in the Mojave Desert is poorly understood at this time and warrants future research. In contrast, a strong Ancestral Puebloan influence is seen in the northeastern Mojave, where this horticultural people (termed the Lowland Virgin Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-5
Branch Anasazi) resided in residential communities along the Muddy and lower Virgin rivers in southeastern Nevada and adjacent portions of Utah and Arizona.

In the remainder of the Mojave Desert region, sites of this period seem to exhibit general continuity with the Gypsum pattern. One of the most conspicuous changes from the earlier period is the reduction in size of projectile points. Rose Spring and Cotton wood series point dominate assemblages of this period and are morphologically similar to Gypsum period points with the exception of their smaller size, and milling equipment (i.e., metates, manos, mortars, and pestles) continue to be in use.

Late in prehistory (approximately 1000 B.P.), it is theorized, groups of people speaking Numic languages expanded from somewhere in the Death Valley area across the Great Basin. The Numic Expansion hypothesis gained widespread support in the years followin g its introduction by Sydney Lamb in 1958.

Bettinger and Baumhoff believe that the Numa were able to displace the previous inhabitants because of low-cost adaptive strategies oriented around the exploitation of diverse plant resources. This hypothesis us supported by similarities in artifact types and glottochronological theory advanced by Lamb. Young and Bettinger, supporting Bettinger and Baumhoff proposed that a competitive interaction existed between the Numic and pre -Numic groups in the Great Basin. In recent years, however, the hypothesis has been challenged and remains controversial.

Protohistoric Period (750 B.P. - Contact)
The Protohistoric era, a transitional period between the prehistoric and the historic/ethnohistoric, dates from ca. 750 B.P. and continues until first contact with Euro -Americans. Cultural developments established earlier during the Saratoga Springs period continue with some modifications. Numerous sites dating to this most recent period of prehistory are located along the Mojave River. in the San Bernardino Mountains, and in the inland valleys to the south of the mountains. Diagnostic artifacts for this period are Desert Side-notched points and various poorly defined types of brown ware pottery. Most archaeologists agree that trade along the Mojave Trail was steady throughout this period, accounting for much of the coastal and Colorado River influences in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Regional diversity continued during this period. South of the Mojave River, the influence of the Yuman - speaking Hakataya continued. It is clear that by around A.D. 600, Hakatayan groups occupied a wide area in western Arizona, southeastern California, and southern Nevada. The Hakataya were centered primarily on the lower Colorado River, however, and their assemblages, characterized by brown, buff, and red-on- buff pottery, and Desert Side -notched and Cottonwood Triangular points, are found along the length o f the Mojave River to the Mojave Sinks. These ceramics, along with the continued use of coastal artifacts such as shell beads, suggest fairly long -distance trade contacts and possibly more extensive seasonal rounds.

North of the Mojave River, the Saratoga Springs artifact assemblage continued, with the addition of Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular points and Great Basin Brown Ware pottery. Also present in these assemblages are steatite beads, large triangu lar knives, unshaped manos and milling stones, mortars and pestles, incised stones, slate pendants, and shell beads. Bettinger attributes the beginning of regular pinyon exploitation to this period, as shown by the appearance of camps in the pinyon -juniper woodland. Warren and Crabtree note that the initial occurrence of this assemblage is linked with the ancestors of the historic Southern Paiute and is roughly contemporaneous with the terminal date for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-6
Ancestral Puebloan occupation of the region. Virgin Anasazi development and influence had been curtailed in the eastern Mojave Desert by the Protohistoric period. Occupation by the hunter -gatherer groups present earlier, however, appears to have continued relatively unchanged.

Ethnohistoric Background
The major ethnographic group associated with the Project area was the Serrano. The following summary is closely drawn from a recent ethnography by Lerch and Ciolek-Torrello. The Serrano were so called by the Spanish because they lived in and around the San Bernardino Mountains (serrano, from sierra, means “mountain dweller” in Spanish). The Serrano’s own general name for themselves was Takhtam, or “people,” although most individuals were identified by the name of their particular clan or village, and these names are frequently referred to as “tribes.”
The Serrano language is part of the Takic subfamily of the larger Uto -Aztecan language family, which includes a wide variety of language groups extending as far south as the Basin of Mexico. Closer to home, the culture groups neighboring the Serrano to the south of the San Bernardino Mountains —the Gabrielino, Luiseño, and Cahuilla—were also Takic-language speakers. The Serrano appear to have been most closely linguistically aligned with the Cahuilla people, the easternmost of the three. In the Mojave Desert, to the west, north, and east, were the Kawaiisu, Panamint, and Chemehuevi, who spoke Numic languages, another subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family. Although these language group names are often understood as some sort of tribal identity reflecting politically unified groups, this was clearly not the case. Designations such as Serrano and Chemehuevi are purely linguistic labels that, when applied to a geographic region, simply refer to the total territory inhabited by a number of independent bands who spoke a common language. Very often, significant cultural interactions crosscut language groups a s a result of topography or other factors. The Serrano, in particular, seem to have maintained close ties with peoples on both sides of the mountains, regardless of linguistic affiliation.

The Serrano, and many neighboring language groups, were organized into independent but interconnected village communities. Each of these villages consisted of one or more patrilineal clans that belonged to one of two exogamous moieties, named coyote or wil dcat. The clan-based villages and the larger moiety groups maintained complex ceremonial relationships with one another. Frequently, a number of communities would combine to celebrate important festivals, harvest cycles, and other ceremonial events, occasionally inviting distant, linguistically unrelated groups.

Prior to European contact, the Serrano were hunters and gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources from the mountains, the desert, and the Mojave River, including both large and small game, as well as numerous plant resources. Large game - such as deer, mountain sheep, and pronghorn – was hunted with bow and arrow, smaller animals such as rabbits, rodents, and reptiles were taken with throwing sticks, nets, and snares. Acorns, pinyon nuts, and mesquite beans were among the staple foods, which were seasonally supplemented by chis and ricegrass seeds, roots, tubers, and various fresh greens.

The presence of a perennial water source was the determining factor in the nature, duration, and distribution of Serrano villages. Most Serrano village -hamlets “were in the foothill Upper Sonoran life - zone while a few were out on the desert floor (near permanent water sources) or in the forest Transition zone”. Small villages were more common, although there were larger villages in the Summit Valley and the Cajon Pass. Small special purpose sites, such as temporary camps, food processing stations, and lithic Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-7
procurement areas, were located as needed. The Serrano who inhabited the San Bernardino Mountains would inhabit the milder areas of Apple Valley and Lucerne Valley during the winter and the area in and around Baldwin Lake during the summer.

In the early literature, there are only occasional references to the Project study area and the Native Americans who once lived there, although contact with Europeans may have occurred as early as 1771.

By 1806, the Serrano were recruited into the mission systems and most of them were removed from their homelands to the missions. Missionization led to the loss of their native lifeways; although, northeast of the San Gorgonio Pass, Serrano culture survived.

By 1975, most Serrano lived on two southern California reservations (Morongo and San Manuel), where with other native Californians, they participated in ceremonial and political affairs on a pan -reservation.

According to Bean and Smith, at the time of the writing, only slightly over 100 people claimed Serrano descent, reduced from a pre-contact figure between 1,500 and 2,500, and even fewer speak their native language; however, all recall with pride their history. Ethnic identity is strong and they remain a readily identifiable cultural entity.

Brief History of Rialto
In 1769, Spanish explorers established Mission San Gabriel in what is presently eastern Los Angeles County. The area that is now known as Rialto was under Spanish rule as part of the Mission San Gabriel lands until 1822, when Mexico gained its independence from Spain. After independence, Mexican land grants further divided the land into ranchos. Rancho San Bernardino (37,700 acres), granted to the Lugo family, encompassed present-day Rialto. In 1848, the United States took over the Mexican rancho land in California.

Typical of many San Bernardino County towns, the area that would one day become Rialto was a fertile agricultural area, due to the warm, dry climate. The beginnings of southern California’s citrus culture can be traced to the Mission San Gabriel; an orange grove encompassing six acres was planted on mission lands in 1804. In 1841, William Wolfskill used seedlings from the San Gabriel orchard to plant his own larger orchard. Wolfskill is credited with establishing citrus commercially. Small ranching operations were established in the Rialto area in the mid -nineteenth century. In 1887, the first railroad connection was established, and the land that now comprises Rialto was purchased by the Semi -Tropic Land and Water Company. The company named the community Ri alto and began development in the area. Shortly thereafter, a group of midwestern Methodists immigrated to Rialto and furthered its development.

By the late nineteenth century, Rialto was a typical small southern California agricultural community for which citrus was the main crop. In 1890, the Grapeland Irrigation District was formed to capture and utilize the waters of Lytle Creek, encouraging settlement and fruit farming north of the Fontana and Rialto areas, formerly known as Grapeland. In the 1880s, the community of Grapeland, covering approximately 10,600 acres, consisted of a school, post office, and commercial businesses, as well as small ra nches along Lytle Creek Road. The water works consisted of the former Sierra Vista Reservoir built by Chinese laborers in 1886 and various irrigation canals, conduits, and tunnels. The study area falls within the Grapeland Irrigation District boundaries.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-8
In 1893, the community contained approximately 35 homes with 250 residents, a few local businesses, and a three-story Hotel del Rialto. The first citrus packing house was built in 1894, and a citrus association was established. Rialto was officially incorp orated in 1911 by the Chamber of Commerce, with 1,500 residents and 40 businesses comprising the small town. The area on Riverside Avenue between Santa Fe station and First Street housed most businesses. Those businesses included the bank, four real estate agencies, a few grocery stores, two meat markets, two department stores, two barbershops, a weekly newspaper (Rialto Record), two garages, and two telephone companies. On the southeast corner of Riverside Avenue and First Street stood the J. H. Crowder Building occupied by a grocery store, which has since been demolished. On the west side of Riverside Avenue stood the offices of the Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company. The First National Bank of Rialto opened its new building in February 1908 on the northwest corner of Riverside and Rialto avenues. In 1913, Rialto’s Light and Power Company was sold to California Electric Power Company.

Citrus agriculture was the most important industry to Rialto in the twentieth century. Connections to improved transportation resulted in steady growth, as the small agricultural community was able to expand the markets for their local product. In addition to the Santa Fe railroad connection, in 1914 Los Angeles’ Pacific Electric Railway completed the San Bernardino Line through the City of Rialto. Improved transportation through Rialto not only included the rail line but also the repaving of Foothill Boule vard (the main east -west transportation route) in 1913, which eventually became part of United States Highway 66, better known as the transnational Route 66. With these improved transportation connections, small local agricultural operations developed into a robust citrus packing industry with at least seven citrus packing houses located along the Santa Fe railroad tracks. A fire in the 1920s destroyed many of the buildings in downtown Rialto.

As a result of post-World War II expansion and the general population boom in southern California, Rialto also became a bedroom/commuter community to larger cities in the county and region. Between 1950 and 1980, the population of Rialto grew tenfold from 3,156 to 330,500. Today, with a population of around 100,000, only a few acres of the original citrus land are in active use, and Rialto is supported by several large retail distribution centers.

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the federal government, acting through the United States Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, maintains an inventory of historic and archaeological resources — referred to as the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) — that are worthy of preservation based on meeting certain criteria. The N HPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed action affects a property that is included or may be eligible for inclusion, on the NRHP. The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA.

The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-9
indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” ( Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 §60.2). To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance) is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following four established criteria:
▪ Criterion A: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
▪ Criterion B: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ▪ Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; ▪ Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Eligible properties meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property.

State Regulations
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
In 1992, Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 was signed into law establishing the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. Eligibility for the CRHR is determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation in a formal review process in which a resource is proposed for listing. A resource deemed eligible for the NRHP is typically deemed eligible for the CRHR. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included in the CRHR, including California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the NRHP, as well as State Landmarks and State Points of Interest. The CRHR is maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation’s State Historic Preservation Officer.

For a historic resource to be listed, the resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-10
California Public Resources Code
The PRC establishes the definition and criteria for historical resources. “Historical resources,” according to PRC Section 5020.1(j), “includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annuals of California.” Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “[g]enerally, a resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
CEQA has established statutory requirements for the formal review and analysis of projects that fall under its jurisdiction. CEQA maintains that any property listed in, determined, or found eligible for listing in the CRHR is considered to be a “historical resource” and shall be considered historically significant. Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.”
The Lead Agency must concurrently determine whether a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource (as defined in PRC §21083.2[b]) and, if so, must make reasonable efforts to permit the resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbe d. An archaeological resource must be determined to be “unique” or “historic” for an impact to the resource to be considered significant. Section 21083.2(g) of CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be demonstrated that without merely adding to the existing body of archaeological knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If a resource is neither unique nor historical, the effects of a project on that resource will not be considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c)(4)).

Regional and Local Regulations
City of Rialto General Plan
Project relevant General Plan policies for cultural resources are addressed below. Where inconsistencies exist, if any, they are addressed in the respective impact analysis below.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-11
Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Resources Element
Goal 7-1 Preserve Rialto’s significant historical resources as a source of community identity, stability, aesthetic character, and social value.

Policy 7-1.1 Protect the architectural, historical, agricultural, open space, environmental, and archaeological resources in Rialto.

Policy 7-1.2 Identify, through appropriate research and surveys, the historical resources in Rialto through documentation and photography.

Goal 7-3 Identify, document, and protect significant archaeological resources in Rialto.

Policy 7-3.1 Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all projects in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.

Policy 7-3.2 Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.

Policy 7-3.4 Actively pursue a comprehensive survey program to identify, document, and protect prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and sites containing Native American human remains.
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 2016 RSPA area would require ground -disturbing monitoring and earth work shall be surveyed and recorded, prior to and during ground-disturbing activities.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Chapter 2.20 Historical Preservation Commission
Chapter 2.20 of the Municipal Code establishes the Historical Preservation Commission. The commission is authorized to make recommendations, decisions and determinations concerning the designation, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of these historical, and cultural resources which contribute to the culture and aesthetic values of the City. Government Code Section 37361 empowers cities to adopt regulations and incentives for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-12
use of such places, buildings, structures and other objects. The adoption of reasonable and fair regulations is necessary as a means of recognition, documentation, preservation and maintenance of resources of cultural, aesthetic, or historical significance. Such regulation serves as a means to integrate the preservation of resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development process, and to identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses. Chapter 2.20 is intended to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan.

4.4.4 Methodology
An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historic Resources Inventory System on October 19, 2022 by ASM, and included the project site and a one-miles radius around the site (Appendix E). The search included a review of all recorded archaeological and built -environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. Historic aerial photographs and historic USGS topographic maps of the project s ite were consulted. A pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted by ASM. Field methods consisted of a pedestrian survey of accessible areas on the project site using transects spaced at 15-meter intervals.

SCCIC Records Results
A total of 26 previous reports were identified within the one-mile search radius of the project site. None of the previous studies include the project site.

The records search identified 12 previously documented cultural resources within the one -mile search radius and include historic refuse, buildings, structures, infrastructure, water conveyance -related features, and the Art Scholl Municipal Airport. None of the previously documented cultural resources are located within the project site.

Historical Image Research
Historical aerials of the project site are available for 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1968, 1980, 1985, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. Historic topographic maps of the project site are available for 1896, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1926, 1936, 1938, 1941, 1943, 1946, 1955, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1988, 1999, 2012, 2015, and 2018. Review of historical imagery of the project site concluded between 1938 and 1980, agricultural uses were pr esent on-site. By 1980, Ayala Drive appears in its current alignment. Previous structures began to appear on-site between 1980 and 1994. Agricultural uses within the project site ceased by 2002. No significant changes to the project site or surrounding area are evident in later historical imagery.

Pedestrian Archaeological Survey
During the pedestrian survey, many areas of the project site were overgrown with grasses and low flowering plants, which obscured the surface. Many of the areas of exposed ground surface were covered with gravel. An informal dirt road bisects the project site along the Miro Way alignment. Various piles of construction materials and broken concrete and asphalt were observed through the center portion of the site and along the western boundary. Modern dumping is evident along the boundaries of the site. An Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-13
encampment of at least one unhoused person was observed in the southwest corner of the site. No cultural resources were encountered during the pedestrian survey.

4.4.5 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:
▪ Would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
▪ Would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; or
▪ Would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.4-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
and
Impact 4.4-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The records search identified 26 previous studies that had been conducted within a one-mile search radius of the project site; none of the previous studies include the project site. The records search conducted for the Project identified 12 cultural resources that have been previously recorded within a one -mile radius of the project site ( Appendix E). All of the resources are historic, and include historic refuse, buildings, structures, infrastructure, water conveyance -related features, and the Art Scholl M unicipal Airport.

Further, none of these 12 resources are located within the project site. Accordingly, development of the proposed Project would not affect these historic resources. A review of historical imagery of the project site concluded the project site featured agricultural uses from 1938 to 2002. Structures began to appear on-site between 1980 and 1994 and have since been demolished.

Additionally, 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 CRHR eligible historical resources to be present on the project site. However, potentially significant impacts to cultural resources could occur in the event that unknown resources are unearthed during Project implementation.

The Project would implement Mitigation Measures (MM) CUL-1 through MM CUL-3, which would suspend all work within the vicinity (60-foot buffer) of the discovery of a previously unknown resource to halt until the find is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist , consultation with Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) , implementation of a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-14
Treatment Plan, and compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. With implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant.

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 SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 In the event that archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manu el Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacte d, as detailed in MM TCR-1, regarding any pre -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Plan), the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and Implement the Plan accordingly.

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

Impact 4.4-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the project site. Despite the applicable regulatory framework and the relatively low likelihood of discovery, it remains possible that the Proj ect could discover human remains during subsurface activities, which could then result in the remains being inadvertently damaged. To reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level, the Project would implement MM CUL-3.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-15
Compliance with existing laws and the protocols described in MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
Further details regarding MM CUL-3 are included under Impact 4.4-2, above.

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural resources, the geographic context for cumulative analysis is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area. However; the discussion is focused on the proposed Projects potential for resulting in site-specific impact but that could contribute to a cumulative loss. Accordingly, impacts are site -specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource extends off-site, such as a historic townsite or district. With this consideration, the cumulative analyses for historical and archaeological resources considers whether the proposed Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable pr ojects, could cumulatively affect any common cultural resource.

The project site contains no known historical or archaeological resources. However, the proposed Project could result in potential site -specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological or cultural resource discovered during grading and trenching activities during construction. The combination of the proposed Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and San Bernardino County would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and County and local regul ations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation. Similar to the proposed Project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would b e likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. Thus, 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 regi on. In addition, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would reduce project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. As a result, development of the proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources.

4.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts in the event of an unanticipated discovery would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.4
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY

4.5.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) examines the existing setting as it relates to energy conservation, identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements, and presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) . This section is based on the Energy Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates ( December 2024), which is included as Appendix F.

4.5.2 Environmental Setting
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City of Rialto (City) through State- regulated public utility contracts. Over the past 15 years, California’s electricity generation has undergone a transition. Historically, California has relied heavily on oil - and gas-fired plants to generate electricity.

Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system has become more reliant on renewable energy sources (e.g., cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants). Unlike petroleum production, electricity generation is not usually tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great distances via the electrical grid. The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatts (MW). Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit, minus the amount of energy the unit consumes. Generation is typically measured in megawatt -hours (MWh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), or gigawatt-hours (GWh).

Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the Project area. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the Earth’s surface and is composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other fossil fuels (e.g., oil and coal). In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants fired by natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from othe r parts of the world. California’s natural gas-fired electric generation increased by 2 percent in 2021, accounting for 50 percent of in-State generation.1
The City’s ongoing development review process provides opportunities for privately owned utility companies to review, comment, and to provide input on all development proposals. The input facilitates

1 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2021). Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric- generation#:~:text=Total%20generation%20for%20California%20was,from%2090%2C208%20GWh%20in%202020)., accessed April 2023.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-2
a detailed project review by service purveyors to assess the potential demands for utility services on a project-by-project basis. The ability of utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project is evaluated during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by contract to update energy systems to meet any additional demand.

Energy Consumption
Energy consumption is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy consumption in California was 7,389 trillion BTUs in 2021. Of California’s total annual energy consumption in 2021, the breakdown by sector is 38 percent transportation, 23 percent industrial, 19 percent commercial, and 20 percent residential.2 Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences, commercial, and industrial uses, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2023, California’s taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) accounted for 13,564,578,025 gallons of gasoline.3 The County’s electricity consumption from 2011 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022. As indicated in Table 4.5-1, the County’s energy consumption has steadily increased between 2012 and 2022.

Table 4.5-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2012 14,308
2013 14,315
2014 14,680
2015 14,685
2016 14,902
2017 15,237
2018 15,326
2019 15,259
2020 15,910
2021 16,169
2022 16,630
Source: Appendix F
The County’s natural gas consumption from 201 2 to 202 2 is shown in Table 4.5-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 201 2-2022. As shown in Table 4.5-2, the County’s natural gas consumption relatively increased from 2012 to 2022.

2 United States Energy Information Administration. (2023). California State Profile and Energy Estimates, California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2020, https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed October 2024. 3 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (2023). 2022 – Motor Vehicle Fuel 10 Year Reports, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-3
Table 4.5-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2012 489
2013 511
2014 469
2015 485
2016 494
2017 493
2018 500
2019 547
2020 527
2021 561
2022 562
Source: Appendix F
The County’s automotive fuel consumption from 2011 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 201 2-2022. As shown in Table 4.5-3, the County’s on -road automotive fuel consumption relatively increased from 2011 to 2019, decreased in 2020, and increased again in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption generally increased since 2012.

Table 4.5-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(Construction Equipment) (gallons)
2012 823,824,155 221,468,396
2013 823,575,913 231,100,540
2014 833,908,390 233,757,358
2015 862,282,542 236,687,334
2016 886,951,688 251,535,041
2017 894,270,493 263,723,118
2018 894,127,745 259,783,109
2019 894,821,914 261,139,639
2020 763,765,305 265,477,739
2021 869,262,611 272,787,528
2022 867,249,837 276,240,473
Source: Appendix F

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110 -140) was signed into law by former President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-4
and storage. Under the EISA, the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2) was expanded in several key ways:
▪ Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; ▪ Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billon gallons by 2022; ▪ Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each; and
▪ Required United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each agency of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector.

The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.

State Regulations
California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non -Residential Buildings: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code)
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Ti tle 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy.

The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. On May 9, 2018, the CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2023.

The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient and nonresi dential buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy eff icient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-5
The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings are about 7 percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use about 53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 standards (2022 Energy Code). Among other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code includes updated standards in three major areas:
▪ New electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail, and grocery stores.
▪ The promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the conversion from natural gas to electricity.
▪ The expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses including high-rise multifamily residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices, (including medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants , schools, and civic uses (including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers).

The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code is the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, which took effect January 1, 2023. Projects whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.4
California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2011 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill 1109, adopted in 2007, also serves as a framework for lig hting efficiency. This bill requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards as a means to reduce average Statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50 percent from the 2 007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018. According to the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, lighting comprises approximately one -fourth of California’s electricity use while non -residential sector exterior

4 CEC. (2022). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building- energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed March 2023.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-6
lighting (parking lot, area, walkway, and security lighting) usage comprises 1.4 percent of California’s total electricity use, much of which occurs during limited occupancy periods.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the State’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The CPUC subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then -Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent rene wable energy by 2020. In September 2009, then‐Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S‐21‐09, which directs the California Air Resources Board under its AB 32 authority to en act regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the Stat e’s load-serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then -Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Signed in 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 revised SB 350’s goal, revising it to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a furthe r goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Regional and Local Regulations
City of 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 goals and policies identified below include conservation techniques to reduce energy use and minimize depletion of energy resources. Chapter 2 of the General Plan describes the conservation goals and policies that the City has identified for implementation to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community.

Sustainable Building Practices and Energy Conservation
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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-7
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.

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.
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 SCE provides electrical services to the 2010 RSP area and SoCalGas provides natural gas services to the 2010 RSP. 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 development of the 2016 RSPA area. The 2016 RSPA would be adequately served by the existing dry utility services of the 2010 RSP.

4.5.4 Methodology
This section analyzes energy use on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project, including electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development, as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of the Project’s electricity and natural gas use is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of CalEEMod are included in Appendix F to this SEIR. Modeling related to Project energy use was based primarily on the default settings in CalEEMod. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CalEEMod outputs for the Project and CARB Emissions Factor (EMFAC) 2021 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.

4.5.5 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 potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or ▪ Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-8
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

The analysis relies upon State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which includes the following criteria:
▪ Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal.

If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. ▪ Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
▪ Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
▪ Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. ▪ Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources. ▪ Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.5-1 Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction-Related Energy
The energy associated with Project construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for dust control; diesel fuel from on -road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off -road construction diesel equipment; and gasoline fuel from on -road worke r commute trips. Because construction activities typically do not require natural gas, it is not included in the following discussion. The methodology for each category is discussed below. This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix F. Energy consumption associated with the proposed Project is summarized in Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-9
Table 4.5-4: Energy Use During Construction
Project Source
Total
Construction
Energy4
San Bernardino
County Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Electricity Use
Water1 0.0111 GWh 16,630 GWh <0.0001%
Diesel Use
On-Road Construction Trips2 52,827
gallons
281,399,849
gallons

0.0188%
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 50,918
gallons 0.0181%
Construction Diesel Total 103,745
gallons 0.0369%
Gasoline Use
On-Road Construction Trips 23,531
gallons
828,612,797
gallons 0.0028%
Notes:

1. Construction water use based on acres disturbed per day during grading and site preparation and estimated water use per acre.

2. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 in San Bernardino County for construction year 2024.

3. Construction fuel use was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.

4. Total Construction Energy is the combined energy usage over approximately 15 months of construction.

Source: Appendix F
Electricity
Electricity use associated with water use for construction dust control is calculated based on total water use and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and treatment of water. The total number of gallons of water used is calculated based on acreage disturbed during grading and site preparation, as well as the daily watering rate per acre disturbed.
▪ The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 4.2 of Appendix C of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/. ▪ The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from the Air and Waste Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual (1992).

The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. As summarized in Table 4.5-4, the total electricity demand associated with water use for construction dust control would be approximately 0.0111 GWh over the duration of construction.

Petroleum Fuel
The diesel fuel associated with on -road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon (MPG). VMT for the entire construction period is calculated based on the number of trips multiplied by the trip lengths for each phase shown in CalEEMod. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-10
from the Climate Registry. In summary, the total diesel fuel associated with on -road construction trips would be approximately 52,827 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project.

Similarly, the construction diesel fuel associated with the off -road construction equipment is calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The total diesel fuel associated with off -road construction equip ment is approximately 50,918 gallons for duration of buildout of the Project.

The gasoline fuel associated with on -road construction mobile trips is calculated based on VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in MPG using the same methodo logy as the construction on -road trip diesel fuel calculation discussed above. The total gasoline fuel associated with on -road construction trips would be approximately 23,531 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project.

Construction Energy Use Conclusion
In total, construction of the Project would use approximately 0.0111 GWh of electricity, 23,531 gallons of gasoline, and 103,745 gallons of diesel. In 2022, San Bernardino County used 16,630 GWh of electricity.

Project construction electricity use would represent less than 0.0001 percent of the current electricity use in San Bernardino County.

In 2025, the year Project construction is anticipated to commence, San Bernardino County is anticipated to use approximately 828,612,797 gallons of gasoline and approximately 281,399,849 gallons of diesel fuel. During construction, gasoline fuel consumption would constitute 0.0028 percent of average annual gasoline usage in the County and diesel fuel consumption would constitute 0.0369 percent of average annual diesel used in the County capacity (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 1). Based on the Project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to annual County use, the Project would not substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources. New capacity or additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be required.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction demand.

SCE’s total energy sales are projected to be 103,561 GWh of electricity in 2025. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related annual electricity consumption of 0.0111 GWh would represent less than 0.0001 percent of SCE’s projected annual sales (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 1). Thus, it is anticipated that SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

Furthermore, there are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy -efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. In addition, some energy conservation would occur d uring construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-11
construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

The Project would have construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construc tion activities using applicable regulatory guidance such as from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulati ons, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in- use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 4). This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices. Subs tantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non -recycled materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional dema nd for construction materials (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 5). It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the costs of business.

The Project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by less than one percent. It should be noted that the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and Appendix F criteria require the Project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction fuel demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2). Additionally, use of construction fuel would be temporary and would cease once the Project is fully developed. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

As stated above, there are no unusual characteristics that necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction energy use associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Operational Energy
The energy consumption associated with Project operations would occur from building energy (electricity and natural gas) use, water use, and transportation -related fuel use. The Project is anticipated to be Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-12
operational in 2026. The Project’s annual energy use during operations is shown in Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations. The methodology for each category is discussed below. It should be noted that Project maintenance would include activities such as repair of the warehouse buildings, landscaping, and architectural coatings, which could potentially use electricity and petroleum-based fuels. Energy uses related to Project maintenance activities are assumed to be included as part of Project operations.

Table 4.5-5: Annual Energy Use During Operations
Project
Source
Project
Annual
Energy
Consumption
San
Bernardino
County
Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage
of
Countywide
Consumptio
n
Project
Annual
Energy
Consumptio
n
San
Bernardino
County
Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Unmitigated Mitigated
Electricity Use
Area1,3 2.2610 GWh
16,630
GWh

0.0136% 0.0000
GWh
16,630
GWh

0.0000%
Water1 0.6880 GWh 0.0041% 0.6880
GWh 0.0041%
Total
Electricity 2.949 GWh 0.0177% 0.6880
GWh 0.0041%
Natural Gas Use
Area1,3 81,502ther
ms
562,123,06
5 therms 0.0145% 81,480
therms
562,123,06
5 therms 0.0145%
Diesel Use
Mobile2 469,346
gallons
281,589,28
9 gallons 0.1667% 469,346
gallons
281,589,28
9 gallons 0.1667%
Gasoline Use
Mobile2,4 116,733
gallons
811,280,39
0 gallons 0.0144% 116,733
gallons
811,280,39
0 gallons 0.0144%
Notes:

1. The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on Project-specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults.

2. Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet-average fuel consumption (in gallons per mile) from EMFAC2021 for operational year 2025.

3. Mitigated energy consumption includes implementation of MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions and MM GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards (refer Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

4. Mitigated energy consumption includes implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AIR-2 (refer to Appendix B).

Source: Appendix F
The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT calculated for the analyses within CalEEMod and average fuel efficiency from the EMFAC model. As summarized in Table 4.5-5, the Project’s total unmitigated gasoline and diesel fuel would be approximately 116,733 gallons per year and 469,346 gallons per year, respectively. The Project would implement MM AIR-2, which would reduce fuel consumption. MM AIR-2 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. It should be noted that energy consumption values shown in Table 4.5-5 conservatively do not include reductions from MM AIR-2.

The key drivers of transportation -related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed Project. However, the Project would include on -site electric vehicle charging stations in parking lots in compliance with CALGreen Tier 2 standards implemented through Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-13
MM GHG-2. This would encourage and support the use of electric vehicles by workers and visitors of the proposed Project and thus reduce the petroleum fuel consumption ( CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5 and Criterion 6). It should be noted that a reduction in petroleum fuel consumption was not accounted for in the project operational automotive fuel consumption identified in Table 4.5-5. This is due to the speculative nature of assuming a quantitative reduction in fuel consumption generated by the electric vehicle charging stations. As such, the Project operational automotive fuel consumption identified in Table 4.5-5 is considered conservative.

The Project would also reduce fuel consumption through implementation of MM AIR-2 from the Project’s Air Quality Assessment ( CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5 and Criterion 6 ). MM AIR-2 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit.

It should be noted that energy consumption values shown in Table 4.5-5 conservatively do not include reductions from MM AIR-2.

The electricity use during Project operation is based on CalEEMod defaults. The Project’s total unmitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 2.949 GWh of electricity onsite per year. The electricity associated with operational water use is estimated based on the annual water use and the energy intensity factor is the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County.

Project area water use is based on the CalEEMod default rates. The Project would use approximately 102 million gallons annually of water annually which would require approximately 0.6880 GWh per year for conveyance and treatment. As discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix G, the Project would implement MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, which would also reduce electricity consumption (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 5). MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions and MM GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards. With implementation of MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2, the total mitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 0.6880 GWh per year.

The methodology used to calculate the natural gas use associated with the Project is based on CalEEMod default rates. The Project’s total unmitigated natural gas consumption would be approximately 81,502 therms per year. The Project would implement MM GHG-2, which would reduce natural gas consumption.

MM GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards (CEQA Appendix F- Criterion 5). With implementation of MM GHG-2, the total mitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 81,480 therms per year.

Operational Energy Use Conclusion
As shown in Table 4.5-5, the Project’s electricity, natural gas, and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is minimal (less than one percent) (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 1). For the reasons described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2 and Criterion 3). The Project would also reduce fuel, electricity, and natural gas consumption though implementation of MM GHG-1 (photovoltaic solar panels), MM GHG-2 (CALGreen Tier 2 standards), and MM AIR-2 (TDM Program) (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 5 and Criterion 6). Thus, the Project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project operations or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. Therefore, impacts associated with operational energy use would be less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-14
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.

Mitigation Program
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment SEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are applicable.

Project Mitigation Measures
See Section 4. 2, Air Quality , for further discussion on MM AIR-2 and Section 4. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for further discussion on MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2.

Impact 4.5-2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings based on a State mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envel ope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.

Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per State regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have: sensor-based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light, and efficient process equipmen t—improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.

Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills, mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency, low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards, and a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.

The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, State, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 4) . 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-15
applicable. Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered 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.

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project would result in the consumption of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful manner. The proposed Project would not require the expansion of energy ca pacity or supplies and would therefore not lead to any significant impacts. As shown in Table 4.5-5, the Project’s electricity, natural gas, and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is minimal (less than one percent) and n ew capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required.

The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative Project area would also be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, State, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy use.

Potential land use impacts are site -specific and require evaluation on a case -by-case basis. As note d above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

4.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential energy impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.5
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-1

4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.6.1 Introduction
This section of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) includes a summary of the state of climate change regulations, a description of the existing state of the science of climate change; an inventory of the approximate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result from the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project ( proposed Project or Project) ; a discussion of the significance threshold used to evaluate the impact of these GHG emissions; and an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts to which these GHGs would contribute. The description and analyses in this sec tion are based on information contained in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP) Environmental Impact Report ( EIR), and in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates (December 2024) and included as Appendix G.

4.6.2 Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.

This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the Earth as low -frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit rad iation are proportional to temperature. Because the Earth h as a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower -frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is inst ead “trapped”, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human -caused emissions of G HGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change of global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one d ay), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO 2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human -caused CO 2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human -caused CO 2 emissions remain stored in the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-2
atmosphere.1 Table 4.6-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

Table 4.6-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities.

Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide
(N2O)
N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human - related sources of N 2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N 2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N 2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.

Methane
(CH4)
CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off -gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major componen t of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human -related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management.

Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production an d semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbon
s (CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. (2013). In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-3
Table 4.6-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluoroc
arbons
(HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100 -year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.

Source: Appendix G

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which will aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
▪ Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. ▪ Set a target of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium - and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
▪ Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, elect ric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-4
United States Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the United States Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Responding to the Court’s ruling, the United States EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO 2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the United States EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the United States EPA’s regulatory actions.

Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the United States Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order (EO) 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the United States EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non -road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the United States EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, United States EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the United States EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017-2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.

On January 12, 2017, the United States EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the United States EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the United States EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

According to the United States EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the United States EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy -duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021–2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-5
final standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

Presidential Executive Orders 13990 and 14008
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis". Executive Order 13990 directs Federal agencies to immediately review and take action to ad dress the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions that conflict with these important national objectives and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis. Executive Order 13990 directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to review CEQ’s 2020 regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and identify necessary changes or actions to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13990.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad," to declare the Administration’s policy to move quickly to build resilience, both at home and abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifested and will continue to intensify according to current trajectories. In line with these Executive Order directives, CEQ is reviewing the 2020 NEPA regulations and plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to identify necessary revisions in order to comply with the law; meet the environmental, climate change, and environmental justice objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008; ensure full and fair public involvement in the NEPA process; provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders; and promote better decision making consistent with NEPA’s statutory requirements. This phase 1 rulemaking will propose a narrow set of changes to the 2020 NEPA regulations to address these goals.

State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long -term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013.

In the State, the transportation sect or is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any State in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 , was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.

Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-6
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

California Air Resource Board 2017 Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would requir e a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business -as-usual”). The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap -and-trade program. Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
▪ Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
▪ Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. ▪ Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted 2011).
▪ Establishing targets for transportation -related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
▪ Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards , heavy -duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2017), good movement measures, and the Low Carbon Standard (adopted 2009). ▪ Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
▪ The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-7
▪ CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrated how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next 15 years. The Mobile Source Strategy includes increasing new zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.

In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business -as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place.

When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32.

In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017 , CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan .2 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investm ent in disadvantaged communities; and, support the Clean Power Plan and other federal actions. 2022 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high global warming potential (GWP); providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil -fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new option s 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

2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-8
threshold and 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 transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s singl e largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of ne w regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the State in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on residential and mixed-use Projects. CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.

As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

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

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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-9
Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in EO B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planni ng organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the United States EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The United States EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009 –2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities.

SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power pla nt. The new law effectively prevents Califo rnia’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.

The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017.

SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. EO S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-10
Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10 -23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in elect ricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.

AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regul atory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that sev erely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provide s for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost -effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off -road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and ai r quality Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-11
management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 8 5 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.

SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.

SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.

AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S -3-05 was issued o n June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
▪ By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
▪ By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
▪ By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-12
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, EO S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life -cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08
Issued on November 14, 2008, EO S -13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strate gies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S-14-08
Issued on November 17, 2008, EO S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, EO S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewa ble energy by 2020.

CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly-owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S-21-09
Issued on July 17, 2009, EO S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, a nd SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15
Issued on April 29, 2015, EO B -30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMT CO2e). The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by EO S -3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.6
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.6-13
Executive Order B-55-18
Issued on September 10, 2018, EO B -55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant State agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires State agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

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

Rialto City CouncilJanuary 13, 2026

Rialto City Council
January 13, 2026