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

Miro Way and Ayala Drive
Project
Impact Report SCH No. 2024070224

CITY OF RIALTO
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
August 2025
Final Subsequent Environmental
TO,
-Bridge to Progremn" O
<
“On TED s0
Kimley»»Horn
6 OY

1. %
l

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE PROJECT

FINAL SUBSEQUENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 2024070224
Prepared for City of Rialto
150 Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
Prepared by Kim ley-Horn and Associates
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92101
Date August 2025
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents City of Rialto i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .............................1-1

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

1.2 Project Summary..............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Project Objectives............................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Required Actions and Permits .........................................................................................1-2

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction to Comments and Responses.....................................................................2-1

2.2 List of Respondents..........................................................................................................2-2

2.3 Responses to Comments .................................................................................................2-3

3.0 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT SEIR .........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Introduction to the Errata................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Changes to the Draft SEIR................................................................................................3-1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................4-1

4.1 Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................4-1

4.2 Organization.....................................................................................................................4-2 Attachment 1: Revised Biological Technical Report (July 2025) Attachment 2: Traffic Study (no revisions, stamped copy included for reference) Attachment 3: 2040 Horizon Year VMT Screening Tool Results Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents City of Rialto ii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report City of Rialto 1-1

1.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rialto (City) has determined that a subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) is required for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (proposed Project or Project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "proposed Project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

A Subsequent EIR (SEIR) is prepared when there have been substantial changes to the project, the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, or new information has surfaced that was not known during the preparation of the original EIR. An SEIR focuses on the new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that may arise due to these changes.

The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a SEIR for the proposed Project on July 8, 2024 to affected agencies, interested parties, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on August 1, 2024 at 6:00 PM at the Rialto City Hall, Council Chambers. The scoping period occurred from July 8, 2024 to August 7, 2024. A Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft SEIR) was prepared. The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR on March 21, 2025, inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was also mailed to various agencies, organizations, and individuals that had previously requested such notice. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2024070224) pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA.

This Final SEIR was prepared to address comments received in response to the Draft SEIR. Acting as lead agency, the City has prepared a written response to the Draft SEIR; textual changes to the Draft SEIR were not warranted. The responses to the comments are set forth in Section 2.0 in this Final SEIR. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not require any new information to be added to the SEIR, thus the Final SEIR does not contain any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The project site islocated directly west of Ayala Drive, approximately 450 feet north of Baseline Road, and east of Linden Avenue within the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Area (RSPA), in the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California. The project site consists of approximately 35-acre vacant and undeveloped land and ranges in elevation from 1,385 to 1,420 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The project site has a Rialto General Plan (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 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) area. Under the 2016 RSPA, 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 Project would include the rezone of Planning Area 123 (north Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report City of Rialto 1-2
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 industrial land use designation. The rezone described herein would be processed as an amendment to the Renaissance Specific Plan to change the Renaissance Specific Plan land use category for these Planning Areas. The Project proposes approximately 399,715 sf of warehouse space and 29,000 sf of ancillary office space. The warehouse development consists of Accessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0264-211-15 and -20; 0264-212-12; -17; -30; -44; -45; -46; and portions of 0264-212-05 and -06.

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 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.
▪ 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 REQUIRED ACTIONS AND PERMITS
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 SEIR.

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 1.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report City of Rialto 1-3
City of Rialto
▪ Certification of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
▪ Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment: The proposed 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 (TPM): The proposed Project includes a TPM for the approximately 20.76- acre project site.
▪ Conditional Development Permit (CDP): The proposed Project includes a CDP for the development of two warehouse buildings, which is considered a conditionally permitted use in the Business Center zone within the City.
▪ Amended Development Agreement (DA): The proposed Project would include an amendment to the previous DA with the City for the development of the project site. ▪ Precise Plan of Design (PPD): The proposed Project includes the review of a PPD for two warehouse buildings totaling up to approximately 399,715 sf of warehouse space and 29,000 sf of office space. The total site area is approximately 20.76 acres.

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 may include but are not limited to haul route permits, 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.

1.4.1 1.4.2
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 1.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report City of Rialto 1-4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-1

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The purpose of this section is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number (SCH# 2024070224)) for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive (proposed Project or Project) located in the City of Rialto (City). The Draft SEIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Rialto on March 21, 2025 for a 45- day review period ending on May 5, 2025.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Rialto, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Draft SIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.

The Final SEIR for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project consists of the Draft SEIR and its technical appendices; the Responses to Comments included herein; other written documentation prepared during the EIR process; and those documents which may be modified by the City Council at the time of consideration of certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council would also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a Statement of Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.

This Response to Comments is organized as follows:

Section 2.1 Provides a brief introduction to this section.

Section 2.2 Identifies the Draft SEIR commenters.

Section 2.3 Provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft SEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.

Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204(d) states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e) states, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-2
“This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR.

2.2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft SEIR received as of close of the public review period on May 5, 2025.

The City of Rialto received comment letters from two agencies and two organizations. Responses are provided as shown below.

Commenter
Date of
Correspondence
Page
No.

Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife May 5, 2025 2-5 California Department of Transportation May 5, 2025 2-41 Organizations
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice May 2, 2025 2-51 Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC) April 30, 2025 2-57
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-3

2.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Responses to comment letters are included in the following pages.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
A-1 A-1-1 A-1-2
2-5
0)2
conut
May 5, 2025
Dear Daniel Casey:

CDFW ROLE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Lewis-Hillwood Rialto Company, LLC and City of Rialto CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

Objective: The 35-acre Project site is located within the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) area (SCH# 2006071021), and proposes to rezone Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be rezoned from Public Park and Employment to a Business Center that would allow for the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings, Building 1 would be 53,640 square feet (sf) and Building 2 approximately 375,075 sf, on a 20.76 acre site. Warehouse development activities include associated landscaping totaling 155,000 sf, outdoor lighting, and on- and off-site improvements that are comprised of the reconfiguration and construction of Miro Way and Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. {Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

State of California - Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (PROJECT)

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR)
SCH# 2024070224
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
ElDe s coner,.D*e
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DSEIR from the City of Rialto for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
A-1-2 continued A-1-3
A-1-4 A-1-5 A-1-6
2-6

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMENT 1: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
DSEIR Section 4.3, Page 22-23
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Rialto in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. associated street improvements, and utility and roadway improvements north of Miro Way and within the right-of-way of Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive. The construction footprint for proposed activities and off-site improvements totals 27.19 acres. 2 California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). 2012 Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resource Agency. BUOW Staff Report Final 030712.pdf.

Planning Area 123 would be rezoned from School to General Commercial with a Residential Overlay. No development of Planning Area 123 is proposed as part of the Project.

Location: The Project is located within the south-eastern region of the RSPA, west of Ayala Drive, east of Linden Avenue, 215 feet north of Baseline Road, and 0.65 miles south of the State Route 210, in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 0264-211-15 and 20, 0264-212-12, -17, -30, -44-46, -54. The latitude and longitude for the Project are 34.124582, -117.398001.

Timeframe: The DSEIR states the Project is expected to commence in 2025 with a construction duration of approximately 13 months and would be completed in one phase of construction.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

Specific impact: The DSEIR indicates that focused burrowing owl surveys were completed during the breeding season, however, the dedicated burrowing owl section does not provide survey dates, if surveys were repeated in separate years, the numbers of owls observed on-site and within adjacent areas, and the protocols used.

To address this absence of data, the burrowing owl survey methods and findings from the Biological Technical Report (BTR), Appendix D, prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting (March 2025) should be incorporated into the DSEIR to comply with CEQA requirements of meaningful disclosure regarding environmental impacts. The BTR indicates that focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the breeding season, using breeding survey protocols set forth in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012)2, on February 16, April 26, June 12, and July 3, 2023, and further discloses that two owls were present on-site during the initial survey, and absent during the subsequent surveys.

The DSEIR states (pg 4.3-22) “Burrowing owl (State candidate for listing under CEQA) was detected on-site during focused surveys and has potential to inhabit the site in the future;[...]The project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl. No burrowing owl, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed during 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." Given that burrowing owls are known to be adaptable and can utilize highly degraded and marginal habitats where existing Issue: Western burrowing owl is a candidate species protected under CESA, and as such is granted the full protection of a threatened or endangered species under CESA.

The Project has the potential to result in permanent and temporary loss and degradation of burrowing owl habitat and take of the species. CDFW is concerned that impacts to burrowing owls and how they utilize the Project site are not adequately identified nor fully defined in the DSEIR.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

burrows are available, and that the species has been observed both on-site and within the immediate area, in addition to historic colony documentation within the RSPA, the Project site has a high potential to support burrowing owls.

In addition to the 2023 focused breeding season surveys, two general biological surveys were conducted on October 11, 2022, and July 31, 2024. Although no signs of burrowing owls were detected during these two surveys, the surveys were implemented outside the species' peak breeding season (April 15 - July 15) with an insufficient survey methodology (not protocol focused). As such, the results of these surveys are not reliable indicators of burrowing owl presence or absence and should not be considered conclusive evidence of how the site is currently being used by the species.

To properly assess site usage, annual focused surveys during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons would need to be completed to accurately determine site utilization and scope of impacts due to Project implementation. It is important to note that failure to locate burrowing owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied.

CDFW appreciates that focused breeding survey methods employed did adhere to the guidelines outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, although additional focused surveys would have been beneficial following the positive sighting of burrowing owls during the initial survey. Additional surveys following the positive observation could have allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of site utilization by determining if the owls were migratory or year-round residents, estimation of the home ranges of each individual or family units, further assessment of which burrows were being occupied, and estimation of foraging areas. Moreover, detailed information on what behavior and activity of the burrowing owls present should have been provided in the BTR.

Lastly, the DSEIR asserts that implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures BIO1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D, to address Project impacts to burrowing owls would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation. CDFW would like to emphasize that these measures are intended to minimize and avoid impacts, but they may not provide adequate mitigation. CDFW recommends the City mitigate as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, which states that "current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence or burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow''. The 2012 Staff Report considers a site occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed onsite within the last three years. The DSEIR does not provide or propose mitigation to ensure the permanent conservation of equivalent or greater habitat for burrowing owls, a CESA candidate species, to compensate for habitat loss, and as such recommends the City requires the Project proponent to purchase and to conserve in-perpetuity similar habitat nearby and revise the DSEIR to include this information. If the DSEIR is recirculated without addressing these mitigation concerns, CDFW recommends the impact analysis to the burrowing owls be elevated to Potentially Significant Impacts.

Why impact would occur: Burrowing owls are well-adapted to open, relatively flat expanses and vacant lots and prefer habitats with generally short sparse vegetation with few shrubs such as those occurring on the Project site. Burrowing owls are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for survival and/or reproduction, evicting the nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows may lead to indirect impacts or take. Loss of access to burrows will likely result in varying levels of increased stress on burrowing owls and could depress reproduction, increase predation, increase energetic costs, and introduce risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows. Burrowing owls are also dependent on adjacent habitat, and forage within 600 meters of nest burrow.

Page 4 ends

Burrowing Owl is granted full protection of a threatened species under CESA. If Project activities could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code,§§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. It is recommended that the RSPA EIR (2016) be amended, and impacts to burrowing owl be reevaluated and reassessed. It is important to note that CDFW has physical documentation of two separate instances, within the RSPA, where during groundbreaking activities, actively used burrows were collapsed by the construction crew and the designated biologist were not aware until afterwards. Given these two incidences, there is a probability that past projects may have operated similarly, and CEQA mitigation measures set in place to mitigate for burrowing owls may have had laxed enforcement, and therefore not mitigated to the extent feasible.

The Renaissance Specific Plan encompasses a total of 1,445.3 acres in highly suitable, and historically occupied, burrowing owl habitat. Currently, approximately 1,250 acres of the RSPA have been developed. The Project site is currently situated within one of the largest remaining intact prime habitats for burrowing owls in the City of Rialto and the last remaining vacant spaces of the RSPA. As such, implementation of the Project has the potential to contribute to a decline in the burrowing owl population and lead to local extirpation of the species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW recommends removing Mitigation Measures 3B, 3C, and 3D and strongly encourages the adoption of the following new measure, BIO-3B (edits are in stFikethFOioi§h and bold), for inclusion in the DSEIR:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3B (New)
Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owls presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction and surrounding 500 ft radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of Project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning grounddisturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the Project.

Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if avoidance is proposed. Project activities shall not occur within 1000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan,
A-1-9 continued
2-8
A-1-10
A-1-9 continued
2-9
COMMENT 2: Inadequacy of General Reconnaissance Surveys Section 4.3.4, Page 4.3-8
Why impact would occur: The lack of spring surveys may not provide the DSEIR an adequate biological baseline due to its possible lack of an accurate plant inventory, observation of migratory birds that utilize the site, if and what species occupy the site for nesting or breeding, and to fully identify and evaluate impacts to special-status species. The DSEIR also states that “twilight or nighttime surveys were not conducted”, which limits our understanding if bat species may possibly use the site for foraging, and in determining if or which nocturnal species occupy the site. Reconnaissance surveys can be used to gather general information about habitat, but it should not be used to determine the presence or absence of candidate, sensitive, or special status species If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 5 ends

Specific impact: Per the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW, March 2018)3, botanical field survey visits should be spaced throughout the growing season and multiple visits to the project area are usually required to capture the floristic diversity at a level necessary to determine the presence of special-status plant species. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting. The general reconnaissance biological surveys performed on October 11,2022 and July 31,2024 are outside the bloom period for 12 of the 33 special-status plant species. Additionally, surveys were conducted either at the beginning or late end of bloom for 5 of the 33 plant species. A focused plant survey should be conducted separately from a general biological survey to evaluate presence of special-status plan species. It is also noted that no general surveys were carried out during the spring season, which is a peak time for blooming native vegetation and increased wildlife activity, such as migratory stopover for avian species, nesting/breeding season activities, and foraging.

Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special status species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Without an accurate environmental baseline of present candidate, sensitive, or special status species and the delay in development of species avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, it is unclear if the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented by the Project Proponent will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts to a level below significant adverse effect. 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (ca.gov).

Issue: The DSEIR analysis and conclusion relies on general reconnaissance level surveys of the Project site to identify special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that could support special status species. CDFW is concerned that the two general biological surveys conducted on October 11, 2022 and July 31,2024 by Rocks Biological Consulting were insufficient in duration and timing to properly survey for special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that support special status wildlife.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 6 ends

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) To Reduce Impacts to Less Than Significant: CDFW recommends and encourages the adopting of the following new measure, BIO-5 for inclusion in the DSEIR Mitigation Measure MM BIO-5 (New):

Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory, including rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species, located within the Project footprint with the potential to be affected, including Species of Special Concern (SSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code§ 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the Project. The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a oneyear period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.

COMMENT 3: Cumulative Impacts.

Section 4.3 and 4.3.7; Page 4.3-23, 32
Issue: The DSEIR concludes, on numerous occasions, that the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources, yet it is unclear how it came to this conclusion. CDFW is concerned that the DSEIR does not provide a thorough discussion, in accordance to CEQA Guidelines, §15130, of the cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources as a result of the Project, including surrounding projects that have been completed, in process, or forthcoming.

Specific impact: In Section 4.9 of the BTR it states that "Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant." Since the adoption of the 1,445.3-acre RSPA in 2010, approximately 180 acres of vacant parcels remain. The DSEIR fails to include cumulative impacts created by the construction of the 42-acre Renaissance tract homes, a quarter mile north of the Project site, that began in late spring of 2024, and a quarter mile east of the site, the Olive Avenue Development Project (SCH 2020120036) is being proposed on a 31-acre parcel. Development of these projects further limits and narrows resources and open grassland habitat utilized by biological species, such as burrowing owls and western meadowlarks which were observed on both sites. No information regarding mitigation, for this Project, and those forthcoming or completed, is provided to offset cumulative impacts.

Continuing on Section 4.9 of the BTR, it states that "The project site is disturbed, surrounded by development, and does not support sensitive vegetation communities.

As such, the proposed project will not result in significant cumulative." A large majority of habitat in the Inland Empire has some degree of disturbance, this does not mean it is not functional or useable, and should not be the criteria in determining that no cumulative impacts will occur. Given that this site is utilizable by burrowing owls and California horned lark, designated as a watchlist species by CDFW, demonstrates that suitable habitat is present. Furthermore, DSEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 D proclaims that "A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) A-1-12
A-1-10 continued
A-1-11
2-10
A-1-14
A-1-12 continued
A-1-13
2-11
COMMENT 4: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Section 4.3.6, Page 4.3-25-26
Specific impact: The Project has the potential for take of Crotch’s bumble bee from collapsing burrows, entombment, displacement, dust from Project operations, and vegetation removal that reduces foraging and nesting habitat and habitat quality.

Evidence impact would be significant: Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate species for listing under CESA; therefore, it receives the same legal protection afforded to endangered or threatened species under CESA pursuant to Fish & Game Code §§ 2074.2 & 2085. If found on-site, the Project could result in crushing or killing Crotch’s bumble bees, reduction in sufficient food resources such as nectar and pollen, and/or removal of nesting and overwintering sites. Many bumble bees are threatened with extinction due primarily to reductions in habitat from urbanization, intensive agriculture, Why impact would occur: The Project site lacks sufficient information to fully evaluate the scope of cumulative impacts. In 2017, a consultation occurred between CDFW, City of Rialto, and Lewis-Hillwood regarding mitigation associated with Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA; 1600-2017-0016-R6) mitigation for the Renaissance Marketplace, and Buildings 5 and 6. This is the only known action undertaken to have occurred within the RSPA to date. The mitigation measures outlined in the LSA involved the permanent conservation of 50.5 acres of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitat within the Cajon Wash, as well as the acquisition of the 80-acre Lakeview property in Nuevo to facilitate the relocation of burrowing owls found on the site from San Bernardino County to Riverside County, further increasing extirpation of the species from the local area.

The absence of mitigation strategies that address collective impacts of the Project and surrounding development increases risk to sensitive species and their habitats, making cumulative effects likely more significant. The Lead Agency should provide a table of constructed projects that occurred after 2017 that have impacted burrowing owls, or overall impacts to sensitive habitat, and disclose what mitigation was prepared or secured to better accurately assess cumulative impacts the Project may create, alongside those previously constructed.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 7 ends

Issue: The Project has the potential to result in permanent and temporary loss, degradation of, and impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee habitat.

The Project may result in the take of Crotch’s bumble bee, candidate status species for listing under CESA, during the construction of the Project and the life of the Project Why impact would occur: Crotch’s bumble bee occurs primarily in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley and adjacent to foothills through most of southwestern California (Williams et. al 2014).

Crotch's bumble bee are generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flower plants. The plant families most commonly associated with Crotch’s bumble bee observations or collections from California include Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Boraginaceae and Asclepiadaceae.

Evidence impact would be significant: Cumulative impacts seem to not have been adequately addressed in the proposed Project. The loss of habitat across these interconnected developments leads to fragmentation and habitat loss that species rely on, and can impact species survivability and ability to migrate, forage, and establish new territories.
from suitable habitat areas within the Project development footprint to the maximum extent practicable immediately..". With little open space left, as the RSPA is almost built out, refugia habitat necessary for California horned lark, burrowing owls, and others will not be available in the foreseeable future, and these species will not be able to be able to be “flushed out” any further once the Plan is entirely built, as there will be no adjacent suitable habitat left.

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025
Page8
and invasive species introductions. If Crotch's bumble bee occurs at the Project site and Project impacts to Crotch's bumble bee occur, this could result in a substantial reduction in the species' population, which would be a significant impact.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW appreciates that the DSEIR provides measures to minimize the Project's impacts to Crotch's bumble bee. However, the measures, as written, may not reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Thus, CDFW strongly recommends the following revisions to BIO-2A, 2B, and 2C for inclusion in the final DSEIR.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure-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 ql:lalifiee an approved qualified Designated 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 within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch's bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure-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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch's bumble bee cannot be achieved, Project activities shall be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained. 9l:JFiRg G8RStFl:lGtieR aoti¥ities, tl:leR CDFW sl:lall be G8R6l:lltee.

Mitigation Measure-2C: Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a ql:lalifiee the approved designated biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch's bumble bee during the typical flight season (February - October), within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists, 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. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Burrowing Owl State Status Correction.

In Section 4.3, page 4.3-7 of the DSEIR, the sentence "According to the County's Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the County's Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is listed as an SSC by CDFW." should be revised to include the current status of the burrowing owls. CDFW recommends the following revision: "The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species GQ.FW."
granted protection under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.)listee as aR SSC by Native Landscaping
To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water efficient and targeted A-1-15
A-1-14 continued
A-1-16
2-12
A-1-19 A-1-17 A-1-18
A-1-16 continued
2-13

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES

CONCLUSION
Sincerely,
- D DocuSigned by:
v---- 8484F92FFEEFD24C8...

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal.

Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.) irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants, more information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at: Calscape. Water agencies/districts and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species. Additionally, some facilities display drought tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website.

Due to the issues presented in this letter, CDFW concludes that the DESIR may not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to burrowing owls, nor adequality assess cumulative impacts. Deficiencies in the Lead Agency CEQA document can affect later project approvals by CDFW in its role as a Responsible Agency. In addition, because of these issues, CDFW has concerns that Lead Agency may not have the basis to approve the project or make “findings” as required by CEQA unless the environmental document is modified to eliminate and/or mitigate significant impacts, as reasonably feasible (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15074, 15091 & 15092).

Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 9 ends

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (SCH No. 202407224) to assist the City of Rialto in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Lisa Cardoso, Environmental Scientist at [email protected].

CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Submittinq-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals. iw Fvubww
2-14
ec:

Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 10 ends

Eric Kawamura-Chan, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
A-1-20
2-15
Attachment A
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Draft Recommendations Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project.

Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation Measure (MM) Description Responsible Party
MM-BI0-3B: Burrowing Owls
Timing:

If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization Pre-Construction
Surveys: No less than
14 days prior to start
of Project-related
activities and withing
24 hours prior to
ground disturbance.

Implementation:

Project Proponent
and Qualified
Biologist
Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of Project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the Project.

Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owls presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction and surrounding 500 ft radius.

A-1-20
2-16
MM-BIO-5: Reconnaissance Surveys
MM- 2A, 2B, 2C: Crotch's Bumble Bee
Implementation:

Project Proponent
and Qualified
Biologist.

Implementation:

Project Proponent
and Qualified
Biologist
Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Mitigation Measure-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, an approved qualified Designated 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 within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and
compensatory mitigation actions. UP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required.

Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.

Timing:

Prior to commencing
ground or vegetation
disturbing activities.

Timing:

Prior to commencing
ground or vegetation
disturbing activities.

A-1-20
2-17
Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
City of Rialto
May 5, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

Mitigation Measure-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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch's bumble bee cannot be achieved, Project activities shall be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESAITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained.

Mitigation Measure-2C: Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, the approved designated biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch's bumble bee during the typical flight season (February - October), within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists, 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.

Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.
habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch's bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-18
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-19
Comment Number Comment Response
Comments from Public Agencies
Letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), dated May 5, 2025 A-1-1 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DSEIR from the City of Rialto for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and
recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G.

Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G.

This comment describes CDFW’s role as a Trustee Agency and Responsible Agency under CEQA and is an introduction to the comments included below. The comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-20
Comment Number Comment Response
Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

A-1-2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Lewis-Hillwood Rialto Company, LLC and City of Rialto Objective: The 35-acre Project site is located within the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) area (SCH# 2006071021), and proposes to rezone Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be rezoned from Public Park and Employment to a Business Center that would allow for the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings, Building 1 would be 53,640 square feet (sf) and Building 2 approximately 375,075 sf, on a 20.76 acre site. Warehouse development activities include associated landscaping totaling 155,000 sf, outdoor lighting, and on- and off-site improvements that are comprised of the reconfiguration and construction of Miro Way and associated street improvements, and utility and roadway improvements north of Miro Way and within the right-of-way of Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive. The construction footprint for proposed activities and off-site improvements totals 27.19 acres.

Planning Area 123 would be rezoned from School to General Commercial with a Residential Overlay. No development of Planning Area 123 is proposed as part of the Project.

Location: The Project is located within the south-eastern region of the RSPA, west of Ayala Drive, east of Linden Avenue, 215 feet north of Baseline Road, and 0.65 miles south of the State Route 210, in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County; Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APN] 0264- 211-15 and 20, 0264-212-12, -17, -30, -44-46, -54. The latitude and longitude for the Project are 34.124582, -117.398001.

Timeframe: The DSEIR states the Project is expected to commence in 2025 with a construction duration of approximately 13 months and would be completed in one phase of construction.

This comment is a summary of the project description provided in the Draft SEIR and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR. To clarify, the comment identifies that the project site is 215 feet north of Baseline Road; however, the project site is 450 feet north of Baseline Road, as identified on page 3- 1 of the Draft SEIR.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-21
Comment Number Comment Response
A-1-3 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Rialto in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

This comment is an introduction to the comments included below and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR. Specific comments on the Draft SEIR are provided and responded to below.

A-1-4 COMMENT 1: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
DSEIR Section 4.3, Page 22-23
Issue: Western burrowing owl is a candidate species protected under CESA, and as such is granted the full protection of a threatened or endangered species under CESA. The Project has the potential to result in permanent and temporary loss and degradation of burrowing owl habitat and take of the species. CDFW is concerned that impacts to burrowing owls and how they utilize the Project site are not adequately identified nor fully defined in the DSEIR.

As the comment notes, burrowing owl is discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR. Consistent with the comment, the Draft SEIR states that burrowing owl is currently a candidate species under the CESA as of October 10, 2024. The Draft SEIR further explains that burrowing owl was detected on-site during focused surveys and has potential to inhabit the site in the future; therefore, as stated in the Draft SEIR, this species may be impacted with Project implementation. The Draft SEIR includes burrowing owl mitigation measures, including coordination with CDFW and obtaining an incidental take permit from CDFW, if required, and determines potential impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant. The commenter’s additional comments regarding burrowing owl are provided and responded to below.

A-1-5 Specific impact: The DSEIR indicates that focused burrowing owl surveys were completed during the breeding season, however, the dedicated burrowing owl section does not provide survey dates, if surveys were repeated in separate years, the numbers of owls observed on-site and within adjacent areas, and the protocols used. To address this absence of data, the burrowing owl survey methods and findings from the Biological Technical Report (BTR), Appendix D, prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting (March 2025) should be incorporated into the DSEIR to comply with CEQA requirements of meaningful disclosure regarding environmental impacts. The BTR indicates that focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the breeding season, using breeding survey protocols set forth in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012)2, on February 16, April 26, June 12, and July 3, 2023, and further discloses that two owls were present Consistent with the comment’s suggestion, the burrowing owl survey dates were included in the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR identified specific dates and methodology of the focused burrowing owl surveys on page 4.3- 10 within the Special-Status Species Surveys discussion. In addition, as the comment correctly notes, the burrowing owl survey data was included in the Biological Technical Report for the Project prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting and included as part of the Draft SEIR as Appendix D. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, with supporting information and analyses included as appendices to the main body of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15147). Nevertheless, in response to the commenter’s suggestion, information regarding the burrowing owl surveys has also been cross referenced in the burrowing owl discussion of the Biological Resources section of the SEIR, as identified in Final SEIR Section 3, Errata. 2 California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). 2012 Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resource Agency. BUOW Staff Report Fin 030712.pdf.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-22
Comment Number Comment Response
on-site during the initial survey, and absent during the subsequent surveys.

A-1-6 The DSEIR states (pg 4.3-22) “Burrowing owl (State candidate for listing under CEQA) was detected on-site during focused surveys and has potential to inhabit the site in the future,(...)The project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl. No burrowing owl, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed during 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.” Given that burrowing owls are known to be adaptable and can utilize highly degraded and marginal habitats where existing burrows are available, and that the species has been observed both on-site and within the immediate area, in addition to historic colony documentation within the RSPA, the Project site has a high potential to support burrowing owls.

As correctly stated in the text of the Draft SEIR referenced in the comment, burrowing owl was detected on-site during focused surveys and has potential to inhabit the site in the future. Further, as explained in the Biological Resources Technical Report, included as Appendix D to the Draft SEIR, although two individual burrowing owls were observed during the first burrowing owl focused survey, no burrowing owls, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed during subsequent surveys. The portion of the text on page 4.3-22 of the Draft SEIR referenced in the comment that indicates burrowing owl was not observed during biological surveys has been corrected for clarity and consistency with the remainder of the burrowing owl discussion. The correction is included in Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR.

As noted in the comment, the Draft SEIR and the Biological Resources Technical Report included as Appendix D of the Draft SEIR explained that the absence of burrowing owl during the peak breeding season suggests that the project site is not currently used by burrowing owl for nesting. The Draft SEIR further explained, however, that there is evidence that the project site is used by burrowing owl for refuge and foraging outside of the nesting season and burrowing owl may occur on-site in the future. The Draft SEIR indicated that the project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl, based on its range, ability to establish in disturbed habitats, previous presence on site, and presence of suitable burrows, as explained in the Biological Resources Technical Report. In response to the commenter’s request, the SEIR and Biological Resources Technical Report have been updated to revise the burrowing owl’s potential to occur within the project site from moderate to high (see Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR). The revised occurrence potential does not otherwise change the analysis or conclusions in the SEIR. As identified in the Draft SEIR, Project implementation could result in direct impacts to burrowing owl in the event of death, injury, or harassment, and impacts would be significant prior to mitigation. With mitigation, impacts to burrowing owl would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-23
Comment Number Comment Response
A-1-7 In addition to the 2023 focused breeding season surveys, two general biological surveys were conducted on October 11, 2022, and July 31, 2024.

Although no signs of burrowing owls were detected during these two surveys, the surveys were implemented outside the species' peak breeding season (April 15 — July 15) with an insufficient survey methodology (not protocol focused). As such, the results of these surveys are not reliable indicators of burrowing owl presence or absence and should not be considered conclusive evidence of how the site is currently being used by the species. To properly assess site usage, annual focused surveys during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons would need to be completed to accurately determine site utilization and scope of impacts due to Project implementation. It is important to note that failure to locate burrowing owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied.

As explained in response to Comment A-1-6 above, the Draft SEIR stated that there is evidence that the project site is used by burrowing owl for refuge and foraging outside of the nesting season and burrowing owl may occur on-site in the future. The Draft SEIR indicated that the project site has moderate potential to support burrowing owl, based on its range, ability to establish in disturbed habitats, previous presence on site, and presence of suitable burrows, as explained in the Biological Resources Technical Report. As discussed above, in response to the commenter’s request, the SEIR and Biological Resources Technical Report have been updated to revise the burrowing owl’s potential to occur within the project site from moderate to high (see Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR). The revised occurrence potential does not otherwise change the analysis or conclusions in the SEIR.

A-1-8 CDFW appreciates that focused breeding survey methods employed did adhere to the guidelines outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, although additional focused surveys would have been beneficial following the positive sighting of burrowing owls during the initial survey. Additional surveys following the positive observation could have allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of site utilization by determining if the owls were migratory or year-round residents, estimation of the home ranges of each individual or family units, further assessment of which burrows were being occupied, and estimation of foraging areas. Moreover, detailed information on what behavior and activity of the burrowing owls present should have been provided in the BTR.

The comment is noted for the record and has been included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to any action on the project. It is noted that the additional information requested in the comment would not affect the conclusions in the SEIR. The burrowing owl survey protocol was completed as described on page 4.3- 22 of the Draft SEIR and Biological Technical Report attached as Appendix D to the Draft SEIR. As described in these documents, additional focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted after the burrowing owl sighting during the first survey effort. No owls were observed in the subsequent surveys that were conducted to fulfill the complete protocol thus no additional data as referenced in the comment could be collected.

A-1-9 Lastly, the DSEIR asserts that implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures BIO- 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D, to address Project impacts to burrowing owls would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation. CDFW would like to emphasize that these measures are intended to minimize and avoid impacts, but they may not provide adequate mitigation. CDFW recommends the City mitigate as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, which states that “current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss In response to the comment, the burrowing owl mitigation has been updated as requested by CDFW. Specifically, CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure 3-B has been incorporated into the SEIR as Mitigation Measure BIO-3B (replacing Mitigation Measures 3B, 3C, and 3D). This change is reflected in Section 3, Errata, of the Final SEIR, as well as in the MMRP for the project.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-24
Comment Number Comment Response
necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence or burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow”. The 2012 Staff Report considers a site occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed on- site within the last three years. The DSEIR does not provide or propose mitigation to ensure the permanent conservation of equivalent or greater habitat for burrowing owls, a CESA candidate species, to compensate for habitat loss, and as such recommends the City requires the Project proponent to purchase and to conserve in-perpetuity similar habitat nearby and revise the DSEIR to include this information. If the DSEIR is recirculated without addressing these mitigation concerns, CDFW recommends the impact analysis to the burrowing owls be elevated to Potentially Significant Impacts.

Evidence impact would be significant: On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list Western Burrowing Owl as endangered under CESA, determining the listing “may be warranted” and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. As a candidate species, Western Burrowing Owl is granted full protection of a threatened species under CESA. If Project activities could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, With regard to the portion of the comment regarding amending the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR, to the extent the comment is suggesting that the Draft SEIR for the proposed project should be revised, revisions have been incorporated per the commenter’s recommendations and are included in Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR. The findings and conclusions of the Draft SEIR are not affected by the revisions to the Draft SEIR identified in Section 3, Errata. None of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been met. Specifically, based on the comments and responses within the Final SEIR, no new significant impacts or substantial increases in already identified significant impacts have been identified, feasible mitigation measures have been adopted, and potential impacts have been properly disclosed. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required. Mitigation measures for the proposed project, including the updated burrowing owl mitigation measure recommended by the commenter, will be implemented consistent with the requirements of CEQA, and the MMRP for the proposed project provides for monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of all mitigation measures.

With regard to the portion of the comment regarding amending the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR based on the comment related to other past projects, those actions are not necessary and are beyond the scope of this project. The 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR performed the cumulative impacts analysis the commenter requests, and no new or more severe impacts have since been identified. Moreover, amending the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR is beyond the scope of this specific project—the project is focused on a single development activity within the Renaissance Specific Plan, and Specific Plan amendments require City Council approval in any event. Therefore, the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR is not being revised at this time but the City has addressed the comment in this SEIR and incorporated the requested revisions to the burrowing owl mitigation measures provided here in the Errata. The City will consider incorporation of CDFW’s proposed mitigation measure into future Renaissance Specific Plan projects, as was done for this Project.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-25
Comment Number Comment Response
2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. It is recommended that the RSPA EIR (2016) be amended, and impacts to burrowing owl be reevaluated and reassessed. It is important to note that CDFW has physical documentation of two separate instances, within the RSPA, where during groundbreaking activities, actively used burrows were collapsed by the construction crew and the designated biologist were not aware until afterwards. Given these two incidences, there is a probability that past projects may have operated similarly, and CEQA mitigation measures set in place to mitigate for burrowing owls may have had laxed enforcement, and therefore not mitigated to the extent feasible.

The Renaissance Specific Plan encompasses a total of 1,445.3 acres in highly suitable, and historically occupied, burrowing owl habitat.

Currently, approximately 1,250 acres of the RSPA have been developed.

The Project site is currently situated within one of the largest remaining intact prime habitats for burrowing owls in the City of Rialto and the last remaining vacant spaces of the RSPA. As such, implementation of the Project has the potential to contribute to a decline in the burrowing owl population and lead to local extirpation of the species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3B (New)
Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owls presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities for all phases of Project construction and surrounding 500 ft radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of Project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-26
Comment Number Comment Response
site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning ground- disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the Project.

If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed
avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

A-1-10 COMMENT 2: Inadequacy of General Reconnaissance Surveys Section 4.3.4, Page 4.3-8
As explained in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR, and in the Biological Technical Report included as Appendix D to the Draft SEIR, in addition to the general biological surveys referenced in the comment, Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-27
Comment Number Comment Response
Issue: The DSEIR analysis and conclusion relies on general reconnaissance level surveys of the Project site to identify special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that could support special status species. CDFW is concerned that the two general biological surveys conducted on October 11, 2022 and July 31, 2024 by Rocks Biological Consulting were insufficient in duration and timing to properly survey for special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that support special status wildlife.

Specific impact: Per the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW, March 2018)3, botanical field survey visits should be spaced throughout the growing season and multiple visits to the project area are usually required to capture the floristic diversity at a level necessary to determine the presence of special-status plant species. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting. The general reconnaissance biological surveys performed on October 11, 2022 and July 31, 2024 are outside the bloom period for 12 of the 33 special-status plant species. Additionally, surveys were conducted either at the beginning or late end of bloom for 5 of the 33 plant species. A focused plant survey should be conducted separately from a general biological survey to evaluate presence of special-status plan species. It is also noted that no general surveys were carried out during the spring season, which is a peak time for blooming native vegetation and increased wildlife activity, such as migratory stopover for avian species, nesting/breeding season activities, and foraging.

Why impact would occur: The lack of spring surveys may not provide the DSEIR an adequate biological baseline due to its possible lack of an accurate plant inventory, observation of migratory birds that utilize the site, if and what species occupy the site for nesting or breeding, and to fully identify and evaluate impacts to special-status species. The DSEIR also states that “twilight or nighttime surveys were not conducted”, which limits our understanding if bat species may possibly use the site for foraging, and in determining if or which nocturnal species occupy the site.

Reconnaissance surveys can be used to gather general information about biologists were on site in February, April, June, and July of 2023 for burrowing owl surveys and in July and August of 2024 for Crotch’s bumble bee surveys. During these focused surveys, comprehensive inventories of flora and fauna were conducted, and habitat conditions were evaluated at multiple times of the year. Data collected during these focused surveys were integrated with the findings from the general biological assessment surveys conducted in October 2022 and July 2024. Together, these data informed evaluations of the site’s potential to support special-status species.

Rocks Biological Consulting has conducted biological field work in Rialto for over two decades, including work on adjacent and nearby properties within the Renaissance Specific Plan Area. Both field-level and principal biologists possess extensive knowledge of the local biological resources. In addition to field surveys and local knowledge, assessments also incorporated information from agency and citizen science databases to evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur.

Field surveys did occur throughout various times of the plant growing season. Although the general biological surveys did not coincide with the peak blooming time for some special-status plant species in the region, focused species surveys for burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee did correspond with ideal rare plant survey timeframes and biologists conducting those focused species surveys always diligently searched for plant species not previously recorded on site. Burrowing owl surveys were conducted in mid-February, late April, early to mid-June, and early July; Crotch’s bumble bee surveys took place in early and late July and midAugust. These surveys occurred during above average rain years4 and during times of the year when special-status plants would have been detectable if present.

Senior biologist Alec Goodman, who leads rare plant surveys for Rocks Biological Consulting, participated in six of the seven focused species surveys. In addition, principal biologist Jim Rocks, who has over 25 years of botanical survey experience in Southern California and is a department associate with the San Diego Natural History Museum Botany Department, 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Nature Communities (ca.gov). 4 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2025). Monthly total precipitation and daily data for the Rialto 2.1 N station, California. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS). Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=06071.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-28
Comment Number Comment Response
habitat, but it should not be used to determine the presence or absence of candidate, sensitive, or special status species
Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special status species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Without an accurate environmental baseline of present candidate, sensitive, or special status species and the delay in development of species avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, it is unclear if the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented by the Project Proponent will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts to a level below significant adverse effect.

Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required.

Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one- year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
contributed expert review of all special-status plant potential-to-occur assessments.

The Draft SEIR evaluated potential impacts on all special-status species with potential to occur on the project site. This included species unlikely to be observed directly, such as certain bat species. Tables 4 and 5 of the Miro Way And Ayala Drive Development Project Biological Technical Report, included as Appendix D of the Draft SEIR, provide details for each of the special-status species with potential to occur within the project site.

The analysis did not rely on presence/absence determinations, acknowledging that reconnaissance-level surveys cannot establish species absence. Instead, the Draft SEIR assessed likelihood of occurrence of listed, candidate, sensitive, and special-status species, and all species with lowto-moderate, moderate, or high potential to occur were included in the impacts analysis. Table 5 of the Miro Way And Ayala Drive Development Project Biological Technical Report included details on the potential for special-status bats to occur and a detailed explanation of why the potential is very low.

Similarly, potential impacts on migratory birds and the potential for avian species to occupy the site for nesting or breeding were assessed. Although the general biological surveys did not coincide with the peak migration or the height of the breeding season, focused surveys for burrowing owl did correspond with these times. Biologists conducting focused species surveys created a list of avian species observed during each field effort in accordance with industry standard. Observations of special-status species were reported to CNDDB. Please see Appendix C of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project Protocol Presence/Absence 2023 Survey Report for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) which is Appendix C to the Biological Technical Report appended to the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR assessed likelihood of listed, candidate, sensitive, and special-status bird species to breed on site, and all species with low-to-moderate, moderate, or high potential to occur or breed on site were included in the impacts analysis. In addition, pre-construction nesting bird surveys would be conducted prior to project implementation per Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and with adherence to this measure, impacts on nesting birds resulting from the project would be less than significant.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-29
Comment Number Comment Response
Based on this robust and seasonally appropriate survey effort (that includes protocol level focused surveys), expert review, and comprehensive data sources, the Draft SEIR adequately evaluates potential impacts on all listed, candidate, sensitive, and special-status plant and wildlife species. Although the Draft SEIR already provides a sufficient assessment under CEQA to support a less-than-significant impact determination, the commenter’s suggested mitigation measure has been incorporated in the Final SEIR to further bolster protections for sensitive species. Specifically a modified version of this recommended measure has been incorporated into new measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C as follows:

BIO-1A: Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment shall be completed. Species to be addressed shall include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the project site. If deemed necessary, pre-construction species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, shall be conducted. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures shall follow CDFW and USFWS guidance, where applicable.

BIO-1B: Prior to the start of project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a comprehensive pre-construction wildlife survey.

This survey must be completed within one week before any grounddisturbing activities or vegetation removal begins. The survey shall include 100% coverage of the project site, as well as a 100-foot buffer zone surrounding the site to identify and document any wildlife species present in adjacent areas. All species observed during the survey shall be recorded and mapped accordingly.

BIO-1C: If necessary, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species identified during the pre-construction survey. These measures may include establishing species-specific no-disturbance buffer zones. If wildlife is observed within the project footprint and cannot be avoided, individuals may be relocated to suitable habitat outside the impact area by a qualified biologist. All Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-30
Comment Number Comment Response
relocations shall be conducted under the appropriate permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies.

The inclusion of the recommended additional measures in Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1c does not otherwise change the analysis or conclusions in the SEIR.

A-1-11 COMMENT 3: Cumulative Impacts.

Specific impact: In Section 4.9 of the BTR it states that “Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant.” Since the adoption of the 1,445.3-acre RSPA in 2010, approximately 180 acres of vacant parcels remain. The DSEIR fails to include cumulative impacts created by the construction of the 42-acre Renaissance tract homes, a quarter mile north of the Project site, that began in late spring of 2024, and a quarter mile east of the site, the Olive Avenue Development Project (SCH 2020120036) is being proposed on a 31-acre parcel. Development of these projects further limits and narrows resources and open grassland habitat utilized by biological species, such as burrowing owls and western meadowlarks which were observed on both sites. No information regarding mitigation, for this Project, and those forthcoming or completed, is provided to offset cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impact methodology is discussed in Section 4.0.4 of the Draft SEIR, including the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines section referenced in the comment. As discussed in the Draft SEIR and set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a): “Where a Lead Agency is analyzing a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a Lead Agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.” Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the Draft SEIR included a description in Section

4.3.7 of the basis for the conclusion that the project’s incremental effect on biological resources is not cumulatively considerable.

With regard to the other projects referenced in the comment, potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, associated with development within the Renaissance Specific Plan Area were analyzed in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006071021), the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006071021), and subsequent addenda as applicable.

These projects are subject to all applicable mitigation measures associated with those analyses and prior approvals. In addition, subsequent to certification of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR, the City of Rialto prepared a General Plan Update, which established a blueprint for future land development within the City that meets community desires and balances environmental protection goals with the need for housing, infrastructure, and economic vitality. The General Plan Update applies to all of the City of Rialto, and the General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008071100) comprehensively evaluated environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, that would result from build-out of the City. Further, with regard to the analysis for this Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-31
Comment Number Comment Response
project, the Renaissance project is identified on the cumulative projects list as project number 25, and the Olive Avenue project is included as project number 19. The cumulative analysis for each resource area in Draft SEIR Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, identified the geographic context for the analysis, which included the Project and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The list of cumulative projects is included in Appendix K to the Draft SEIR.

As discussed in Section 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. With mitigation, the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Both the Renaissance residential project and the Olive Avenue Development Project were evaluated separately under CEQA and are subject to applicable avoidance measures, recommended project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to biological resources. Thus, the cumulative analysis did consider the impact of those projects, as well as other reasonably foreseeable projects, and concluded that with the incorporation of mitigation, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

The proposed project incorporates mitigation measures, which are described in the SEIR and set forth in the MMRP. With regard to biological resources, as discussed in the Draft SEIR and responses to comments above, the proposed project’s potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation. As discussed above and in the Draft SEIR, the project’s incremental effect on biological resources is not cumulatively considerable. As such, additional mitigation measures are not required.

A-1-12 Continuing on Section 4.9 of the BTR, it states that “The project site is disturbed, surrounded by development, and does not support sensitive vegetation communities. As such, the proposed project will not result in significant cumulative.” A large majority of habitat in the Inland Empire has some degree of disturbance, this does not mean it is not functional or Please refer to Response to Comment A-1-11 above, regarding prior certified environmental impact reports addressing development within the Renaissance Specific Plan Area as well as the broader City of Rialto. As discussed in Response to Comment A-1-9 above, the burrowing owl mitigation measures have been updated as recommended by CDFW to Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-32
Comment Number Comment Response
useable, and should not be the criteria in determining that no cumulative impacts will occur. Given that this site is utilizable by burrowing owls and California horned lark, designated as a watchlist species by CDFW, demonstrates that suitable habitat is present. Furthermore, DSEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1D proclaims that “A biologist shall flush specialstatus species (i.e., avian or other mobile species)from suitable habitat areas within the Project development footprint to the maximum extent practicable immediately..“. With little open space left, as the RSPA is almost built out, refugia habitat necessary for California horned lark, burrowing owls, and others will not be available in the foreseeable future, and these species will not be able to be able to be “flushed out” any further once the Plan is entirely built, as there will be no adjacent suitable habitat left.
incorporate habitat mitigation as applicable, and project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation.

In addition, in response to the comment, Mitigation Measure BIO-1D has been updated to specifically exclude burrowing owl to align with the burrowing owl-specific mitigation measures.

A-1-13 Why impact would occur: The Project site lacks sufficient information to fully evaluate the scope of cumulative impacts. In 2017, a consultation occurred between CDFW, City of Rialto, and Lewis-Hillwood regarding mitigation associated with Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA; 1600-2017-0016-R6) mitigation for the Renaissance Marketplace, and Buildings 5 and 6. This is the only known action undertaken to have occurred within the RSPA to date. The mitigation measures outlined in the LSA involved the permanent conservation of 50.5 acres of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitat within the Cajon Wash, as well as the acquisition of the 80-acre Lakeview property in Nuevo to facilitate the relocation of burrowing owls found on the site from San Bernardino County to Riverside County, further increasing extirpation of the species from the local area.

The comment refers to prior development within the Renaissance Specific Plan Area that was previously approved and analyzed. Please refer to Response to Comment A-1-11 above regarding prior certified environmental impact reports addressing development within the Renaissance Specific Plan Area as well as the broader City of Rialto. Also, as discussed in Response to Comment A-1-9 above, the burrowing owl mitigation measures for the project have been updated as recommended by CDFW to incorporate habitat mitigation as applicable, and project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-33
Comment Number Comment Response
Evidence impact would be significant: Cumulative impacts seem to not have been adequately addressed in the proposed Project. The loss of habitat across these interconnected developments leads to fragmentation and habitat loss that species rely on, and can impact species survivability and ability to migrate, forage, and establish new territories.

A-1-14 COMMENT 4: Crotch's Bumble Bee
Section 4.3.6, Page 4.3-25-26
Issue: The Project has the potential to result in permanent and temporary loss, degradation of, and impacts to Crotch's bumble bee and Crotch's bumble bee habitat. The Project may result in the take of Crotch's bumble bee, candidate status species for listing under CESA, during the construction of the Project and the life of the Project Specific impact: The Project has the potential for take of Crotch's bumble bee from collapsing burrows, entombment, displacement, dust from Project operations, and vegetation removal that reduces foraging and nesting habitat and habitat quality.

Why impact would occur: Crotch's bumble bee occurs primarily in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley and adjacent to foothills through most of southwestern California (Williams et. al 2014). Crotch's bumble bee are generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flower plants. The plant families most commonly associated with Crotch's bumble bee observations or collections from California include Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Boraginaceae and Asclepiadaceae.

Evidence impact would be significant: Crotch's bumble bee is a candidate species for listing under CESA; therefore, it receives the same legal protection afforded to endangered or threatened species under CESA pursuant to Fish & Game Code §§ 2074.2 & 2085. If found on-site, the Project could result in crushing or killing Crotch's bumble bees, reduction in sufficient food resources such as nectar and pollen, and/or removal of nesting and overwintering sites. Many bumble bees are threatened with extinction due primarily to reductions in habitat from urbanization, intensive agriculture, and invasive species introductions. If Crotch's bumble bee occurs at the Project site and Project impacts to Crotch's As referenced in the comment, potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee are addressed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR, and the accompanying Biological Technical Report, included as Appendix D of the Draft SEIR. As discussed in the Draft SEIR, Crotch’s bumble bee has a low-to-moderate potential to occur within the project site. Although Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed on-site during biological surveys, the Draft SEIR explains that suitable nectar sources and marginally suitable habitat occur within the project site, and the Project could result in direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee if it were to occur within the site.

Accordingly, and consistent with the comment’s suggestion, the analysis in the Draft SEIR conservatively assumes that significant impacts to the species could occur as a result of direct impacts to nesting sites, and includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee to a less than significant level. In response to the comment, Mitigation Measures BIO-2A, 2B, and 2C have been revised in accordance with CDFW’s recommendations. The revisions to these mitigation measures are reflected in Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR, and in the project’s MMRP. These revisions to the mitigation measures do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-34
Comment Number Comment Response
bumble bee occur, this could result in a substantial reduction in the species’ population, which would be a significant impact.

However, the measures, as written, may not reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Thus, CDFW strongly recommends the following revisions to BIO-2A, 2B, and 2C for inclusion in the final DSEIR.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure-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 an approved qualified Designated 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 within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch's bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure-2B: If suspected or active Crotch's bumble bee nests are present, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nondisturbance 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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch's bumble bee cannot be achieved, Project activities shall be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained. during construction activities, then CDFW shall be consulted.

Mitigation Measure-2C: Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified the approved designated biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch's bumble bee during the typical flight season (February — October), within the Project site and areas Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-35
Comment Number Comment Response
adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists, 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. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

A-1-15 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Burrowing Owl State Status Correction.

In Section 4.3, page 4.3-7 of the DSEIR, the sentence “According to the County's Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project sife is located within the County's Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is listed as an SSC by CDFW.” should be revised to include the current status of the burrowing owls. CDFW recommends the following revision: “The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species granted protection under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) Iisted as an SSC by CDFW.”
A clarification has been added to the Final SEIR Section 3, Errata, to revise the text in Section 4.3 page 4.3-7 of the DSEIR, to identify that burrowing owl is a candidate species granted protection under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), as recommended by the comment.

A-1-16 Native Landscaping
To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants, more information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at: Calscape. Water agencies/districts and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species. Additionally, some facilities display drought tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California's Save our Water website.

As discussed in the Draft SEIR, the City’s General Plan includes a policy to require the use of drought-tolerant, native landscaping and smart irrigation systems for new development to lower overall water usage. As indicated in Table 4.9-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. In addition, the General Plan includes a policy regarding high-quality and environmentally sustainable landscaping. Consistent with these policies and the suggestion in the comment, as explained in the Draft SEIR, project landscaping would include native plant species and drought-tolerant plant species (see Policies 2-18, 2-18.3, and 2-23.3).

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-36
Comment Number Comment Response
A-1-17 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/PIants- and-Animals.

Consistent with the comment, CNDDB field survey forms were submitted online and included as part of the Draft SEIR. Specifically, Appendix C, California Natural Diversity Database Online Field Survey Form Reports, was included as part of the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project Protocol Presence/Absence 2023 Survey Report for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), Appendix C to the Biological Technical Report which is appended to the Draft SEIR as Appendix D.

A-1-18 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.

Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal.

Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
This comment identifies fees that may be required upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR. All applicable fees will be paid when due, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

A-1-19 CONCLUSION
Due to the issues presented in this letter, CDFW concludes that the DESIR may not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to burrowing owls, nor adequality assess cumulative impacts. Deficiencies in the Lead Agency CEQA document can affect later project approvals by CDFW in its role as a Responsible Agency.

In addition, because of these issues, CDFW has concerns that Lead Agency may not have the basis to approve the project or make “findings” as required by CEQA unless the environmental document is modified to The Lead Agency appreciates CDFW’s review of the Draft SEIR and has incorporated the Department’s feedback into the document, as discussed in the responses to comments above, including incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures: MM-BIO-3B: Burrowing Owls and MM-BIO 2A, 2B, 2C: Crotch’s Bumble Bee, as provided in CDFW’s comment letter and Attachment A Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Draft Recommendations.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-37
Comment Number Comment Response
eliminate and/or mitigate significant impacts, as reasonably feasible (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15074, 15091 & 15092).

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Lisa Cardoso, Environmental Scientist at [email protected].

A-1-20 Attachment A, Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Draft Recommendations
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project.

MM-BIO-3B: Burrowing Owls
Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owls presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities for all phases of Project construction and surrounding 500 ft radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of Project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the Project.

Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW The comment is an attachment to the comment letter that sets forth the commenter’s recommendations on mitigation measures for the project and associated information for the MMRP. As discussed in Response to Comments A-1-9, A-1-10, and A-1-14, the project’s mitigation measures have been updated in response to the commenter’s recommendations, and the updated mitigation measures set forth in the comment are reflected in Section 3, Errata, of this Final SEIR, and included in the MMRP for the project.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-38
Comment Number Comment Response
and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if avoidance is proposed. Project activities shall not occur within 1000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan,
If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

Implementation Schedule
Timing:

Focused Survey: Prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities.

Pre-Construction Surveys: No less than 14 days prior to start of Projectrelated activities and withing 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Responsible Party
Implementation:

Project Proponent and Qualified Biologist
MM-BIO-5: Reconnaissance Surveys
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-39
Comment Number Comment Response
Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory, including rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species, located within the Project footprint with the potential to be affected, including Species of Special Concern (SSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the Project. The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable speciesspecific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.

Implementation Schedule
Timing:

Prior to commencing ground or vegetation disturbing activities.

Responsible Party
Implementation:

Project Proponent and Qualified Biologist.

MM- 2A, 2B, 2C: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Mitigation Measure-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, an approved qualified Designated biologist shall conduct active Crotch’s bumble bee nest surveys during the typical colony Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-40
Comment Number Comment Response
active period (April – August) following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure-2B: If suspected or active Crotch’s bumble bee nests are present, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nondisturbance 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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be achieved, Project activities shall be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained.

Mitigation Measure-2C: Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, the approved designated biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight season (February – October), within the Project site and areas adjacent to the Project site where suitable habitat exists, 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. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Implementation Schedule:

Timing:

Prior to commencing ground or vegetation disturbing activities.

Responsible Party
Implementation:

Project Proponent and Qualified Biologist
1 May 05, 2025
Route & Postmile #: SR-210/ 17.140
Cross Street: Miro Way and Ayala Drive
GTS ID: 35947
SCH #: 2024070224
City of Rialto
Planning Division
Attn: Daniel Casey
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Subject: Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Draft Subsequent EIR- APNs: 0264-211-15 and -20; 0264-212-12, -17; -44; -45; -46; -54; and portions of 0264-212-05 and -06.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) branch has completed its review of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related documents for the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project, located at northwest and southwest corners of Miro Way and Ayala Drive in the City of Rialto, California.

The proposed project involves the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 428,715 square feet on a 20.76-acre site in the northwestern area of the City of Rialto, within the Renaissance Specific Plan. The project will provide truck and passenger vehicle access via Miro Way and Ayala Drive, and it is expected to operate 24/7. It involves rezoning for industrial use and is anticipated to generate approximately 1,228 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, a figure that includes a significant volume of truck traffic.

Based on the information provided in the environmental document made available for public review, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.

Traffic Operations
Traffic Impact Analysis:

1. Update the traffic counts and recommended improvements to reflect existing roadway conditions.

2. Please utilize the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP)on Caltrans-Right-of-Way where modifications are recommended/proposed.

3. Include a PE stamp on the report.

4. Conduct and include an analysis of the Horizon Year scenario.

DISTRICT 8
464 WEST 4TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA, 92401
(909) 963-8604
www.dot.ca.gov
A-2 A-2-1 A-2-2 A-2-3
2-41

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation 4 O
Caltrans
A OF,
tUREK,
2 5. Provide further discussion regarding the exclusion of the SR-210 and Ayala Drive Interchange from the analysis. Although it is not identified as a designated truck route, please assess whether operational impacts could occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. (See p. 10, Appendix K, Traffic Analysis).

6. Revise the improvement recommendation for the Alder Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps Intersection to reflect that improvements at this location have already been implemented. (See p. 42, Appendix K, Traffic Analysis).

7. Update the traffic count data. Some intersections in Appendix B (Traffic Count Data sheet) have since been reconfigured and may not reflect current conditions.

8. Revise Appendix D-6, Intersection Analysis Worksheet (“Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project with Improvements”), to ensure all lane group calculation fields are fully visible and not cut off in the Vistro output files.

9. Please use 20 years from project’s opening year as Horizon Year or Horizon Year Defined by SCAG.

10. Perform a queueing analysis at intersections #1, #2, and #3.

Forecasting
Traffic Impact Analysis:

11. Revise the “Opening Year 2024” sections if those are mislabeled Horizon Year scenarios.

12. Add a new section or subsection under “III. Analysis Methodology” titled Traffic Forecasting Approach, including: (1) model used (SCAG, RIVTAM, etc.), (2) growth factor sources, (3) base/horizon years, and (4) SED adjustments, if applicable.

14. Include the following analysis scenarios: Existing Conditions, Opening Year No Build, Opening Year Build, Horizon Year No Build, Horizon Year Build, Cumulative No Build/Build (if applicable), and Design Failure Year (if congestion is expected before the horizon year).

15. Provide a brief description before the “Purpose” of the report.

16. Specify the route number and the nearest post mile(s). Include a map and list of study intersections, freeway segments, ramps, and interchanges. Clearly label merge, diverge, weaving, and basic freeway sections.

17. Missing titles—please ensure that each figure and table include a clear and appropriate title.

18. Add queue analysis near ramps and key intersections (e.g., Intersections #1, #2, #3, #7, and #10).

19. Ensure that the map legend includes only elements actually used in the figures.

20. The appendix is missing page numbers—please add pagination.

21. Include a table summarizing LOS, delay, and any deficiencies by scenario.

22. Provide more detail for each location by addressing the following questions: (1) What is the operational problem? (2) What improvement is recommended? (3) Is the improvement mitigation, fair share, or a condition of approval?

23. Remove references to MUTCD peak hour warrant analysis. Instead, state that signal control is assumed at buildout based on projected PM peak hour volumes. Please update Appendix F accordingly.

24. If VMT was analyzed only for the Opening Year, this must be noted. Long-term VMT impacts should be assessed for warehousing/high VMT land uses.

A-2-3
continued A-2-4 A-2-5
2-42
3 25. Itemize project segments and clearly show them on the map.

26. Global comment—please round traffic volume numbers to the nearest multiple of 5.

27. One baseline graphic appears to have an extra line going straight or turning right— verify its accuracy.

28. Rotate any incorrectly oriented pages or figures.

29. Check with the project team to determine when the project is now expected to open (likely 2025 or later). Update the Opening Year in the report to match the actual opening year. Recalculate future traffic volumes and update all related tables, figures, and text.

30. Recalculate the forecasts and update the analysis tables, figures, and narrative sections as needed.

31. Specify the exact version of software used (e.g., VISTRO 2023, Build 10.0.2). VISTRO applies HCM-based methodologies; however, Caltrans recommends stating which HCM approach (A, B, or C) was followed. Approach C (multi-period analysis) is preferred for state and major arterial facilities.

32. State that exceeding LOS D triggers a CEQA significance determination.

33. Specify the date and whether data was collected within two years of the analysis, on a non-holiday weekday (Tuesday–Thursday), and during clear, dry weather.

34. Confirm that traffic volumes were reviewed and post-processed to ensure flow conservation across turning movement intersections.

35. The study relies on traffic counts conducted on March 7, 2023. Please either (a) conduct a brief supplemental traffic count to revalidate key volumes, or (b) prepare a memo justifying continued use of 2023 data due to minimal development or network change. Note the data age and revalidation in the report.

36. The report must be revised to include a Horizon Year analysis (e.g., 2045 for a 2024 opening). Include a narrative of Horizon Year Build/No Build scenarios, forecast methodology consistent with NCHRP 765, growth assumptions, and clearly labeled figures.

37. The report should include a Design Failure Year (intersections/segments exceeding LOS D or V/C > 0.95) or Ultimate Build scenario to ensure long-term planning. This is essential for CEQA and HDM Section 400 compliance.

39. Please add a CEQA-consistent justification for VMT screening such as: “Because the project is in a low VMT-generating area, and this meets the City of Rialto’s adopted screening criteria for less-than-significant VMT impacts, no further quantitative VMT analysis or mitigation is required under CEQA or SB 743.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, they must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards upon project completion. Additionally, the project must ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase. These access considerations align with Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

A-2-6 A-2-7 A-2-8 A-2-9
2-43
4 For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
[email protected]
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep
Important Note: All permit applications must now be submitted through our CEPS Online Portal at: https://ceps.dot.ca.gov/ Currently, no further review from the Local Development Review (LDR) Branch is required. Please be advised that LDR's point of contact role will conclude upon the completion of the development entitlement process. Once the project is entitled, the Encroachment Permit Office will serve as the primary point of contact moving forward.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected] or call 909-963-8604.

Sincerely,
Janki Patel
Branch Chief - Local Development Review
Division of Transportation Planning
Caltrans District 8
A-2-9
continued
A-2-10 A-2-11
2-44
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-45
Comment Number Comment Response
Comments from Agencies
Letter from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), dated May 5, 2025 A-2-1 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) branch has completed its review of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related documents for the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project, located at northwest and southwest corners of Miro Way and Ayala Drive in the City of Rialto, California.

This comment is an introduction to the comments included below and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

A-2-2 The proposed project involves the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 428,715 square feet on a

20.76-acre site in the northwestern area of the City of Rialto, within the Renaissance Specific Plan. The project will provide truck and passenger vehicle access via Miro Way and Ayala Drive, and it is expected to operate 24/7. It involves rezoning for industrial use and is anticipated to generate approximately 1,228 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, a figure that includes a significant volume of truck traffic.

This comment summarizes information about the Project and does not raise any specific issue or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

A-2-3 Based on the information provided in the environmental document made available for public review, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.

Traffic Operations
Traffic Impact Analysis:

1. Update the traffic counts and recommended improvements to reflect existing roadway conditions.

2. Please utilize the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP)on Caltrans-Right-of-Way where modifications are recommended/proposed.

3. Include a PE stamp on the report.

4. Conduct and include an analysis of the Horizon Year scenario.

5. Provide further discussion regarding the exclusion of the SR-210 and As discussed in the Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Transportation, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. The comment refers to the level of delay analysis included in the Project’s Traffic Study for consistency with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines and is not a comment related to the thresholds for transportation analysis under CEQA. As discussed in the Draft SEIR pages

4.14-7 and 4.14-8, and in the Traffic Study for the Project (Appendix K of the Draft SEIR), Policy 4-1.20 of the City of Rialto General Plan requires that signalized intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning and evening peak hours. Consistent with General Plan Policy 4-1.20, the Project would implement recommended improvements and be subject to Fair Share Contributions for improvements.

The Project does not propose modifications to Caltrans Right-of-Way.

Consistent with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines, the Project conducted an extensive scoping process to confirm the methodologies for data Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-46
Comment Number Comment Response
Ayala Drive Interchange from the analysis. Although it is not identified as a designated truck route, please assess whether operational impacts could occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. (See p. 10, Appendix K, Traffic Analysis).

7. Update the traffic count data. Some intersections in Appendix B (Traffic Count Data sheet) have since been reconfigured and may not reflect current conditions.

9. Please use 20 years from project’s opening year as Horizon Year or Horizon Year Defined by SCAG.

10. Perform a queueing analysis at intersections #1, #2, and #3. collection and analysis and determine the parameters of the traffic analysis to ensure the scope of the traffic study is appropriate for the Project. The scoping agreement was approved by the City of Rialto on March 13, 2023 and is included in the Traffic Study for the Project, included as Appendix K of the Draft SEIR.

As discussed above, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. The City of Rialto reviewed the Traffic Study for consistency with the approved scoping agreement and consistency with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. The Project’s Traffic Study was approved by the City of Rialto on March 3, 2025, and the stamped Traffic Study is included with the Final SEIR. As discussed in the Traffic Study, the Project would implement recommended improvements and be subject to Fair Share Contributions for improvements, consistent with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

The Project is located in a low Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) generating area as determined by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool. As discussed in Draft SEIR Section

4.14, Transportation, and consistent with the City of Rialto Study Guidelines, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact.

As determined in the Draft SEIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with transportation.

A-2-4 Forecasting
Traffic Impact Analysis:

11. Revise the “Opening Year 2024” sections if those are mislabeled Horizon Year scenarios.

13. The term Opening Year 2024 – Existing Plus Growth Plus Project is non-standard. Use Caltrans terminology such as: Opening Year 2024 – Build (Existing Plus Growth Plus Project), Opening Year 2024 – No As discussed in the response to Comment A-1-3 above and as identified in Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Transportation, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. This comment refers to the level of delay analysis included in the Traffic Study approved by the City of Rialto for consistency with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines and is not a comment related to the thresholds for transportation analysis under CEQA.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-47
Comment Number Comment Response
Build (Existing Plus Growth), or Cumulative Build/No Build.

15. Provide a brief description before the “Purpose” of the report.

17. Missing titles—please ensure that each figure and table include a clear and appropriate title.

18. Add queue analysis near ramps and key intersections (e.g., Intersections #1, #2, #3, #7, and #10).

19. Ensure that the map legend includes only elements actually used in the figures.

20. The appendix is missing page numbers—please add pagination.

21. Include a table summarizing LOS, delay, and any deficiencies by scenario.

23. Remove references to MUTCD peak hour warrant analysis. Instead, state that signal control is assumed at buildout based on projected PM peak hour volumes. Please update Appendix F accordingly.

A-2-5 24. If VMT was analyzed only for the Opening Year, this must be noted.

Long-term VMT impacts should be assessed for warehousing/high VMT land uses.

As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Transportation, based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, A Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a VMT below the County baseline of 16.9 is considered to be a low VMT area.

The project site is located in a TAZ which has a VMT per worker of 15.7, which is within a low VMT generating area, resulting in a less than Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-48
Comment Number Comment Response
significant VMT impact. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool and using 2040 as the baseline year, the TAZ the project site is located in has a VMT per worker of 14.9 (See Attachment 3 to the FEIR for the 2040 Horizon Year VMT Screening Tool Results). Therefore, the results of the VMT analysis are not changed under the horizon year conditions and the impact remains less than significant. A clarification has been added to the Final SEIR Section 3, Errata, to supplement the discussion as recommended in the comment.

A-2-6 25. Itemize project segments and clearly show them on the map.

26. Global comment—please round traffic volume numbersto the nearest multiple of 5.

27. One baseline graphic appears to have an extra line going straight or turning right— verify its accuracy.

28. Rotate any incorrectly oriented pages or figures.

30. Recalculate the forecasts and update the analysis tables, figures, and narrative sections as needed.

31. Specify the exact version of software used (e.g., VISTRO 2023, Build

10.0.2). VISTRO applies HCM-based methodologies; however, Caltrans recommends stating which HCM approach (A, B, or C) was followed. Approach C (multi-period analysis) is preferred for state and major arterial facilities.

32. State that exceeding LOS D triggers a CEQA significance determination.

33. Specify the date and whether data was collected within two years of the analysis, on a non-holiday weekday (Tuesday–Thursday), and during clear, dry weather.

34. Confirm that traffic volumes were reviewed and post-processed to As discussed in the response to Comment A-1-3 above and as identified in Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Transportation, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. This comment refers to the level of delay analysis included in the Traffic Study approved by the City of Rialto for consistency with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines and is not a comment related to the thresholds for transportation analysis under CEQA.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-49
Comment Number Comment Response
ensure flow conservation across turning movement intersections.

35. The study relies on traffic counts conducted on March 7, 2023.

Please either (a) conduct a brief supplemental traffic count to revalidate key volumes, or (b) prepare a memo justifying continued use of 2023 data due to minimal development or network change.

Note the data age and revalidation in the report.

37. The report should include a Design Failure Year
(intersections/segments exceeding LOS D or V/C > 0.95) or Ultimate Build scenario to ensure long-term planning. This is essential for CEQA and HDM Section 400 compliance.

38. Please include more detail on passenger car trip distribution (e.g., truck % on Miro Way, car volumes on Ayala Dr.). Clarify if the same pattern is assumed for AM/PM peaks. What mitigation prevents trucks from exiting via Ayala ramps (faster LOS, shorter route to SR210)? A-2-7 39. Please add a CEQA-consistent justification for VMT screening such as:
“Because the project is in a low VMT-generating area, and this meets the City of Rialto’s adopted screening criteria for less-than-significant VMT impacts, no further quantitative VMT analysis or mitigation is required under CEQA or SB 743.

As explained in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, a project located within a low VMT generating area as determined by the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool and the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines would be considered to have a less than significant impact. The Draft SEIR identifies that, based on the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines VMT and LOS and the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the proposed Project is located within a low VMT generating area and that the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact requiring no further VMT analysis. A clarification has been added to the Final SEIR Section 3, Errata, to supplement the discussion as recommended in the comment.

A-2-8 Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, they must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards upon project Caltrans facilities would not be impacted as a part of the Project. As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Transportation, the project site consists of vacant, previously disturbed land and does not have any authorized roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit improvements Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-50
Comment Number Comment Response
completion. Additionally, the project must ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase. These access considerations align with Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users. or vehicular access. The Project would be required to provide a Traffic Control Plan addressing pedestrian and bicycle access to the City of Rialto for review and approval prior to construction. As discussed in the Draft SEIR, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

A-2-9 Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) requires a Caltransissued encroachment permit.

For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
[email protected]
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep
Important Note: All permit applications must now be submitted through our CEPS Online Portal at: https://ceps.dot.ca.gov/
The comment refers to Caltrans’ encroachment permit requirements. no permanent work or temporary traffic control work is anticipated that would require a Caltrans encroachment permit; however, the Project will obtain all applicable permits as required. The comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

A-2-10 Currently, no further review from the Local Development Review (LDR) Branch is required. Please be advised that LDR's point of contact role will conclude upon the completion of the development entitlement process.

Once the project is entitled, the Encroachment Permit Office will serve as the primary point of contact moving forward.

The comment that no further review from Caltrans’ Local Development Review Branch is required is noted. The comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

A-2-11 Thank you again for including Caltrans in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected] or call 909-963-8604.

The comment is a concluding comment that does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

O-1
O-1-1 O-1-2 O-1-3 O-1-4
2-51
May 2, 2025
Re: Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Subsequent EIR (SCH #2024070224) Dear Daniel Casey,
Sincerely,
We would encourage the City to work with the developer to reconsider appropriate projects for this site that do not add to the burden that already exists in the community and exacerbate the need for park space in the city. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters.

The first and by far the biggest concern identified is that this Project would be using land which is set aside for use as a park. In Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program Section

4.13: Recreation lists the impact that this would have as a “less than significant” impact of the Project, but that does not appear to match the reality of the situation and the forgoing of additional park space in the community, particularly so close to existing homes as well as more to be built. Additionally, there is no alternative site for a park identified to replace the opportunity that would be lost by the Project.

Second concern is the cumulative impacts, this project will directly impact not only existing homes and Jerry Eaves park but also a new housing development to the north where new families will be moving into soon. While the SEIR does consider other projects in the vicinity that are not built, it does not address the existing oversaturation in the area and consider the appropriateness of adding even more pollution burden to it. There are already many warehouses directly adjacent to that location and this Project site, making this addition to the area serving to bring the impacts of them all to the breaking point for the community.

I am writing this letter on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and members of the Rialto community to respond to the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (SCH #2024070224). After reviewing the documents and studies which have been prepared for the Project, I am providing the following comments regarding concerns which have been identified with what is proposed.

CCAEJ is a long-standing community based organization with over 40 years of experience advocating for stronger regulations through strategic campaigns and building a base of community power. Most notably, CCAEJ’s founder Penny Newman won a landmark federal case against Stringfellow Construction which resulted in the ‘Stringfellow Acid Pits’ being declared one of the first Superfund sites in the nation. CCAEJ prioritizes community voices as we continue our grassroots efforts to bring lasting environmental justice to the Inland Valley Region.

Marven E. Norman
Environmental Policy Analyst
City of Rialto
Community Development Department, Planning Division
Attn: Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
Rialto, CA 92376
Submitted via email to dcaseyfa rialloca. vov.

Mailing Address
PO Box 33124
Jurupa Valley, CA 92519
www.ccaej.org

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment” Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-52
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-53
Comment Number Comment Response
Comments from Organizations
Letter from Center For Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), dated May 2, 2025 O-1-1 I am writing this letter on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and members of the Rialto community to respond to the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project (SCH #2024070224). After reviewing the documents and studies which have been prepared for the Project, I am providing the following comments regarding concerns which have been identified with what is proposed.

This comment is an introduction to the comments included below and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

O-1-2 The first and by far the biggest concern identified is that this Project would be using land which is set aside for use as a park. In Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program Section 4.13: Recreation lists the impact that this would have as a “less than significant” impact of the Project, but that does not appear to match the reality of the situation and the forgoing of additional park space in the community, particularly so close to existing homes as well as more to be built. Additionally, there is no alternative site for a park identified to replace the opportunity that would be lost by the Project.

As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the project site is zoned Specific Plan. Planning Areas 126 and 133, within the 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment area, are currently designated Public Park and Employment with a Designated Park overlay, respectively, and proposed to be redesignated to Business Center. As explained in the Specific Plan, modifications to the land plan are expected, given that the Specific Plan area will build out over several years and under different owners. As identified in the Draft SEIR on page 4.13-4, the project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land and does not feature existing recreational facilities. The planning area that is currently designated as Public Park (Planning Area 126), is privately owned, and no recreational facilities are planned for the parcel.

As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial population growth and therefore, would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or result in an increase in demand for recreational facilities, requiring the expansion or relocation of existing facilities. Accordingly, the existing recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Project (i.e., Jerry Eaves Park, Frisbie Park, etc.) would continue to serve the community and the implementation of the Project would not change existing service ratios or contribute to the deterioration of recreational facilities. Further, Draft SEIR Section 4.12, Public Services, identifies that the proposed Project, and future projects, are subject to various development impact fees, including park-in-lieu fees, as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. Future projects Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-54
Comment Number Comment Response
in the surrounding area, including residential projects, would be subject to applicable parks fees to offset potential impacts to parks resulting from implementation of those projects.

As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.13, Recreation, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds to evaluate recreation consider whether the proposed Project would 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; and whether the proposed Project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As discussed above and explained in Draft SEIR Section 4.13, the Project is not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for recreational facilities that would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and the Project does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Accordingly, recreational impacts would be less than significant, as identified in the Draft SEIR.

Further, pursuant to the Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant related to the Specific Plan, the Applicant has made over $18 million in payments to the City for public park purposes, including $10,000 per residential unit within the Specific Plan area, which exceeds the City’s current Park Development Impact Fee, and will be paid for each of the first 650 residential units within the Specific Plan area. These payments are for the City’s use for public park purposes.

O-1-3 Second concern is the cumulative impacts, this project will directly impact not only existing homes and Jerry Eaves park but also a new housing development to the north where new families will be moving into soon.

While the SEIR does consider other projects in the vicinity that are not built, it does not address the existing oversaturation in the area and consider the appropriateness of adding even more pollution burden to it.

There are already many warehouses directly adjacent to that location and this Project site, making this addition to the area serving to bring the impacts of them all to the breaking point for the community.

As identified by the commenter, and in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the cumulative analysis in the Draft SEIR considers other projects in the vicinity that are planned but not yet constructed. The cumulative impact analysis methodology is explained in Section 4.0.4 of the Draft SEIR. Further, construction and operational Air Quality cumulative impacts are evaluated in Draft SEIR Section 4.2.7. As discussed in Section 4.2.7, operational emissions for the proposed warehouses would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and as a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-55
Comment Number Comment Response
contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Further, 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. As explained in the Draft SEIR, compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce Project emissions below what is currently analyzed and also reduce cumulative emissions.

Cumulative impacts resulting from greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.6.7. As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of applicable mitigation measures. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact. However, the Project, as well as other cumulative related projects, would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As discussed in the Draft SEIR, most of the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are from mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are regulated by State and Federal standards, which are becoming more stringent over the years to reduce mobile source emissions. As such and as discussed in the Draft SEIR, emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures (including the reduction in fuels’ carbon content, CARB’s Advanced Clean Car Program, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, fuel efficiency standards, etc.), as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover.

O-1-4 We would encourage the City to work with the developer to reconsider appropriate projects for this site that do not add to the burden that already exists in the community and exacerbate the need for park space in the city.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters.

As identified in the response to Comment O-1-2 above, the Project would not generate substantial population growth and therefore would not result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The existing project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land and does not feature existing recreational facilities; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a change to the current service ratios.

As discussed in the Draft SEIR, impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.

Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Applicant has provided over $18 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-56
Comment Number Comment Response
million in payments for public park purposes to the City, contributing to the park and recreation needs of the surrounding community.

P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
April 30, 2025
Daniel Casey
Principal Planner
City Hall
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Rialto Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project DEIR Dear Mr. Casey:

On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Western Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Rialto Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2024070224 for the proposed Miro Way and Ayla Drive Project (Master Case No. 2024-0019) (“Project”).

WSRCC would like to express its support for this Project. After further reviewing this Project, WSRCC believes that the Project will benefit the environment and the local economy by practicing protocols that will protect worker health and safety and will incorporate adequate environmental mitigation.

Should the City have any questions or concerns, the City should feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,
__________________________
Grace Holbrook, Esq.

Attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters O-2
O-2-1
2-57
$4
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-58
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-59
Comment Number Comment Response
Comments from Organizations
Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC), dated April 30, 2025 O-2-1 On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Western Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Rialto Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2024070224 for the proposed Miro Way and Ayla Drive Project (Master Case No. 2024-0019) (“Project”).

Should the City have any questions or concerns, the City should feel free to contact my office.

This comment acknowledges support for the Project by the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft SEIR.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 2.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses City of Rialto 2-60
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-1

3.0 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT SEIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project dated March 2025, is hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Final SEIR. Changes to the Draft SEIR are further detailed below.

The changes to the Draft SEIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document, and instead represent changes to the Draft SEIR that provide clarification, amplification and/or insignificant modifications, as needed as a result of public comments on the Draft SEIR, or due to additional information received during the public review period. These clarifications and corrections do not warrant Draft SEIR recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

None of the changes or information provided in the comments reflect a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted. In addition, the changes do not reflect a fundamentally flawed or conclusory Draft SEIR.

Changes to the Draft SEIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision. Changes are identified as follows:
• Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.
• Additions are indicated by underlined text.

3.2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT SEIR
Section 1.0, Executive Summary; Page 1-7 to 1-36; Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-2
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-3
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: Would the Project substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
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 service to the property being developed, shall be installed underground.

Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

LS
Impact 4.1-34: 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-4
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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 the Project design, to the maximum extent practicable, to reduce air quality and potential future health LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-5
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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 Project 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-6
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 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 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 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 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-7
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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 successful 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 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 onsite TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding
transportation options.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-8
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
▪ 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-9
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.

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 becomes commercially available and the
buildings are being served by trucks with electricpowered 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-10
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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 emission yard truck/hostler usage. This
mitigation measure applies only to tenant
improvements and not the building shell approvals.
▪ All standard emergency generators shall meet
California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-11
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified
tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating
permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Impact 4.2-2: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable State or
federal ambient air quality standard?
S 2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measures 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.

LS
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 Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment shall be completed.

Species to be addressed shall include all those which
meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for
which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the project site. If deemed necessary, pre-construction species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified
biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of day
LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-12
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
when the sensitive species are active or otherwise
identifiable, shall be conducted. Acceptable speciesspecific survey procedures shall follow CDFW and USFWS guidance, where applicable.

MM BIO-1B Prior to the start of project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a comprehensive preconstruction wildlife survey. This survey must be completed within one week before any grounddisturbing activities or vegetation removal begins. The survey shall include 100% coverage of the project site, as well as a 100-foot buffer zone surrounding the site to
identify and document any wildlife species present in
adjacent areas. All species observed during the survey
shall be recorded and mapped accordingly.

MM BIO-1C If necessary, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species identified during the pre-construction survey.

These measures may include establishing speciesspecific no-disturbance buffer zones. If wildlife is observed within the project footprint and cannot be
avoided, individuals may be relocated to suitable habitat outside the impact area by a qualified biologist. All
relocations shall be conducted under the appropriate
permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife
agencies.

MM BIO-1D A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species), with the exception of burrowing
owl, 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-13
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
immediately removed and towards adjacent remaining
suitable habitat.

MM BIO-1EA 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-1FB 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 inspected by the Project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or
capped.

MM BIO-1GC 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-1HE 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-14
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
MM BIO-1IF Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site.

MM BIO-1JG 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-1KH 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, an approved qualified designated 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
within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-15
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days
prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing
activities.

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, or if complete
avoidance of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be achieved,
Project activities with the potential to impact Crotch’s bumble bee shall be postponed until appropriate
authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained during
construction activities, then CDFW shall be consulted.

MM BIO-2C Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, the approved designated a qualified biologist shall survey
suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight season (February – October),
within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists, 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. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground
disturbing activities.

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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-16
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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 attended 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-17
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
shall provide updates relevant to the training to
construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”)
meetings, as needed.

MM BIO-3B Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owl presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore,
focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in
burrowing owls, in accordance with the CDFW BUOW
Guidelines (2012 or most recent version) prior to
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of project construction and surrounding 500 foot radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than
14 days prior to initiation of project-related activities.

Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few
days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger
subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not
limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the CDFW
BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent version). Upon
beginning ground-disturbing activities or vegetation
removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform
monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the project
Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing
Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-18
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance,
and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall
include the number and location of occupied burrow
sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be
impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on
proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if
avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the
potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 1,000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the
Burrowing Owl Plan.

If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and
closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the
project proponent shall begin early coordination with
CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081) prior to commencement of Project
activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, Project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers,
temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring,
relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and
compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory
mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permitteeresponsible mitigation land acquisition.

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 on project and site
conditions, such as the type of construction activity
occurring, whether it is the breeding versus non-
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-19
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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. If
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-20
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-21
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
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 and through MM BIO-4BC 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-3BD 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
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-22
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
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
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 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.

LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-23
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
Further details regarding MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 are included under Impact 4.4-1, above.

LS
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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-24
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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 comply
with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code
and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.

With expected energy consumption at 4.62 kWh/sf, a
PV panel array covering approximately one quarter of
the proposed roof space would provide sufficient onsite renewable energy generation to offset consumption. The final PV generation facility size
SU
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-25
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-26
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-27
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-28
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
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
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
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
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-29
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
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
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 4.10-1: 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
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.

LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-30
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
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.

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 tiered based on distances established in Table 4.10-8. As shown in
Table 4.10-8, vibratory rollers shall not operate within 17 feet of the commercial building; large bulldozers and
loaded trucks shall not operate within 10 feet of the
commercial building; and jack hammers and small
bulldozers/ tractors shall not operate within 5 feet of the commercial building. 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
LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-31
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

Impact 4.10-3: For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Section 4.11: Population and Housing
Impact 4.11-1: 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 4.11-2: 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 4.12-1i: 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
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-32
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 fire protection?
Impact 4.12-1ii: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for police protection?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Impact 4.12-1iii: 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 significant 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 4.12-1iv: 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
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-33
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for parks?
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
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
LS No mitigation measures are required. LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-34
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 4.15-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC §21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
(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 applicant shall, in good
faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the
Project.

LS
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-35
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Environmental Impacts
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-36
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-37
Section 3.0, Project Description; Page 3-2; Paragraph 5 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 industrial land use designation. Existing land use categories for each planning area are described in Table 3-1:

Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations, below. Please note that the rezone and/or zone change described herein would be processed as an amendment to the Renaissance Specific Plan to change the Renaissance Specific Plan land use category for these Planning Areas as shown in Table 3-1, below.

Section 3.0, Project Description; Page 3-4 and 3-5; Table 3-2: Proposed Project Land Use Summary 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.7Jobs5
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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-38
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.7Jobs5
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 -
General
Commercial 6.2 2.4 0.25 FAR 26,136 - 52 - 3.8 14,880 30 Proposed
Business Center
Total
215.4
214.6
215.5
214.7

0.50 FAR
4,692,719
4,676,166
-
1,877
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

16.5 19.2

12.7 15.4

0.25 FAR
138,303
17,706
-
276
111
- 3.8 14,880 30
Net Change
(Business Uses)

31.1 31.1 -
452,153
367,916
-
242
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 0 0 - - - 192 - - - -
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-39
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.7Jobs5
(Business Uses +
Other Uses)
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.

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
Section 3.0, Project Description; Page 3-17, Figure 3-4: Proposed Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Area
See following page
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-40
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Fitzgerald Ave
Maple AveLaurel Ave
Tamarind Ave
Palmetto Ave
Walnut St Alder Ave
Locust Ave
Linden Ave
Renaissanc
e
Pkwy
Casmalia St
Baseline Rd
Lieske Dr
210 210
210 Easton 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 nonconforming 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
MiroWay
Renaissance Specic Plan area Project Site
©Renaissance
3 reeway Incubator F reeway Inci
- 0 X
T
A
7 T
( )
c
)
1 k
(
29 0 s Freeway Incubator (
]
.23 FAR [ ] 129 [ J
-Slope/Buffer

1.1 ac
130
Slope/Buffer -

1.3 ac

1.5 ac
(
131
124 106 -Slope/Buffer Slope/Buffer Employment of tho Specific Plan, described 0.4 ac ]

5.5 ac 2132< .4F,
27272772 122(e
PEO = I
I REC 277772 ac 1
Z772 3.4 ac / .5 FAR
125 20442
3 0 ac
square footage and FAR.
78 w994 --!!» 76B
Comm I -3.4 ac 4.7 ac
.4 FAR

8. PA 103 has the land use designation
□
0 100 300 600
Shared drive approach at PA 19 and
20 is recommended at laurel Avenue
Freeway Incubator

8.6 ac / .23 FAR
113
LDR

22.8 ac
8 du/ac
182 du
9 LDR

6.3 ac
8 du/ac
50 du
117
REC
110
MHDR

19.5 ac
16 du/ac
312 du
under the ITE land use classification,
“General Commercial" for traffic
t 11515
HDR

8.0 ac
25 du/ac
Bus. Ctr.

0.9 ac
.5 FAR
114
MDR

13.9 ac

12.5 du/ac
174 du
25 Util.

1.7 ac
118
LDR

21.4 ac
8 du/ ac
171 du

5. PA 132 will remain as an Employment
Area with the option to become Low
Density Residential. As Low Density
22b
Employ

4.2 ac
.4 FAR
66a_____
Emp. 66b.
.7 ac Util.
4 FAR .7 ac
116
MDR

15.1 ac

12.5 du/ac
189 du
128
Existing
Public
Park

25.9 ac
133
Business
Center

22.5 ac
.23

8.2 ac
.23
Fwy
Comi

2.3 Employment

10.9 ac
.4 FAR
/12 Utilities

4.6 ac
108b
Util.

0.1 ac Lr
Emp.

1.5 ac
4 FAP
1 Util. 1.8 ac
Town Cent

6.4 ac
FAR
79 Employ.

14.4 ac
FAR

16.6 ac

17.4 ac
.5 FAR
111
lope/Buffer

2.0 ac
23a
Employment

36.0 ac
.32 FAR
126
Business Center
19 Freeway Incubator

9.2 ac
.23 FAR
102
Employment

18.6 ac
.4 FAR
2a
Employment

31.4 ac
.44 FAR
Freeway Commercial

10.4 ac
FAR
119
Employment

4.2 ac / .4 FAR
— 23b
Business Center

13.0 ac
.5 FAR
68 Employment

7.1 ac
.4 FAR
/4d/ Employment

18.7 ac
.52 FAR
107/ Business Center 55.2 ac /
.45 FAR
4b
Employment

7.3 ac
.4 FAR
103
Town Center

12.6 ac
.25 FAR
112
REC
.5 ac
/105 Business Center

35.4 ac
.4 FAR
108a
Business Center
173.7 ac
.5 FAR
65 Employment

32.5 ac
.4 FAR
69 Employment

18.4 ac
.47 FAR
5 Freeway Incubator
-15.9 ac/.23 FAR
10 Freeway Commercial

21.6 ac
.23 FAR
/2b Employment

18.8 ac
.53 FAR
70 Employment

35.2 ac
.47 FAR
104
Town Center

52.9 ac
.25 FAR
16 Employment

8.2 ac
.4 FAR
1 Corporate Center

13.3 ac
.3 FAR
/ 127
Employment

17.2 ac
.4 FAR
/24 Business Center 42.2 ac
.5 FAR /
/6/ Employment

18.3 ac
.4 FAR
15 Employment

17.3 ac
.4 FAR
13 Employment

23.4 ac
.4 FAR
4c
Employment

9.3 ac
.4 FAR
67 Employment

8.9 ac
.4 FAR
758/
tilities

2.3 ac
14 Employment

26.9 ac
.4 FAR
21 Fwy
Comm

4.3 ac
71/ Employment

35.2 ac
.49 FAR
4a
Employment

2.4 ac
.4 FAR
—I—
miron
$100080 8
Freeway Incubator

7.1 ac 1.23 FAR
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-42
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-43
Section 4.2, Air Quality; Page 4.2-18; Paragraph 2
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 154147 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.

Section 4.2, Air Quality; Page 4.2-18; Paragraph 3
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 154147 Projectgenerated 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
Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-4; Paragraph 1 The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (CFGC section 2050 et seq.), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the State. California also lists species of special concern (SSC) based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. CESA defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” CESA defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the CFGC has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the CFGC.

Unlike FESA, CESA does not list invertebrate species.
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 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-44
Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-6; 7
th Paragraph
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 granted protection 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.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-11; Table 4.3-2 Table 4.3-1: 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.

Elevation 490-6,650 feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
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,
Low. Native scrub habitat on-site is
isolated and disturbed and
woodland habitat is not present in
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-45
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
and coastal scrub. Elevation 50-2,625
feet.
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 mariposalily (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.

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 FebruarySeptember. 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,
None. Native scrub habitat present
in the project site is disturbed.

Occurs in riparian habitat and/or
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-46
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
and Riparian scrub. Elevation 230-
2,705 feet.
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 MarchApril. 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.

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
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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-47
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
valley/foothill grasslands. Elevation 7
- 6,690 feet.
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 AprilSeptember. 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.

Singlewhorl
burrowbush (Ambrosia
monogyra)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Blooms AugustNovember. Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub. Elevation 35-1,640 feet.

None. Occurs in washes and
riverbeds which are not present onsite.

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 AprilSeptember. 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 onsite 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-48
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
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) AugustNovember (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, onsite. This species is primarily known from the San Jacinto and San
Bernardino 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-49
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project 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;
however, washes or other moist
habitats are not present.

Southern rubber boa
(Charina umbratical)
SE Found in oak-conifer and mixedconifer 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 seminatural habitats surrounded by intensely modified landscapes, such
as the sparse disturbed buckwheat
scrub habitat within the project site,
and inhabits abandoned rodent
burrows.

Delhi Sands flowerloving
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 onsite 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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-50
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
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);
SSC
Found in grasslands and open scrub
from coast to foothills. Strongly
associated with California ground
squirrel and other fossorial mammal
burrows.

Present/HighModerate. 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.

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
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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-51
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
occurring below 1,500 feet in
elevation.
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 are 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. No
riparian woodlands are present
within immediate vicinity.

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
trees or windbreaks are required for
roosting.

Present; no potential for
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 cottonwoodwillow-dominated habitats, although riparian cover can vary. In California,
habitat often consists of willow
Very Low. Suitable habitat does not
occur within the project site; tree
species typically associated with this
species are not present.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-52
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
species and Fremont cottonwoods
(Populus fremontii).

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.

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
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-53
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species – Potential for Occurrence Species Status Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence on Project Site
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
Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-22; Paragraph 3 Burrowing owl. Burrowing owl is currently a candidate species under the CESA as of October 10, 2024. As previously discussed, RBC biologists conducted focused 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.

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 high moderate potential to support burrowing owl. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted for the project site plus a 500-foot buffer in 2023 and though two individual burrowing owls were observed during the first survey; Nno burrowing owl, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were documented within the project site during subsequent surveys 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 currently used by burrowing owl for refuge and foraging outside of nesting season and burrowing owl may occur on-site in the future. Accordingly, burrowing owl may use the site for breeding in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat. 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-3B). A qualified biologist shall perform monitoring during all construction activities to ensure avoidance of impacts to burrowing owl (MM BIO-3B) and should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. in the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-54
event avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, consultation with CDFW will determine the appropriate course of action. Consultation with CDFW may require. If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the project proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under CFGC section 2081 or a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan (MM BIO-3B). Additionally, the Project would implement MM BIO-1EA and MM BIO-1FB, 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 diameter to be screened, covered, or elevated overnight. With the above-mentioned mitigation measures, direct impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-23; Paragraphs 1 and 2 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-3B). 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 toward the active construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted towards adjacent lands (MM BIO-1GC).

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 detected, if present (MM BIO-3BC). If burrowing owls are detected within 500-feet of the project site, all Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl would be halted and CDFW would be contacted. Work would not resume until CDFW’s review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan and/or CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under CFGC section 2081 within 48 hours and disturbance avoidance buffers would be implemented by a qualified biologist in accordance with recommendations from CDFW, and no work would occur within avoidance buffers until consultation with CDFW (MM BIO-3BD). 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 would 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, damage 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-55
significant. To reduce potential direct impacts to these species, an updated potential to occur assessment would be conducted to assess the potential for special-status avian species to occur on the project site prior to construction activities (MM BIO-1A) and a 100%-coverage pre-construction wildlife survey would be conducted at least one week prior to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal (MM BIO-1B).

If deemed necessary based on the results of the pre-construction survey, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species, including California horned lark and loggerhead shrike (MM BIO-1C). Further, 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, nowork 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.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-24; Paragraph 1 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. An updated potential to occur assessment would be conducted to assess the potential for coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard to occur on the project site prior to construction activities (MM BIO-1A) and a 100%-coverage pre-construction wildlife survey would be conducted at least one week prior to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal (MM BIO-1B). If deemed necessary based on the results of the pre-construction survey, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be developed to protect coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, including relocation to nearby suitable habitat by a qualified biologist under the appropriate permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies (MM BIO-1C). Further, 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-1KH).

Speed limits would be set and enforced to minimize risk of vehicle collisions with the species (MM BIO1EA). Any holes and trenches excavated during Project construction would be covered or equipped with escape ramps to prevent entrapment of the species (MM BIO-1HE). Pets, which could harass, injure, or kill the species, would be prohibited from the project site (MM BIO-1IF). And lastly, all trash would be properly stored and disposed of to avoid attracting predators of the species to the project site (MM BIO1JG). Implementation of the previously mentioned mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant direct impacts to coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard to less than significant.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-24; Paragraph 3 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-1KH, MM Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-56
BIO-2A to MM BIO-2D, MM BIO-3A to MM BIO-3BD, and MM BIO-4A to MM BIO-4B, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-24-28; Project Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1A Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment shall be completed. Species to be addressed shall include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the project site. If deemed necessary, pre-construction species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, shall be conducted.

Acceptable species-specific survey procedures shall follow CDFW and USFWS guidance, where applicable.

MM BIO-1B Prior to the start of project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a comprehensive pre-construction wildlife survey. This survey must be completed within one week before any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal begins. The survey shall include 100% coverage of the project site, as well as a 100-foot buffer zone surrounding the site to identify and document any wildlife species present in adjacent areas. All species observed during the survey shall be recorded and mapped accordingly.

MM BIO-1C If necessary, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species identified during the pre-construction survey. These measures may include establishing species-specific no-disturbance buffer zones. If wildlife is observed within the project footprint and cannot be avoided, individuals may be relocated to suitable habitat outside the impact area by a qualified biologist. All relocations shall be conducted under the appropriate permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies.

MM BIO-1EA 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-1FB 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 inspected by the Project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.

MM BIO-1GC 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-57
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-1HE At the end of each workday during construction, the Project 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-1IF Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site.

MM BIO-1JG 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-1KH 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.

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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be achieved, Project activities with the potential to impact Crotch’s bumble bee shall be postponed until appropriate Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-58
authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained during construction activities, then CDFW shall be consulted.

MM BIO-2C Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, the approved designated a qualified biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight season (February – October), within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists, 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. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

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.

MM BIO-3B Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owl presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities for all phases of project construction and surrounding 500 foot radius.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-59
Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days.

Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the project Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 1,000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the project proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, Project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

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 additional 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 Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-60
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. 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.

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.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-31; Paragraph 3 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 and to MM BIO-3BD. With compliance with applicable mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 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 with mitigation incorporated.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-61
Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Page 4.3-31; Project Mitigation Measures for Impact 4.3-5 Further details regarding MM BIO-3A and to MM BIO-3BD are included under Impact 4.3-1, above.

Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning; Page 4.9-17; Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Chapter 3: Investing in Our Future: Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Infrastructure Goal 3-1: Strengthen and diversify
the economic base and
employment opportunities and
maintain a positive business
climate.

Consistent. The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings, which would employ 154147 employees during operation. The proposed warehouses and trailer parking would address industrial needs within the City.

Section 4.11, Population and Housing; Page 4.11-6; Paragraph 9 The project site is zoned School, Public Park, and Employment and consists of vacant, undeveloped land.

Upon approval of the proposed zone change, Planning Area 123 would be zoned General Commercial with a Residential overlay and Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be zoned Business Center. The proposed warehouse development on Planning Areas 126 and 133 would be consistent with the Business Center zoning designation of the Specific Plan. The proposed Project would include the construction of two warehouse buildings and associated on- and off-site improvements. Based on the employment information presented in Table 3-2, operation of the proposed warehouse development is anticipated to generate the demand for up to approximately 154147 employees. It is anticipated that a majority of future employees would reside within the City or local region and commute to work. As discussed in the City’s Housing Element, the City’s population is anticipated to increase by 45 percent, or 9,400 job opportunities by the year 2040. The City is anticipated to increase in population by 36,115 persons by 2045 (Table

4.11-1).4 As such, the City is anticipated to grow in population and labor force, and Project implementation would not result in an unplanned population growth.

Section 4.14, Transportation; Page 4.14-9; Paragraph 2
Growth assumed in the General Plan and its corresponding traffic modeling would be the information supplied to SCAG. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site consists of Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133. To accommodate for the proposed warehouse development, the Project would rezone Planning Areas 126 and 133 from Public Park and Employment with a designated Park overlay to Business Center. Additionally, the Project would rezone Planning Area 123 from School to General Commercial with a Residential overlay for future development. The 2016 RSPA accounted for future development within the 2016 RSPA area, including the project site. The project site currently consists of vacant and underutilized land. As further discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to employ approximately 154147 employees. Future employees are anticipated to commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas. Therefore, because the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and was therefore accounted for in the City’s growth 4 City of Rialto. (2021). 6th Cycle Housing Element. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1805/Section-2-City-ofRialto-Community-Profile. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-62
forecast, the Project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS. In addition, the Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the General Plan.

Section 4.14, Transportation; Page 4.14-9; Paragraph 3
As discussed above, under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact and is only analyzed for compliance with the City’s General Plan. The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines require new development to mitigate project-related effects that cause the LOS to fall below LOS D. As discussed in the Traffic Study (Appendix K) prepared for the Project, the Project would implement recommended improvements and be subject to Fair Share Contributions for improvements under Project implementation, Project roadways and intersections would operate at LOS D or better. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

Section 4.14, Transportation; Page 4.14-11; Paragraph 1 Low VMT Generating Area Screening
A project located within a low VMT generating area as determined by the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool and the City’s TIA Guidelines would be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. A Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a VMT below the County baseline of 16.9 is considered to be a low VMT area. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the project site is located within TAZ 53745301, which has a VMT per worker of 15.7. Using 2040 as the baseline year, the TAZ the project site is located in has a VMT per worker of 14.9. Therefore, the proposed Project is located within a low VMT generating area. Results of the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool are provided in the Approved Scoping Agreement in Appendix K. The Low VMT Generating Area Threshold is met.

Section 4.3, Recreation; Page 4.13-3; Paragraph 14
Impact 4.1316-1
Section 4.3, Recreation; Page 4.13-3; Paragraph 8
Impact 4.1316-2
Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems; Page 4.16-16; Paragraph 9 As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and shown in Table 3-2 the proposed rezone for Planning Areas 123, 126, and 133 would result in approximately 192156 new employees and the warehouse development would result in approximately 154147 new employees. It is estimated that the warehouse development would generate approximately 362346 tons of solid waste (2.35 tons per employee a year x 154147 employees) using the generation rate identified in the 2010 RSP EIR. Pursuant to AB 939, a minimum of 50 percent of solid waste would be required to be recycled. Accordingly, the Project would generate approximately 10.9 tons per day of solid waste that would be directed to a landfill, which represents 0.01 percent of the Mid-Valley Landfill maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons per day. Although the Project would increase solid waste generation and decrease available capacity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, Project operations are anticipated to result in a minimal increase in remaining Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-63
capacity of the landfill. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed above.

Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and AB 939. Further, the Project would not exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill and solid waste infrastructure and would generate a minimal amount of solid waste compared to the permitted daily capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill. The Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required.

Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations; Page 5-2; Paragraph 10 According to the California Department of Finance (DOF) the most recent estimated population of the City of Rialto (City) is 103,097 persons as of January 2024.1 The California Employment Development Department (EDD) calculated the City’s workforce to be 47,100, with 44,100 of those persons employed and 2,900 unemployed.2 As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, and shown in Table 3-2, the proposed warehouse development would generate 154147 jobs. Because this is less than the 2,900 unemployed persons within the City as estimated by the EDD, the proposed Project would not necessarily spur a boost in population since the employees could be found within the City’s existing residents. The proposed Project, at the time of its implementation, would likely only have an indirect effect on the City’s population through the expansion of economic activity within the City.

Section 6.0, Alternatives; Page 6-11; Paragraph 3
Population and Housing. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would generate new permanent employment opportunities. The Project proposes the development of two warehouse buildings which would employ approximately 154147 employees. Alternative 2 would involve the development of one warehouse building, which would have employment opportunities but employ fewer employees in comparison to the Project due to the reduced size of the development. Similar to the Project, future employees are anticipated to travel to and from the project site from within the City and surrounding area. Neither Alternative 2 nor the Project would require the construction of additional residential units that could induce substantial unplanned population growth not analyzed in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, both Alternative 2 and the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with population and housing.

Section 6.0, Alternatives; Page 4.16-15; Paragraph 3
Population and Housing. Both the Project and Alternative 3 would generate new permanent employment opportunities. The Project would include the development of two warehouse buildings which would employ approximately 154147 employees. Alternative 3 would involve the development of three 1 California Department of Finance. (2024). Table 2:E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed October 2024. 2 California Employment Development Department. (2024). Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Force-and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-/e6gwgvii/data. Accessed October 2024.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 3.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft SEIR City of Rialto 3-64
warehouse buildings, which would have similar employment opportunities. Future employees are anticipated to travel to and from the project site from within the City and surrounding area. Neither Alternative 3 nor the Project would require the construction of additional residential units that could induce substantial unplanned population growth not analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, both Alternative 3 and the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with population and housing.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor the Mitigation Program outlined in the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and City of Rialto monitoring requirements. Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-2
by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency.

Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Rialto is the Lead Agency for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted as a fully enforceable monitoring program to meet Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requirements.

4.2 ORGANIZATION
The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program. The MMRP defines the following for each Mitigation Measure (MM):
▪ Definition of Mitigation. The Mitigation Measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation.
▪ Implementation Timing. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance point selected are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.
▪ Monitoring and Reporting Methods. The monitoring phase of a project refers to the period when the mitigation measures are actively tracked. The monitoring frequency specifies how often these measures will be evaluated, and the compliance actions are those taken by the Enforcement or Monitoring agency to confirm that the required mitigation measure has been properly implemented. The MMRP outlines the schedule and procedures for monitoring the mitigation actions, including who is responsible for implementing them, the frequency of checks, and how compliance will be confirmed and reported.
▪ Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, an applicant would be the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Rialto or designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures.
▪ Responsible for Approval/Monitoring. The City of Rialto or designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-3
acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization from all officials shall be required.

The MM numbering system in the table corresponds with the MM numbering system in the EIR. The MMRP table’s last column will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when MM implementation has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Rialto. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Rialto Planning Division.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-5
Miro Way And Ayala Drive Project
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Aesthetics
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Approval of Plans and
Specifications
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Air Quality
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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 offroad 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
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Verify Construction
Requirements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-6
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Construction Verify Construction
Requirements
City of Rialto Public
Works Division
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
s2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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 the Project design, to the
maximum extent practicable, to reduce air
quality and potential future health risk impacts
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Approval of Truck Routes City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-7
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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 Project 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
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Approval of Truck Routes City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-8
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Verify Construction
Requirements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Verify Construction
Requirements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-9
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
do not require painting shall be used where
feasible.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Energy Efficiency
Education of Future
Employees
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Tenants
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Verify Construction
Requirements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-10
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
that preferential parking spaces shall be offered
to car pools and van pools.
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
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 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
successful 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 on site and available upon request.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Verify Appropriate
Construction Equipment
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
City of Rialto
Engineer
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-11
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
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
Prior to Issuance of
Tenant Occupancy
Permits
Submittal of TDM City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-12
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

Project Mitigation Measure
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 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
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-13
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
truck charging stations at such time this
technology becomes commercially available
and the buildings are being served by trucks
with electric-powered engines.

Project Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Tenant Occupancy
Permit
Verify Truck Access Gates
and Loading Docks
Requirements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-14
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Tenant Occupancy
Permit
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Occupancy for Tenant
Improvements Permit
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
CARB
Project Tenants
Project Mitigation Measure
MM AIR-7 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit, and not building shell, the Planning
Prior to Issuance of
Tenant Occupancy
Permit
Approval of Plans City of Rialto
Planning Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-15
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Department shall confirm that the Project plans
and specifications show the following:
▪ All outdoor cargo handling equipment
(including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats,
pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero
emission/powered by electricity. Each
building shall include the necessary charging
stations for cargo handling equipment. Note
that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse
Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions
and Investments to Reduce Emissions
(WAIRE) points may be earned for
electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler
usage. This mitigation measure applies only
to tenant improvements and not the building
shell approvals.
▪ All standard emergency generators shall
meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4
Final emissions standards. A copy of each
unit’s Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) documentation (certified tier
specification) and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit (if applicable) shall be
provided to the City.

City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
Biological Resources
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1A Prior to project construction activities, an
updated potential to occur assessment shall be
completed. Species to be addressed shall include
all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA
Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Verification of updated
Potential to Occur
Assessment
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-16
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
present within or adjacent to the project site. If
deemed necessary, pre-construction speciesspecific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time
of day when the sensitive species are active or
otherwise identifiable, shall be conducted.

Acceptable species-specific survey procedures
shall follow CDFW and USFWS guidance, where
applicable.

Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1B Prior to the start of project construction
activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
comprehensive pre-construction wildlife survey.

This survey must be completed within one week
before any ground-disturbing activities or
vegetation removal begins. The survey shall
include 100% coverage of the project site, as well
as a 100-foot buffer zone surrounding the site to
identify and document any wildlife species
present in adjacent areas. All species observed
during the survey shall be recorded and mapped
accordingly.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Verification of PreConstruction Wildlife
Survey
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1C If necessary, appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures shall be developed to
protect sensitive wildlife species identified during
the pre-construction survey. These measures
may include establishing species-specific nodisturbance buffer zones. If wildlife is observed within the project footprint and cannot be
avoided, individuals may be relocated to suitable
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Verification of
implementation of
appliable measures
identified in MM BIO-1B.

City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-17
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
habitat outside the impact area by a qualified
biologist. All relocations shall be conducted
under the appropriate permits and
authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies.

Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1D A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species), with the
exception of burrowing owl, 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 and towards adjacent
remaining suitable habitat.

Within 24 hours of
Vegetation Removal
Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1E 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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1F 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 inspected by the Project
During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-18
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
biologist for wildlife before such material is
moved, buried, or capped.

Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1G 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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1H 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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-19
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1-J If trash and debris need to be stored overnight during maintenance activities, fully covered trash
receptacles that are animal-proof and weatherproof 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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1K 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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Contractor
Project Mitigation Measure
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
One Year Prior to
Ground Disturbance
Verify Completion of
Surveys
Verify Completion of Field
Inspections
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-20
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
ground disturbing activities, an approved
qualified designated 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 within the project
site and areas adjacent to the project site where
suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist
shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee
identification and life history. Survey results
including negative findings shall be submitted to
CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation
removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
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, or if complete avoidance
of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be achieved,
Project activities with the potential to impact
Crotch’s bumble bee shall be postponed until
appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA
ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is
obtained.

Prior to Construction
Activities if required
per MM BIO-2A
Verify Completion of Field
Inspections
Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-21
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-2C Within one year prior to ground disturbing
activities, the approved designated biologist shall
survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s
bumble bee during the typical flight season
(February – October), within the project site and
areas adjacent to the project site where suitable
habitat exists, 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. Survey
results including negative findings shall be
submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to
vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing
activities.

One Year Prior to
Ground Disturbing
activities
Verify Completion of Preconstruction SurveyCity of Rialto Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
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.

During Construction Verify Preparation of
Revegetation Plan
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-3A Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) shall be prepared, which will include a
Prior to Initial Ground
Disturbing Activities
Verify Preparation of
WEAP
City of Rialto
Planning Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-22
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-23
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-3B Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing
owl presence has been confirmed on the site;
therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and
experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance
with the CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most
recent version) prior to vegetation removal or
ground-disturbing activities for all phases of
project construction and surrounding 500 foot
radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no
less than 14 days prior to initiation of projectrelated activities. Burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent
take avoidance surveys including but not limited
to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior
to ground disturbance, in accordance with the
CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent
version). Upon beginning ground-disturbing
activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall
be on hand to perform monitoring during all
construction activities every day to ensure no
impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the
project
Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs
thereof be confirmed during any survey or
biological monitoring, Project activities with the
potential to impact burrowing owl shall be
immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall
coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing
Prior To Vegetation
Removal or GroundDisturbing Activities for
All Phases of Project
Construction and
Surrounding 500 Foot
Radius
Verification of Biological
Monitoring
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-24
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for
review and approval prior to commencing Project
activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe
proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The
Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and
location of occupied burrow sites, acres of
burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted,
details of site monitoring, and details on
proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if
avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the
potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur
within 1,000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW
approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

If Project activities, including burrow exclusion
and closure, could result in take of burrowing
owl, the project proponent shall begin early
coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA
authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081)
prior to commencement of Project activities. The
ITP shall describe, at a minimum, Project
activities and equipment, proposed
avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent
impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or
translocation, and minimization and
compensatory mitigation actions. ITP
compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one
or more of following options: 1) Conservation or
Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation
Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible
mitigation land acquisition.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-25
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
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 grounddisturbing 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.

Prior To Vegetation
Clearing and GroundDisturbing Activities
Verify Completion of Field
Surveys
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Project Mitigation Measure
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
Prior to and During
Construction
Verify Completion of
Biological Resources
Monitoring
Verify Completion of Field
Surveys
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified Biologist
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-26
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
additional measures may not be necessary to
avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Cultural Resources
Project Mitigation Measure
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 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.

During Construction Verify Retainment of
Qualified Archaeologist
Halt all Work in
Immediate Vicinity of a
Find
Periodic Field inspections
During Construction in the
Event Unknown Resources
are encountered
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Qualified
Archeologist
Project Mitigation Measure
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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Native American
Heritage
Commission
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-27
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Project Mitigation Measure
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.

During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
Verification of Compliance
with State Health and
Safety Code Section
7050.5
City of Rialto
Planning
Commission
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
San Bernardino
County Coroner
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Mitigation Measure
MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Tenant Improvements, not building shell, the
Project shall install photovoltaic (PV) panels or
other source of renewable energy generation onsite, 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 foot1), as feasible, based
on the maximum net roof area available for solar
(i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall
comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California
Energy Code and shall comply with access,
pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements,
and exclude skylight area.

Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy for Tenant
Improvements
Confirm Installation of
Renewable Energy
Generation
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
1 The expected electricity demand is based on CalEEMod; refer to Appendix G.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-28
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

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

Project Mitigation Measure
MM GHG-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project applicant or successor in interest shall
provide documentation to the City
demonstrating the following:
▪ The Project shall be designed to meet or
exceed CALGREEN Tier 2 standards in effect
at the time of building permit application in
order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy
efficiency standards by at least 15 percent.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Verification of CALGREEN
Tier 2 standards
Verification of Electric
Charging Stations
Implementation
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-29
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
▪ 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.

Project Mitigation Measure
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.

Prior To Issuance of
Certificate of Tenant
Occupancy Permits
Verify recyclables
collection and load area
on Tenant Improvements
Plans in compliance with
City standards for
recyclable collection and
loading areas.

City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Mitigation Measure
MM GHG-4 Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy
permits, the Planning Department shall confirm
that tenant lease agreements include contractual
language that all handheld landscaping
equipment used on-site shall be 100 percent
electrically powered. This mitigation measure
applies only to tenant permits and not the
building shell approvals.

Prior to Issuance of
Tenant Occupancy
Confirmation of Lease
Agreements
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Noise
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
During Construction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-30
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
N-1 Construction activities shall be limited to the
City’s allowable hours of construction activities in
accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
2016 Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure
N-2 All Construction equipment shall use noisereduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those
originally installed by the manufacturer.

During Constriction Verification of
Enforcement
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Project Mitigation Measure
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
Building & Safety Division prior to issuance of a
grading permit:

The developer shall ensure construction
equipment will not approach the construction
buffer zone adjacent to the commercial building
(i.e., 1348 West Baseline Road) along portions of
the Project southern and southwestern Project
Boundary. The buffer zone shall be tiered based
on distances established in Table 4.10-8
(attached to this MMRP). 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.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-31
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Tribal Cultural Resources
Project Mitigation Measure
MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manual Nation (YSMN)
Cultural Management Department shall be
contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-2, of any precontact 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.

During Project
Implementation
Consultation with YSMN City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
YSMN
Project Mitigation Measure
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 applicant shall, in good faith,
consult with YSMN throughout the life of the
Project.

During Project
Implementation
Verification of
Dissemination to YSMN
City of Rialto
Planning Division
City of Rialto
Building & Safety
Division
Note: Please see Draft SEIR Table 4.10-1, below, as referenced in Project MM NOI-1.

Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Section 4.0
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Rialto 4-32
Draft SEIR Table 4.10-8: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 5 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 10 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 15 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity
at 30 Feet
(in/sec)1
Vibratory Roller 2.348 0.830 0.452 0.375
Large Bulldozer 0.995 0.352 0.191 0.159
Loaded Trucks 0.850 0.300 0.164 0.136
Jackhammer 0.391 0.138 0.075 0.062
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.034 0.012 0.006 0.005
Notes:

1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Appendix J
Attachment 1
Revised Biological Technical Report

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT
City of Rialto, California
July 9, 2025
Prepared for:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-9411
Prepared by:

Rocks Biological Consulting
4312 Rialto Street
San Diego, CA 92107
(619) 701-6798

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Database Search................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Vegetation Mapping and General Biological Surveys ............................................................. 8

2.3 Special-Status Species Surveys .......................................................................................... 10

2.4 Constraints-Level Aquatic Resources Assessment .............................................................. 11 3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Physical Setting................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Uses ............................................................................. 12

3.3 Plants and Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................................. 32

3.5 Potential Federal and State Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources .............................................. 32 4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 34

4.1 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife Impacts .......................................................................... 35

4.2 Native Vegetation Impacts................................................................................................... 41

4.3 Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Impacts ........................................................... 41

4.4 Nesting Bird Impacts ........................................................................................................... 42

4.5 Wildlife Corridor Impacts...................................................................................................... 42

4.6 Local Policies and Ordinances Impacts ............................................................................... 42

4.7 Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan Impacts ......................................................... 43

4.8 Indirect Impacts on Biological Resources ............................................................................ 43

4.9 Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources....................................................................... 43 5 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................... 45

5.1 Best Management Practices................................................................................................ 45

5.2 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 46

5.3 Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Mitigation Measures............................................................. 47

5.4 Nesting Bird Avoidance ....................................................................................................... 48 6 References ................................................................................................................................... 50

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING ii
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Surveys Conducted for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project ............ 7 Table 2. CRPR Definitions ................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Summary of Vegetation/Land Cover Within the Survey Area and Project Site....... 12 Table 4. Assessment of Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Within the Project Site....................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Assessment of Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur Within the Project Site....................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Vegetation Communities/Lane Cover Project Impacts.......................................... 41

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Biological Resources
Figure 3a. USFWS Plants and Wildlife
Figure 3b. CNDDB Plants and Wildlife
Figure 4. Soils, National Hydrology Dataset, and National Wetland Inventory Figure 5. Proposed Project Impacts

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Site Photographs
Appendix B. Plant and Wildlife Species Observed
Appendix C. Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project Protocol Presence/Absence 2023 Survey Report for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Appendix D. Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project Focused Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Report

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1
1 Introduction

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project (project or proposed project) consists of approximately 35 acres in the City of Rialto (City), San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1) within the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment (RSPA) area. The City encompasses approximately 22 square miles in San Bernardino County. The project site is in the western/central part of the City, approximately 0.65 mile south of State Route (SR) 210. Specifically, the project site is located approximately 450 linear feet north of W Baseline Road, west of N Ayala Drive, east of N Linden Avenue, and south of Miro Way. The site is located within U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5’ quadrangles Fontana and Devore (USGS 2024b).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 an industrial warehouse development. 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.

1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is primarily composed of vacant, undeveloped disturbed habitat, which was historically used as agricultural land. A small area of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is also present in the central portion of the project site. The topography of the project site is generally flat with minimal change in elevation. Portions of the project site are partially fenced, and gravel piles are located on the southern portion of the project site. Sidewalks and streetlights exist at the project boundary along Ayala Drive and Linden Avenue. Overhead electric utilities are located along the project boundary at Linden Avenue, south of Miro Way. The project site is primarily surrounded by developed land, composed of commercial and industrial properties, paved roads and lots, compacted dirt roads, and disturbed habitat.

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, state, and local agencies have established several regulations to protect and conserve biological and aquatic resources. The descriptions below provide a brief overview of agency regulations that may be applicable to the project. The regulating agencies make the final determination as to what types of permits are required.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 2

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), as amended, provides for listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA regulates the “take” of any endangered fish or wildlife species, per Section

9. As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowner is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to assess potential impacts on listed species (including plants) or their critical habitat, pursuant to Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA.

USFWS is required to make a determination as to the extent of impact a project would have on a particular species. If it is determined that potential impacts on a species would likely occur, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified. USFWS may issue an incidental take statement, following consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion. This allows for take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity, provided that the action will not adversely affect the existence of the species. Section 10 of the ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to non-federal parties with the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP); Section 7 provides for permitting of federal projects.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. § 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 listed at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.13. The USFWS enforces the MBTA, which prohibits “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird, or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 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 CWA of 1972 (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), discussed below. However, the 1899 act retains relevance and created the structure under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) oversees CWA Section 404 permitting.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1344), the Corps is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (88 Federal Register [FR] 61964, September 8, 2023; Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming). The Corps, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. Substantial impacts on waters of the U.S. may require an

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3
Individual Permit. Projects that only minimally affect waters of the U.S. may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits.

A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a division of the State Water Resources Control Board, provides oversight of the Section 401 certification process in California. The RWQCBs are required to provide Water Quality Certification for licenses or permits that authorize an activity that may result in a discharge from a point source into a water of the U.S. Water Quality Certification authorization “is limited to assuring that a discharge from a Federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements” (40 CFR 121.3).

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under Section 402 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1342).

STATE REGULATIONS
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA (California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) was established in 1970 as California’s counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, where feasible.

CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. 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, which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

California Endangered Species Act and Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA; CFGC § 2050 et seq.), in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFGC § 1900 et seq.), regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the state.

California also lists species of special concern (SSC) based on limited distribution; declining populations; diminishing habitat; or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for assessing development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. State-listed special-status species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (CFGC § 2800 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in Southern California. The NCCP program was established “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4
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 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Application 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” (CFGC § 1602). CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to the applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3801, 4700, 5050, and 5515 CDFW protects and manages fish, wildlife, and native plant resources within California. 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 §§ 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 §§ 80001–80201) The California Desert Native Plants Act prohibits the removal of certain species of California desert native plants on public and privately owned lands without a valid permit from the sheriff or commissioner of the county where collecting would occur. This act applies within the boundaries of Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000 et seq.) provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The State Water Resources Control Board was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis.

The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5
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 a Section 404 permit 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 PLANS
San Bernardino County, Countywide Policy Plan
The 2020 Countywide Policy Plan outlines countywide goals and policies as they relate to biological resources. Natural Resource (NR) 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 County reviews land development permits for adequacy in assessing potential impacts on NRs. 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 potential impacts on these identified resources and propose mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce significant impacts.

According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone (County of San Bernardino 2012); the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species granted protection under CESA (CFGC section 2050 et seq.).

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 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 the state requirements and are followed herein.

City of Rialto, General Plan
The biological resource policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that relate to the project can be found in Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply: Land Use, Community Design, Open Space and Conservation (City of Rialto 2010).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6
Policies that may be applicable to the project include:

Policy 2-39.3: Continue to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt a habitat conservation plan to protect viability of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Until a habitat conservation plan is established, continue to support the implementation of the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan.

Due to the project site’s location within the species’ range, the potential for Delhi Sands flowerloving fly to occur on site was evaluated, as discussed below.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 7
2 Methods
Rocks Biological Consulting (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. Table 2 lists survey dates and conditions. Additionally, RBC examined the 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 Section 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.

Table 1. Summary of Surveys Conducted for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Project Date Activity Surveyor(s) Time
(Start- End)
Temp.
(F)
(StartEnd)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
(StartEnd)
Wind
Range
(mph)
(Start; End)
10/11/2022
General biological survey,
vegetation mapping, constraintslevel aquatic resources assessment AG, KW 0800-1400 63-73 100-45 0-1; 3-5
2/16/2023 Burrowing owl survey AG, HS 0700-1030 45-54 5-25 8-12; 12-18 4/26/2023 Burrowing owl survey AG 0700-0945 53-65 0-0 1-3; 1-3 6/12/2023 Burrowing owl survey HS, SM 0745-1115 55-62 100-98 3-5; 4-6 7/3/2023 Burrowing owl survey AG, HS 0915-1200 80-91 0-1 1-3; 1-3 7/11/2024 Crotch’s bumble bee survey AG 0700-1100 71-89 10-15 1-2; 1-3 7/31/2024
General biological survey,
vegetation mapping, constraintslevel aquatic resources assessment AG, KW 0830-1100 72-84 0-0 1-3; 1-3
7/31/2024 Crotch’s bumble bee survey AG, KW 0830-1100 72-84 0-0 0-3; 1-3 8/15/2024 Crotch’s bumble bee survey AG, HS 0830-1130 75-88 0-0 1-3; 1-3 AG=Alec Goodman, HS=Hannah Swarthout, KW=Kelsey Woldt, SM=Shannon Mindeman The general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, and habitat assessments were conducted within the approximately 35.3-acre project site and a surrounding 100-foot buffer (survey area) for a total of 50.8 acres. The constraints-level aquatic resources assessment was conducted within the project site plus a surrounding 50-foot buffer (review area). 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 herein. 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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 8

2.1 DATABASE SEARCH
Prior to conducting field surveys, existing information regarding biological resources present or potentially present within the project site was obtained through a review of pertinent literature and databases, including, but not limited to:
• CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2024a) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2024a) • USFWS Special-Status Species Database (USFWS 2024a)
• USFWS Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) Database (USFWS 2024b) • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database (USFWS 2024c) • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Database (USGS 2024a) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Survey Database (NRCS 2024) Database results, along with local biological knowledge, were used for assessment of specialstatus 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 (CDFW 2024a; USFWS 2024a) and determined to be potentially present in the IPaC Database (USFWS 2024b), as well as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 species that occur within the ‘Nine Quads’ search for the elevational range of the project site: 1,385 to 1,420 feet above mean sea level (amsl; CNPS 2024a). The CNPS ‘Nine Quads’ search queries the USGS quadrangle in which the project site is located and the surrounding 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.

2.2 VEGETATION MAPPING AND GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
On October 11, 2022 and July 31, 2024, RBC biologists conducted vegetation mapping in the field to provide a baseline of the biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within the project site. 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).

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 species in accordance with vegetation community classifications outlined in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). The vegetation communities were also crosswalked with The Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009), and the equivalent classification is provided.

RBC biologists conducted general biological surveys for plants and wildlife concurrently with vegetation mapping. Photos taken during the general biological surveys are provided in Appendix

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 9
A. Plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notebooks. Plant species that could not be identified were brought to the laboratory for identification using the dichotomous keys in the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012). A list of the vascular plant species observed in the survey area is presented in Appendix B.

RBC conducted habitat assessments for special-status plants during the general biological field surveys. 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 (CNPS 2024a); or 3) considered rare, endangered, or threatened by the CDFW (CDFW 2024a) 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 3.

Table 2. CRPR Definitions
CRPR
1A Presumed extirpated in California and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and 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 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)
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 surveys. 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 (CDFW 2024b).

A list of wildlife species observed in the project site is presented in Appendix B; scientific and common names of wildlife follow CDFW’s Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 10
Species in California (CDFW 2016). Twilight/nighttime surveys were not conducted, therefore crepuscular and nocturnal animals are likely under-represented in the project species list; however, habitat assessments were performed for all special-status species to ensure that any potentially present rare species are adequately addressed 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.

2.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS

2.3.1 FOCUSED BURROWING OWL SURVEYS
RBC biologists conducted focused burrowing owl surveys during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW BUOW Guidelines; CDFW 2012). RBC qualified biologists conducted four burrowing owl surveys during the breeding season; one survey was conducted between February 1 – 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.

Due to project boundary changes, the burrowing owl survey area consisted of a larger area than the current project site, which included 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 occupation were examined for sign, including feathers, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, and/or decoration at or near burrow entrances.

Additional details of survey methodology can be found in Appendix C.

2.3.2 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 the CDFW Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Surveys were conducted by walking transects through the survey area focusing on areas where ample 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 survey methods, details, and species lists can be found in Appendix D.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 11

2.4 CONSTRAINTS-LEVEL AQUATIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
RBC conducted a constraints-level assessment of the review area to identify areas that may be considered potentially jurisdictional under the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act, or CDFW pursuant to CFGC §1602. Areas with depressions, drainage patterns, wetland vegetation, and/or riparian vegetation within the review area were assessed for potential jurisdictional status, with focus on the presence of defined channels, soils, and hydrology. No formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted as part of this effort.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 12
3 Results
This section includes results of the literature review, vegetation mapping, general biological surveys, constraints-level aquatic resources assessment, and focused burrowing owl surveys.

Special-status biological resources are also addressed in this section and are defined as follows: 1) species that have been given special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to limited, declining, or threatened/endangered population sizes; 2) species and their associated habitat types recognized by local and regional resource agencies as sensitive; 3) habitat areas or vegetation communities that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; 4) wildlife corridors and habitat linkages; and/or 5) biological resources that may or may not be considered sensitive, but are regulated under local, state, and/or federal laws.

3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
The project site is a relatively flat parcel that supports primarily disturbed and developed habitats. A small area of native disturbed Riversidean sage scrub also occur on site. To the north, the project site borders former Rialto Airport land that supports sparse, disturbed native habitat and contains associated disturbances, such as old roads and graded land, and the site currently undergoes regular discing where vegetation remains. To the south, east, and west, the site is surrounded by commercial and industrial development with little to no native habitat.

On-site elevations range from approximately 1,385 to 1,420 feet amsl. Soils mapped on site include Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (NRCS 2024).

3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USES
The project site supports little diversity in vegetation communities and other land covers. Table 4 provides a summary of vegetation/land cover on the site, which are depicted on Figure 2.

Table 3. Summary of Vegetation/Land Cover Within the Survey Area and Project Site Vegetation
(Holland)1 Vegetation2 Global/ State Rank
Survey Area
(acres)
Project Site
(acres)
Developed Developed/Disturbed No Rank 16.2 5.2
Disturbed habitat Developed/Disturbed No Rank 33.9 29.4 Disturbed
Riversidean Sage
Scrub
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Shrubland Alliance
G5/S5 0.7 0.7
Total 50.8 35.3
1 Vegetation communities recognized by Holland (1986)
2 Vegetation communities from Holland (1986) crosswalked to Sawyer et al. (2009) Natural communities with ranks of S1 through S3 are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA. The project site does not contain habitat that is considered a sensitive vegetation community by CDFW (CDFW 2024c).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 13
Developed
Developed land is typically classified as lands regularly utilized by humans that are devoid of natural habitat. Developed land within the survey area consists primarily of industrial buildings, parking and loading areas, and roads. Developed land on the project site (5.2 acres) is primarily comprised of compacted dirt roads. Ornamental landscaping, such as bottlebrush tree (Callistemon sp.), Chinese juniper (Juniperus chinensis), holly (Ilex sp.), and London plane tree (Platanus x hispanica), is present within the developed land on site.

Developed habitat is not recognized by CDFW (CDFW 2024c); therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed
Disturbed land is typically classified as land on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other land-clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of a plant association (e.g., disturbed Riversidean sage scrub). Disturbed habitat is typically found in vacant lots, along roadsides, within construction staging areas, and in abandoned fields. The habitat is typically dominated by non-native annual species and perennial broadleaf species.

Disturbed habitat occurs within most of the project site (29.4 acres). The site is currently disced for weed abatement multiple times per year. It is primarily vegetated by non-native species such as short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), red brome (Bromus rubens), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). There are a few scattered native species throughout the disturbed habitat, such as short winged deerweed (Acmispon glaber var. brevialatus), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), California croton (Croton californicus), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Menzies’ fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii); however, they are isolated occurrences and do not function as separate vegetation communities or land cover types.

Disturbed habitat is not recognized by CDFW (CDFW 2024c); therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub
Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is Riversidean sage scrub, a type of coastal scrub community, that has a marked disturbance resulting in an atypical vegetation community. The disturbed Riversidean sage scrub within the project site (0.7 acre) supports small to medium sized woody shrubs dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) amongst lower numbers of other sage scrub species, including Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus) and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), and contains an overgrown understory of non-native grasses. Within the project site, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is found in the northern portion, bordering the road that bisects the project site, as well as a small patch in the southwestern corner (Figure 2).

Riversidean sage scrub is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is “demonstrably secure because of its worldwide/statewide abundance” (CDFW 2024c); therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 14

3.3 PLANTS AND WILDLIFE
The project site supports a low diversity of wildlife and plant species. A total of 40 plant species (40 percent native, 60 percent non-native) were observed during the general biological surveys (Appendix B). A total of 35 bird species, one reptile species, three mammal species, and 35 invertebrate species were observed (Appendix B).

3.3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
No special-status plant species were observed on site and none are expected based on the relatively disturbed nature of the site. Special-status plants assessed for their potential to occur on site are presented in Table 5, below. Please note that CRPR 3 and 4 species were omitted from the potential to occur analysis below due to their relatively low threat status, consistent with standard practice.

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 the site and lack of suitable habitat (Table 5). Although there are documented occurrences of special-status plant species within three miles from the project site (Figures 3a and 3b), the significant disturbances on the undeveloped portions of the site make it highly unlikely to support populations of these or other special-status plants, as detailed further in Table 5, below. Please note that special-status plant species with low potential to occur or not expected to occur are not addressed further in this report; because these species have low or no potential for occurrence, no impacts are anticipated on these species.

Table 4. Assessment of Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Within the Project Site Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Aparejo grass
(Muhlenbergia utilis)
CRPR 2B.2 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.2 Perennial glasslike herb.

Blooms August-September.

Marshes and swamps.

Elevation 490-6,650 feet.

None. Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in the vicinity. The
detention basin in the project buffer
is not suitable for this species.

Bristly sedge (Carex
comosa)
CRPR 2B.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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 15
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CRPR 2B.1 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.2 Annual herb. Blooms JanuaryApril. 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 project vicinity
(Calflora 2024).

Greata’s aster
(Symphyotrichum
greatae)
CNPR 1B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Blooms June-October.

Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub.

Elevation 985-6,895 feet.

None. Species occurs in 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 MayOctober. 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
thermalis)
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
(Calochortus 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
(Calflora 2024).

La Panza mariposalily (Calochortus
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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 16
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Latimer’s woodland
gilia (Saltugilia
latimeri)
CNPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms MarchJune. 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 (Calflora 2024).

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 (Calflora 2024).

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)
CNPR 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms (February) MarchJune. 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 bushmallow
(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 desertthorn (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 AprilJune. 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 (Calflora 2024). Nearest
modern records are from the Lytle
Creek Wash approximately two
miles northeast of the site (Calflora
2024).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 17
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Prairie wedge grass
(Sphenopholis
obtusata)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms AprilJuly. 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 site.

Prostrate vernal
pool navarretia
(Navarretia
prostrata)
CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms AprilJuly. 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 site, but the
project site is located just outside
the estimated species range
(CNPS 2024b).

San Diego
Ambrosia (Ambrosia
pumila)
FE; CRPR
1B.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 AprilSeptember. 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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 18
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Short-joint
beavertail (Opuntia
basilaris var.
brachyclada)
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial stem. Blooms AprilJune (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.

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 AprilJune. 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 (Calflora 2024).

Smooth tarplant
(Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms AprilSeptember. 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 from project vicinity
(Calflora 2024).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 19
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
White rabbittobacco
(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 (Calflora 2024).

White-bracted
spineflower
(Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca)
CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms AprilJune. 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
Mountains and has not been
recorded within the vicinity of the
project site (Calflora 2024).

FE: Federally Endangered
SE: State Endangered
CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 20

3.3.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS 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. A full list of special-status wildlife assessed and their potential to occur on site is presented in Table 6, below.

Table 5. Assessment of Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur Within the Project Site Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur

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 site
inhabitance is low-tomoderate. This species can
persist in semi-natural habitats
surrounded by intensely
modified landscapes, such as
the sparse disturbed
buckwheat scrub habitat within
the project site, and inhabits
abandoned rodent burrows
(NatureServe 2024).

Delhi Sands flowerloving 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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 21
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
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.

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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 22
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
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; however,
washes or other moist habitats
are not present.

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.

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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 23
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
SE (Candidate);
SSC
Found in grasslands and
open scrub from coast to
foothills. Strongly
associated with California
ground squirrel and other
fossorial mammal burrows.

Present/High. 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.

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 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 and
July 3, 2023.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 24
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
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 are 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. No riparian
woodlands are present within
immediate vicinity.

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
trees or windbreaks are
required for roosting.

Present; no potential for
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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 25
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
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 cottonwoodwillow-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 (Brylski
1998).

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 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 26
Species Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur
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.

FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
FP: CDFW Fully Protected
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List Species

3.3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owl is currently a candidate for listing under the CESA as of October 10, 2024. Suitable burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation (Zarn 1974). Suitable burrowing owl habitat may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Burrows are the essential component of burrowing owl habitat; both natural and artificial burrows provide protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owl (Henny and Blus 1981). Burrowing owl typically use burrows made by rodents, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but may also use humanmade structures, such as concrete culverts; concrete, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath concrete or asphalt pavement.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 27
Burrowing owls have declined throughout much of their range because of habitat loss due to urbanization, agricultural conversion, and destruction of ground squirrel colonies (Remsen 1978).

The incidental poisoning of burrowing owls and the destruction of their burrows during eradication programs aimed at rodent colonies have also caused their decline (Collins 1979; Remsen 1978).

Although burrowing owl are relatively tolerant of lower levels of human activity, human-related impacts, such as shooting and introduction of non-native predators, have negative population impacts. Burrowing owl often nest and perch near roads where they are vulnerable to roadside shooting, fatal car strikes, and general harassment (Remsen 1978).

The project is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone (County of San Bernardino 2012). Burrowing owl has historically bred in the local area (RBC 2016, eBird 2021) and suitable burrows are present throughout the project site; however, the project site is surrounded by development which limits foraging opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted for the project site plus a 500-foot buffer in 2023 and though two individual burrowing owls were observed during the first survey (Figure 2), no burrowing owls, active burrows or burrowing owl sign were documented within the project site during subsequent surveys. 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, burrowing owl may use the site for breeding in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat. The site appears be currently used by burrowing owl for refuge and/or foraging outside of the nesting season. Full survey results can be found in Appendix C. Note that surveys were conducted before candidacy status, and the report classifies the burrowing owl as a species of special concern, reflecting its status at the time.

Burrowing owl has high potential to occur within the project site in the future based on its range, ability to establish in disturbed habitats, previous presence on site, and presence of suitable burrows.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii)
Crotch’s bumble bee is currently a candidate for listing under the CESA based on a 2018 petition submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety (CDFW 2022). This species historically ranged from central California to Baja California Del Norte, though recent records indicate a reduction at longitudinal extremes, with most observations occurring in southern California (Thorp et al. 1983; NatureServe 2024; Williams et al. 2014). Largely absent from mountainous regions, Crotch’s bumble bee is distributed from the coast, east to the desert edge (Thorp et al. 1983; Williams et al. 2014). Suitable habitat for this species includes a variety of open shrub and grassland vegetation communities containing ample flowers for nectaring. Due to their short tongue, Crotch’s bumble bees tend to nectar on Acmispon spp., Antirrhinum spp., Asclepias spp., Chaenactis spp., Cirsium spp., Clarkia spp., Cordylanthus spp., Dendromecon spp., Ehrendorferia spp., Eriogonum spp., Eschscholzia spp., Euthamia spp., Hypericum spp., Keckiella spp., Lantana spp., Lupinus spp., Medicago spp., Monardella spp., Phacelia spp., Salvia spp., Trichostema spp., and/or Vicia spp., amongst a variety of other genera (Williams et al. 2014). Though Crotch’s bumble bee is tolerant of fragmented and/or semi-urban environments, habitat loss, climate change, and pesticide use are considered imminent threats to populations (Williams et al. 2014; CDFW 2022).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 28
Although Crotch’s bumble bee has not been recorded within three miles of the project site, the species has been documented in the regional vicinity in recent years (Bumble Bee Watch 2024).

Potentially suitable, though disturbed, Riversidean sage scrub habitat is present along the boundaries of the project site. Although restricted on three sides by developed land, habitat appropriate for Crotch’s bumble bee was dominated by California buckwheat, short-pod mustard, deerweed, and doveweed (Croton setiger). Focused surveys conducted in 2024 were negative for Crotch’s bumble bee. This species changes nest sites each year; therefore, the potential for this species to occur within the project site in the future is low-to-moderate due to the presence of suitable habitat and nectar sources.

Monarch, California Overwintering Population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1) The California overwintering population of monarch is currently a candidate for listing under the FESA. The California overwintering population range extends from northern Baja California, Mexico, to Mendocino County, California. Overwintering sites require specific conditions including protection from high wind and storms, absence of freezing temperatures, varying levels of sunlight, high humidity, and the presence of water. Most of the California overwintering population cluster on non-native blue gum eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus), but they will also utilize native trees.

Threats to this population include loss of suitable overwintering habitat from development, tree trimming, fire and fire management, tree disease, as well as herbicide, pesticide, and climate change.

One monarch butterfly was observed foraging on the project site during biological surveys (Figure 2). Host plants were not observed and no colonial roosting monarchs were observed. A eucalyptus grove exists north of the survey area on the eastern boundary but is unlikely to provide the necessary conditions for a suitable overwintering site. Most of the overwintering sites are located within 1.5 miles of the Pacific Ocean which provides the mild climactic conditions needed for monarchs to survive the winter. The project site is roughly 50 miles from the coast, therefore does not provide the suitable microclimatic conditions that are often found at sites consisting of roost trees (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2016). Based on these site conditions, the potential for this species to overwinter on site is low.

3.3.2.2 Wildlife Species of Special Concern and Watch List Species American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
American peregrine falcon is delisted from the ESA and CESA and is no longer considered a CDFW Fully Protected (FP) species (CDFW 2024b). Its range extends across much of North America inhabiting tundra, savannas, coasts, mountains, wetlands, and cities. This species primarily preys upon birds. Typical prey includes shorebirds, waterfowl, pigeons, and songbirds; however, at least 450 North American bird species have been documented as peregrine falcon prey. They also hunt bats and will pirate fish and rodents from other raptor species (White et al. 2002). Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs and manmade structures such as tall buildings, bridges, and transmission towers. They do not build nests and instead “scrape” the nest ledge to create a shallow depression; however, they will occasionally use abandoned raven, osprey, bald eagle, redtailed hawk, or cormorant nests when cliffs are unavailable (White et al. 2002).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 29
American peregrine falcon was once a species of great conservation concern. The number of known breeding pairs had dropped by 95% from the early 1900s to 1970 due to habitat loss and the widespread use of the pesticide DDT, which caused eggshell thinning and thus failed nesting attempts. The species was listed as endangered under the FESA in 1970 and the CESA in 1971 (CDFW 2024e). Due to the banning of DDT in 1972 and widespread recovery efforts, American peregrine falcon has recovered across its range and was delisted by USFWS in 1999 and CDFW in 2009.

One American peregrine falcon was observed hunting north of the project site during the general biological survey on October 11, 2022; however, no suitable nesting habitat is present on site.

California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
California horned lark is a CDFW Watch List (WL) species found from coastal deserts and grasslands to alpine dwarf-shrub habitat above tree line, and in coniferous or chaparral habitats. It is a common to abundant resident in a variety of open habitats, usually found in habitats where trees and large shrubs are absent. Within southern California, California horned larks nest on the ground in open fields, grasslands, and rangelands. Horned larks forage in areas with low-growing vegetation and feed primarily on grains and other seeds, shifting to mostly insects in the summer months. California horned lark breeds from March through July, with a peak in activity in May. Pairs do not maintain territories outside of the breeding season and instead form large gregarious, somewhat nomadic flocks.

Threats to California horned lark include habitat destruction and fragmentation. Habitats preferred by California horned lark are easily converted to other landscapes and human uses such as farmland and development. Pesticides have also been shown to poison and kill horned larks (Beason 1995). As a ground nester, California horned lark is vulnerable to mowing in a variety of habitats and pesticide use in agricultural fields.

California horned lark were observed foraging on the project site during biological surveys.

California Gull (Larus californicus)
The California gull is a CDFW WL species and USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern when in a nesting colony. California gulls can be found foraging in pastures, scrublands, and garbage dumps miles from their nesting colonies which occur primarily on islands and levees in lakes and rivers (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019).

California gull was observed flying over the site during focused burrowing owl surveys. Suitable foraging habitat is present; however, suitable habitat for nesting colonies does not occur within the project site.

Coastal Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri)
The coastal whiptail is a CDFW SSC. This subspecies is found west of the Peninsular Ranges, south of the Transverse Ranges, and north into Ventura County and ranges south into Baja California, Mexico. Suitable coastal whiptail habitat can be found in rocky, sandy, dry habitats including sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands, and riparian areas on friable loose soil.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 30
Threats to this species are habitat degradation and destruction. Isolated populations are separated by development and are unlikely to cross highways or densely urbanized areas. However, species of this family typically have home ranges less than 2.5 acres (Anderson 1993); therefore, the small patch of suitable scrub habitat, though disturbed, could support this species. Coastal whiptail was not observed during project general biological surveys; however, it has a moderate potential to occur on site based on suitable habitat.

Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
Coast horned lizard is a CDFW SSC and ranges from Shasta County, south to northern Baja California, Mexico in scattered populations. The coast horned lizard inhabits grasslands, coniferous forests, woodlands, and chaparral, with open areas and patches of loose soil. In southern California, the species is most often found where its prey, native ants, are present, and little to no invasive Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) are found, as these are not a suitable replacement food source (Suarez et al. 2000).

Threats to this species include habitat loss and fragmentation, and the spread of invasive ants displacing its native ant prey. Suitable disturbed native scrub habitat and native harvester ants, a suitable prey item, were observed on site. This species was not observed within the survey area during biological surveys; however, given this species’ small home ranges and sedentary habits, the site has a moderate potential to support this species.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Golden eagle is a CDFW FP species and a CDFW WL species when overwintering. Golden eagle ranges from northern Mexico into Canada and Alaska in North America. The species generally inhabits open and semi-open habitats including prairie, sagebrush, alpine tundra, sparce woodland, and barren areas. They primarily nest on rock ledges and cliffs, but will also use trees, steep hillsides, or the ground.

Threats to this species include electrocution from powerlines, ingestion of poison from its prey, toxic water ingestion, habitat degradation and loss of prey from development, and collisions with structures and vehicles. This species is known to avoid large urban areas (USFWS 2011) like those surrounding the project.

One golden eagle was observed flying high near the project site during the general biological survey on October 11, 2022; however, potential overwintering or nesting habitat does not occur on the project site and the species is also not likely utilizing the site as a hunting ground. In addition, suitable nesting sites do not occur within the vicinity of the project site.

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrike is a CDFW SSC when nesting. This species is a non-migratory year-round resident in southern California. Loggerhead shrikes prefer open habitat, typically with short vegetation and scattered shrubs. This species consumes a diet mainly consisting of insects but also feeds on reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Loggerhead shrikes use a feeding technique where the bird impales prey on spines or thorns of shrubs. Thus, loggerhead shrike suitable habitat requires vegetation with spines or thorns (Yosef 1996), or artificial objects such as barbed wire.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 31
Leading causes of decline for this species include urban development and ingestion of pesticideladen prey. Loggerhead shrike numbers are still fairly large across North America; however, the species has dramatically declined over the past century (Yosef 1996).

One loggerhead shrike was observed foraging along a chain link fence in the northern portion of the project site during biological surveys (Figure 2).

Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Merlin is a CDFW WL species and uncommon winter migrant in the low elevations of California (i.e., less than 3,900 feet). Merlin prefers coastlines, open grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, lakes, wetlands, edges, deserts, and herbaceous stage habitats. This species relies on a diet primarily comprised of small birds and occasionally preys on insects and small mammals. Shorelines act as particularly important hunting grounds during winter months.

Merlin experienced stark population declines from pesticide use prior to environmental legislation in 1972. Since the ban of harsh pesticides, populations have increased slowly, though sightings in southern California are still considered rare (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Merlin was observed flying over the project site during focused burrowing owl surveys. The project site supports non-native grasslands suitable for merlin foraging and is within the elevational range preferred by this species. However, suitable roosting habitat is not present, and this species is not known to nest in California.

Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus)
Prairie falcon is a CDFW WL species. It ranges from southeastern desert northwest through the Central Valley. Typical habitats include annual grasslands, savannahs, agricultural fields, and desert scrub. They primarily nest in natural crevices or ledges on steep bluffs and cliffs up to 11,000 feet (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019).

Prairie falcon was observed flying over the project site during focused burrowing owl surveys.

Suitable foraging habitat is present throughout the site. However, suitable nesting habitat for prairie falcon does not occur within the project site and this species is not anticipated to nest on site.

3.3.2.3 Critical Habitat
The ESA defines critical habitat as a specific geographic area, or areas, that contains features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. USFWS designates critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and may include sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species, but that will be needed for its recovery.

No USFWS designated critical habitat occurs within or immediately adjacent the project site, or within one mile of the project site (Figure 3a).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 32

3.4 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
A wildlife corridor can be defined as a physical feature that links wildlife habitat, often consisting of native vegetation that joins two or more larger areas of similar wildlife habitat (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1996). Corridors enable migration, colonization, and genetic diversity through interbreeding and are therefore critical for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations. Corridors can consist of large, linear stretches of connected habitat (such as riparian vegetation) or as a sequence of stepping-stones across the landscape (discontinuous areas of habitat such as wetlands and ornamental vegetation), or corridors can be larger habitat areas with known or likely importance to local fauna.

Regional corridors are defined as those linking two or more large patches of habitat, and local corridors are defined as those allowing resident animals to access critical resources (food, cover, and water) in a smaller area that might otherwise be isolated by urban development (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1996). A viable wildlife migration corridor consists of more than an unobstructed path between habitat areas. Appropriate vegetation communities must be present to provide food and cover for both transient species and resident populations of less mobile animals. There must also be a sufficient lack of stressors and threats within and adjacent to the corridor for species to use it successfully.

The project site does not function as part of a wildlife corridor. Based on a review of the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System data, no wildlife movement corridors are mapped within the project site (CDFW 2024d). The land within and around the project site is designated as Rank 1, “Limited Connectivity Opportunity”, which is the lowest rank within the Terrestrial Connectivity, Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE) dataset (CDFW 2024d). The project site is composed primarily of undeveloped areas that are highly disturbed and 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. Cumulatively, the project site and other undeveloped isolated lots in the project vicinity are unlikely to be used by wildlife species as refuge between larger areas of naturally occurring habitat.

3.5 Potential Federal and State Jurisdictional Aquatic
Resources
No aquatic resources were identified 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 adjacent to the Valley Power Systems commercial development occurs immediately off site to the north and runs directly parallel to the northern boundary of the project site (Figure 2, D-1; Appendix A, Photo 11). The v-ditch appears to collect and convey stormwater east from the associated commercial development to the street gutter on North Fitzgerald Avenue.

RBC observed sediment within the unvegetated concrete v-ditch.

Based on the lack of hydrophytic vegetation within the off-site concrete v-ditch, this feature is not anticipated to meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 33
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 U.S. per the Corps as the concrete v-ditch appeared excavated in uplands (i.e., did not relocate natural drainages or excavated tributaries) based on the field assessment and an initial review of Google Earth aerial imagery (Figure 4). Thus, based on the current definition of “waters of the U.S.,” the concrete v-ditch should be considered a ditch “excavated wholly in and draining only dry land” that does “not carry a relatively permanent flow of water” (33 CFR 328.3 (b)(3)).

However, the off-site concrete v-ditch may qualify as a non-wetland water of the state jurisdictional per the RWQCB. Although it is a maintained artificial structure functioning as localized stormwater runoff conveyance this feature continues into a culvert that may have downstream connectivity; as such, discharge of fill into the concrete v-ditch could have “detrimental impacts downstream within the watershed” (J. Bill [RWQCB], personal communication, August 2, 2019). As such, the concrete v-ditch may qualify as a non-wetland water of the state jurisdictional per the RWQCB.

The concrete v-ditch would likely not qualify as a jurisdictional streambed per the CDFW, as the concrete ditch did not replace a natural feature/streambed, lacked association with a natural feature/streambed, and did not support wildlife habitat (CFGC § 1602 – 1603).

The survey area also supports one swale (Figure 2, S-1; Appendix A, Photo 12) that is not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW since it did not display an observable OHWM, bed and bank, or other evidence of conveying regular flows on site.

The survey area also supports one vegetated, earthen-bottom detention basin west of the project site. Standing water was observed within the detention basin during the constraints-level aquatic resources assessment and vegetation mapping on October 11, 2022 but was not observed with standing water during subsequent site visits. The detention basin would likely not qualify as jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW as the basin is a maintained artificial structure.

Please note that in order to receive an official determination from the Corps and concurrence from the RWQCB and the CDFW related to potential aquatic resources, (i.e., that the project site does not support jurisdictional aquatic resources occur), a project-specific aquatic resources delineation and reporting per Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW standards and guidelines and further coordination with the resource agencies would be required. RBC does not believe such reporting and coordination is warranted for this site unless requested by the local permitting jurisdiction or by the regulatory agencies.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 34
4 Impact Analysis
Direct impacts are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place as the project.

Any alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from projectrelated activities is considered a direct impact. Direct impacts would include direct losses to native habitats, potential jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and special-status species; and diverting natural surface water flows. Direct impacts could include injury, death, and/or harassment of listed and/or special-status species. Direct impacts could also include the destruction of habitats necessary for species breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Direct impacts on plants can include crushing of adult plants, bulbs, or seeds.

Indirect impacts can result from project-related activities where biological resources are affected in a manner that is not direct. Indirect impacts may occur later in time or at a place that is farther removed in distance from the project than direct impacts, but indirect impacts are still reasonably foreseeable and attributable to project-related activities. Examples include habitat fragmentation; elevated noise, dust, and lighting levels; changes in hydrology, runoff, and sedimentation; decreased water quality; soil compaction; increased human activity; and the introduction of invasive wildlife (domestic cats and dogs) and plants (weeds). As noted in Section 2, the survey area included a 100-foot buffer to identify nearby biological resources and to aid in assessment of potential indirect impacts on protected resources, if present.

Cumulative impacts refer to incremental individual environmental effects of two or more projects when considered together. Such impacts taken individually may be minor but are collectively significant in light of regional impacts.

The significance thresholds as outlined in Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines (CCR Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387) have been used to determine whether project implementation would result in a significant direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impact. A significant biological resources impact would occur if the project would:
1) 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 CDFW or USFWS; 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy, or ordinance;

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 35
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP; NCCP or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.

CEQA Threshold 1: 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 CDFW or USFWS?

4.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS

4.1.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The proposed project will not impact federally and/or state listed or other special-status plants as none are present 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.

4.1.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Although monarch butterfly, a candidate for listing under FESA when overwintering in California, was observed during the general biological survey on October 11, 2022, the site has low potential to support overwintering individuals due to the lack of suitable climactic conditions, such as protection from high wind and storms, absence of freezing temperatures, varying levels of sunlight, high humidity, and the presence of water (see Section 3). Thus, impacts on monarch resulting from the project would be less than significant.

Crotch’s bumble bee (state candidate for listing under the CESA) has low-to-moderate potential to occur on the project site and may be impacted with project implementation, as discussed further below. 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, as discussed further below.

The proposed project will not impact any additional federally and/or state listed wildlife species as no additional listed species were observed during general biological surveys and none have moderate to high potential to occur on site based on lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed nature of the site.

Burrowing Owl
The project has high potential to support burrowing owl. During the 2023 focused burrowing owl surveys, numerous suitable burrows were present on the project site and two burrowing owl individuals were observed during the first breeding season survey. No burrowing owl individuals, active burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed during the subsequent three surveys. 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, burrowing owl may use the site for breeding in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat. The site appears to have been used by

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 36
burrowing owl for refuge and/or foraging outside of the nesting season and burrowing owl may occur on site in the future.

With project implementation, direct impacts on burrowing owl could occur in the form of death, injury, or harassment of nesting birds, their eggs, and their young, if owls are present. Such impacts, if they were to occur, are potentially significant due to the direct reduction in local populations and loss of genetic diversity.

Injury or mortality occurs most frequently during the vegetation clearing stage of construction and affects eggs, nestlings, and recently fledged young that cannot safely avoid equipment. To avoid such impacts on burrowing owls, the following measures would be implemented:
• Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, construction personnel would be provided training with instructions to follow in the event a burrowing owl is observed or suspected to be on site (BIO-3A).
• Biological monitors would be retained to monitor construction activities, search for burrowing owls that may enter the site after the start of construction, and ensure that project activities do not result in adverse effects on burrowing owls (BIO-3B). • Pre-construction burrowing owl clearance surveys would be conducted in accordance with CDFW BUOW Guidelines to ensure no occupied burrowing owl burrows are present within or adjacent to construction areas during ground disturbance (BIO-3B). • If burrowing owls are detected on site or within a 500-foot buffer of the site, all project activities would be halted and CDFW would be contacted. Work would not resume until CDFW’s review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan and/or CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under CFGC section 2081 (BIO-3B).

Direct impacts on burrowing owl could still occur if owls enter the project site during active construction. Burrowing owls are particularly susceptible to vehicle strikes because they utilize roadways and adjacent areas for hunting. To avoid such impacts on burrowing owl, speed limits would be set and enforced (BIO-1E). In addition, burrowing owls are known to use manmade materials, such as pipes and culverts, for shelter and nesting. Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize the potential for burrowing owls to use staged project materials (BIO-1F); thereby reducing the likelihood of burrowing owl being impacted by construction activities.

With the successful implementation of the BMPs listed in BIO-1, some direct impacts on burrowing owl within the project site would be avoided and/or minimized. However, project implementation would also result in potential impacts on burrowing owl through destruction or degradation of suitable habitat, including potential burrows. This impact is not anticipated to be significant since burrowing owls were not documented nesting on site. Although development of the project site would eliminate some suitable roosting burrows and potential food sources, this habitat is disturbed and low-quality, as evidenced by burrowing owls’ short duration on site and lack of breeding activity. Should owls be documented on site in the future, consultation with CDFW, and potentially compensatory mitigation, would be required (BIO-3B).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 37
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 uses lighting. Such impacts are potentially significant because lights could reduce burrowing owls’ hunting success and make burrowing owls easier targets for predators. To avoid impacts on burrowing owl from nighttime construction and lighting, construction would occur during the day (BIO-1G). In addition, indirect impacts on burrowing owl, if present in suitable habitat north of the project site, could 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 site would be detected, if present (BIO-3B). If burrowing owls are detected within 500-feet of the project site, CDFW would be consulted for additional guidance (BIO-3B). As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant.

With the adherence of mitigation measures as discussed in Section 5, impacts on burrowing owls resulting from the project would be less than significant.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee was not documented during focused surveys or general biological surveys; however, suitable nectar sources and marginally suitable habitat is present on the project site and the potential for this species to occur is low-to-moderate. Although Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed on site, the project could result in direct impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee in the form of death, injury, or harassment if Crotch’s bumble bee were to occur within the project site. Such impacts on foraging bees are not anticipated to be significant since adult Crotch’s bumble bee would likely flush during active construction activities. However, direct impacts on nesting sites could result in significant direct take of Crotch’s bumble bee. The analysis conservatively assumed that significant impacts to the species could occur as a result of direct impacts to nesting sites.

Potential impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee would be avoided or minimized through implementation of project mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2. Within one year prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a nesting survey would be conducted to identify active colonies within the project site (BIO-2A). If active nests are documented within the project site, an appropriate nondisturbance buffer area would be established immediately prior to the start of construction activities to avoid direct take (BIO-2B). Potential direct impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant with implementation of pre-construction nesting surveys and avoidance buffers.

Potential indirect impacts on this species could occur through destruction of viable nectar sources or occupied habitat. To determine if Crotch’s bumble bee is present and therefore impacts could occur on occupied habitat, a focused survey would be conducted within one year prior to ground disturbing activities (BIO-2C). If present, destruction of nectar sources or removal of occupied habitat could be potentially significant because a reduction in essential resources could put strain on populations already experiencing declines (CDFW 2023). To mitigate for such potential impacts, if any, on-site revegetation with suitable nectar sources would be implemented following completion of construction activities (BIO-2D). With adherence to the mitigation measures described in Section 5.2, potential impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee would be reduced to less than

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 38
significant. If Crotch’s bumble bee is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of project construction, then mitigation measures shall not be required.

Other Special-Status Wildlife Species
Four other special-status wildlife species, California horned lark, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike and American peregrine falcon, were detected during general biological surveys and an additional two non-listed special-status wildlife species, coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, have moderate potential to occur on the project site. The proposed project has the potential to impact these special-status species, as discussed below.

California Horned Lark and Loggerhead Shrike
California horned lark and loggerhead shrike were observed within and adjacent to the project site, therefore direct impacts through loss of suitable foraging habitat would occur with project implementation. However, California horned lark and loggerhead shrike inhabit a wide variety of habitats and are relatively tolerant of disturbance. Suitable foraging habitat for these species is present within proximity to the project site and is abundant throughout the region. As such, removal of suitable foraging habitat would be less than significant.

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, damage 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, and/or loss of genetic diversity of these special-status species is potentially significant.

To avoid or minimize such impacts on California horned lark and loggerhead shrike, the following measures would be implemented:
• Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment would be conducted to assess the potential for special-status avian species to occur on the project site (BIO-1A).
• At least one week prior to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a 100%- coverage pre-construction wildlife survey would be conducted (BIO-1B). • If deemed necessary based on the results of the pre-construction survey, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species, including California horned lark and loggerhead shrike (BIO-1C). • Vegetation trimming and removal, grading, and other construction activities within suitable nesting habitat would occur outside of typical avian breeding season (typically February 15 through August 31) (BIO-4A)
• If avoidance of nesting season is not feasible, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds would be conducted prior to construction within suitable nesting habitat (BIO-4A).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 39
• If nesting California horned lark or loggerhead shrike are documented, no-work exclusion buffers would be established and maintained around each nest until fledglings, if present, are no longer dependent on the nest and disperse from the area (BIO-4B).

With successful implementation of BIO-4, direct impacts on nesting California horned lark and loggerhead shrike during project construction would be less than significant. Additionally, a biologist would flush adult avian species from the project site prior to initial ground disturbing activities (BIO-1D). Thus, direct impacts on California horned lark and loggerhead shrike would be avoided.

Indirect impacts on California horned lark and loggerhead shrike, if present adjacent to the project site, could 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 California horned lark or loggerhead shrike behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant.

Coastal Whiptail and Coast Horned Lizard
Coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard have a moderate potential to occur on site. Project construction activities could result in potential direct impacts on these special-status species, if present on site. Vegetation clearing and grading and other construction activities could result in harassment, injury, and/or death of coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard. Impacts that result in injury or death of coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard and/or loss of genetic diversity of these special-status species are potentially significant.

To avoid or minimize such impacts, the following BMPs would be implemented:
• Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment would be conducted to assess the potential for coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard to occur on the project site (BIO-1A).
• At least one week prior to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a 100%- coverage pre-construction wildlife survey would be conducted (BIO-1B). • If deemed necessary based on the results of the pre-construction survey, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be developed to protect coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, including relocation to nearby suitable habitat by a qualified biologist under the appropriate permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies (BIO-1C).
• A biologist would walk through habitat to be imminently removed to flush any coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard that may be present from the project site to the greatest extent practicable (BIO-1D).
• Speed limits would be set and enforced to minimize risk of vehicle collisions with coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard (BIO-1E).
• Holes and trenches excavated during construction would be covered or equipped with escape ramps to prevent entrapment of special-status lizards (BIO-1H).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 40
• Pets, which could harass, injure, or kill lizards, would be prohibited on the project site (BIO-1I).
• Trash would be properly stored and disposed of to avoid attracting predators of coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, such as common raven (Corvus corax), to the project site (BIO-1J).

Successful implementation of such measures would help minimize or avoid potential direct impacts on coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, if present.

Project construction could also result in direct impacts on coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard through destruction of suitable habitat. However, suitable habitat is largely restricted to the 0.7 acre of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub on site. This habitat is altered by previous disturbances, surrounded by non-native vegetation communities or land uses, and is isolated from other suitable coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard habitat. As such, this land provides little biological value and does not play a substantial role in species viability. Direct impacts due to habitat destruction are anticipated to be less than significant.

Direct impacts on coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard could occur during project construction if these species are present in the adjacent suitable habitat north of the project site. If construction equipment enters these areas, harassment, injury, and/or death of coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard could occur. To avoid impacts on off-site special-status lizards, the limits of work would be clearly demarcated (BIO-1K) and construction equipment would not enter these areas.

As such, direct impacts on special-status lizards potentially present adjacent to the project site would be less than significant.

Indirect impacts on coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, if present adjacent to the project site, could 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 coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be 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 general biological survey (Appendix B). 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 it and are not expected to rely on the project site since it is dominated by developed or disturbed habitats. Suitable nesting habitat is not present for any of these raptor 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 in Southern California. In addition, California gull was observed during biological surveys; however, there is no potential for the 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 resulting from the project would be less than significant.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 41
CEQA Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS?

4.2 NATIVE VEGETATION IMPACTS
The proposed project would result in impacts on three land uses/vegetation communities, developed land, disturbed habitat, and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (Figure 5; Table 7).

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 is not anticipated to be significant due to its abundance in the region. Therefore, impacts to native vegetation communities resulting from the project would be less than significant.

Table 6. Vegetation Communities/Lane Cover Project Impacts Vegetation
(Holland)1 Vegetation2 Impacts (acres)
Developed Developed/Disturbed 4.0
Disturbed Habitat Developed/Disturbed 22.5
Disturbed Riversidean
Sage Scrub
Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance 0.7
Total 27.2
1 Vegetation communities recognized by Holland (1986)
2 Vegetation communities from Holland (1986) crosswalked to Sawyer et al. (2009) CEQA Threshold 3: 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?

4.3 POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS The proposed project will not impact state or federally protected wetlands as no potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed on the project site (see Section 3.5). Note that the off-site concrete v-ditch that occurs immediately north of the site has some potential to qualify as a non-wetland water of the state jurisdictional per the RWQCB; however, impacts are not proposed in or near that area. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources and permitting through the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW would not be required.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 42
CEQA Threshold 4: 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?

4.4 NESTING BIRD IMPACTS
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/or CFGC §3503. To avoid potential direct impacts on nesting birds, removal of suitable nesting habitat would occur outside of the breeding season (BIO-4A), when feasible. In addition, within three days prior to site disturbance or construction activities, a biologist would conduct a nesting bird survey (BIO-4A). If active nests are found, construction activity would be avoided in a buffer area around the nest until nestlings have fledged and the nest is determined to be inactive, and a biologist would be retained to monitor nesting activity (BIO-4B). With the adherence of such mitigation measures, described further in Section 5, impacts on nesting birds resulting from the project would be less than significant.

4.5 WILDLIFE CORRIDOR IMPACTS
The project site does not serve as part of a regional 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. Cumulatively, the project site and other undeveloped isolated lots in the project vicinity are unlikely to be used by wildlife species as refuge between larger areas of naturally occurring habitat. As such, the project would not result in impacts on wildlife movement and regional corridors.

CEQA Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy, or ordinance?

4.6 LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES IMPACTS

4.6.1 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BURROWING OWL OVERLAY ZONE As previously discussed, the project site is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone. As such, focused surveys and pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl should be conducted to determine presence/absence within the project site. Focused surveys have been conducted and the results are presented in Section 3. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted for the project, as detailed in Section 5. As such, the project would not conflict with the County of San Bernardino Biotic Resources Overlay Zones.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 43

4.6.2 CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN
The project does not contain suitable soils for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis). As such, protocol surveys are not required, and the City of Rialto General Plan policy related to this species is not applicable.

CEQA Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or state HCP?

4.7 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN; OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN IMPACTS
The project site is not located with an active HCP or NCCP area; therefore, the project would not result in impacts on HCPs or NCCPs.

4.8 INDIRECT IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the context of biological resources, indirect impacts are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts from site drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, dumping, etc. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction-related activities.

The project site and abutting lands support a low diversity in vegetation communities and other land covers. The project site itself is made up of disturbed habitat, developed land, and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub. To the north, the project site borders former Rialto Airport land that supports sparse, disturbed native habitat. To the south, east, and west, the site is surrounded by commercial and industrial development with little to no native habitat. Project activities would not significantly change the conditions on adjacent lands or result in indirect effects on biological resources. Therefore, indirect impacts would be less than significant.

4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. ‘Related projects’ refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project. The project site is disturbed, surrounded by development, and does not support sensitive natural vegetation communities. As such, the proposed project will not result in significant cumulative effects.

However, through the environmental review process, all projects in the region would be individually required to reduce their own impacts through compensatory mitigation, as well as other projectspecific mitigation measures and avoidance and minimization measures. Compensatory mitigation

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 44
would be subject to agency approval and would be planning with consideration to other open space preserved in perpetuity to create large, undisturbed habitat blocks. Because the impacts associated with the project would be fully mitigated, the cumulative contribution to region-wide impacts would be less than significant.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 45
5 Mitigation Measures
The following discussion provides project-specific mitigation measures; adherence with these measures is necessary to avoid and minimize impacts on biological resources resulting from the project.

5.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
BIO-1A: Prior to project construction activities, an updated potential to occur assessment shall be completed. Species to be addressed shall include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) for which suitable habitat is present within or adjacent to the project site. If deemed necessary, pre-construction species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, shall be conducted. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures shall follow CDFW and USFWS guidance, where applicable.

BIO-1B: Prior to the start of project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a comprehensive pre-construction wildlife survey. This survey must be completed within one week before any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal begins. The survey shall include 100% coverage of the project site, as well as a 100-foot buffer zone surrounding the site to identify and document any wildlife species present in adjacent areas. All species observed during the survey shall be recorded and mapped accordingly.

BIO-1C: If necessary, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed to protect sensitive wildlife species identified during the pre-construction survey. These measures may include establishing species-specific no-disturbance buffer zones. If wildlife is observed within the project footprint and cannot be avoided, individuals may be relocated to suitable habitat outside the impact area by a qualified biologist. All relocations shall be conducted under the appropriate permits and authorizations from relevant wildlife agencies.

BIO-1D: A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species), with the exception of burrowing owl, 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 imminently removed and towards adjacent remaining suitable habitat.

BIO-1E: Construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads adjacent to the project site or the right-of-way accessing the site.

BIO-1F: The Applicant, or its contractors, will 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. These pipes, culverts,

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 46
and similar structures will be inspected by the project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.

BIO-1G: 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.

BIO-1H: 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 will thoroughly inspect holes and trenches for trapped animals during biological monitoring.

BIO-1I: Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site.

BIO-1J: 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 must be removed or emptied each night.

BIO-1K: 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.

5.2 CROTCH’S BUMBLE BEE AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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, an approved qualified designated 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 (CDFW 2023e) within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 47
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, or if complete avoidance of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be achieved, project activities with the potential to impact Crotch’s bumble bee shall be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., a finalized CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained.

BIO-2C: Within one year prior to ground disturbing activities, the approved designated biologist shall survey suitable nectar plants for foraging Crotch’s bumble bee during the typical flight season (February – October), within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists, following survey guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). The qualified biologist shall be familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history. Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities.

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.

5.3 BURROWING OWL AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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.

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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 48
BIO-3B: Suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owl presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, familiar and experienced in burrowing owls, in accordance with the CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of project construction and surrounding 500 foot radius.

Take avoidance surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiation of project-related activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days.

Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the CDFW BUOW Guidelines (2012 or most recent version). Upon beginning ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a biologist shall be on hand to perform monitoring during all construction activities every day to ensure no impacts occur to burrowing owls as a result of the project Should burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof be confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measure if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 1,000 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

If project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the project proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081) prior to commencement of project activities. The ITP shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available) 2) Mitigation Credit Agreements 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

5.4 NESTING BIRD AVOIDANCE
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

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 49
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.

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.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 50
6 References
Anderson, R. A. (1993). An analysis of foraging in the lizard, Cnemidophorus tigris. Pages 83-116 in J. W.

Wright and L. J. Vitt, editors. Biology of whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus). Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, Oklahoma.

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti. (2012). The Jepson Manual:

Vascular Plants of California (2nd ed.). Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Beason, R. C. (1995). Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Version 2.0. In P. G. Rodewald (Ed.), The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Bumble Bee Watch. (2024). Bumble Bee Maps. Retrieved from https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/maps.

Brylski, P.V. (1998). Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Perognathus longimembris brevinasus. In B. C. Bolster (Ed.), Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game.

Calflora. (2024) Information on California Plants for Education, Research and Conservation, With Data Contributed by Public and Private Institutions and Individuals. The Calflora Database. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2012). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
__. (2016). Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species In California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
__. (2022). CDFW Seeks Public Comment Related to Crotch’s Bumble Bee, Franklin’s Bumble Bee, Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee and Western Bumble Bee. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Retrieved June 2023, from https://wildlife.ca.gov/News/cdfw-seeks-public-comment-related-tocrotchs-bumble-bee-franklins-bumble-bee-suckleys-cuckoo-bumble-bee-and-western-bumblebee#gsc.tab=0. __. (2023). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023.
__. (2024a). California Natural Diversity Database. Retrieved July 1, 2024 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
__. (2024b). Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline. __. (2024c). California Natural Community List. Retrieved July 1, 2024 from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. __. (2024d). Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
__. (2024e). American Peregrine Falcons in California. Retrieved August 1, 2024 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Peregrine-Falcon.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2024a). California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory.

Retrieved August 12, 2024, from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. __. (2024b). San Bernardino Aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). Retrieved August 1, 2024, from https://calscape.org/Symphyotrichum-defoliatum-(San-Bernardino-Aster) City of Rialto. (2010). Rialto General Plan. Adopted December 2010. __. (2016). Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment. Approved December 13, 2016.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 51
Collins, C. T. (1979). The Ecology and Conservation of Burrowing Owls. In Proceedings of the National Audubon Society, Symposium of Owls of the West, Their Ecology and Conservation. National Audubon Society Western Education Center.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2019). All About Birds. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.allaboutbirds.org
County of San Bernardino. (2012). Biotic Resources Overlay Map. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/BioMaps/cnty_all_biotic_resources_map_final.pdf eBird. (2021). eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abundance. Retrieved August 2024, from http://www.ebird.org
Henny, C.J. and L. J. Blus. (1981). Artificial Burrows Provide New Insight into Burrowing Owl Nesting Biology. Raptor Research, 15, 82-85.

Holland, R. F. (1986). Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, the Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2024). Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm NatureServe. (2024). NatureServe Explorer. Bombus crotchii: Crotch’s Bumble Bee. Retrieved August 2024, from https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.834085/Bombus_crotchii Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (1996). Biological Monitoring Plan for the Multiple Species Conservation Program. Retrieved from
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/monitor/bio1996c orridor.pdf.

Remsen, J. V. (1978). Bird Species of Special Concern in California: An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Branch.

Rocks Biological Consulting. (2016). Results of Burrowing Owl Monitoring at the Former Rialto Municipal Airport, Rialto, San Bernardino County, California.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keller-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. (2009). The Manual of California Vegetation (2nd ed.). California Native Plant Society.

Suarez, A.V., J. Q. Richmond, and T. J. Case. (2000). Prey Selection in Horned Lizards Following the Invasion of Argentine Ants in Southern California. Ecological Applications, 10(3), pp. 711-725.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (2016). State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California.

Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, and L. L. Dunning. (1983). Bumble Bees and Cuckoo Bumble Bees of California (Hymenoptera, Apidae). University of California Press.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Golden Eagles, Status Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/goldeneagle-fact-sheet.pdf. __. (2024a). Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Retrieved July 1, 2024, from
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8 dbfb77.
__. (2024b). Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 52
__. (2024c). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlandsmapper.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2024a). The National Map, Advanced Viewer. U.S. Department of Interior.

Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ __. (2024b). USGS U.S. Topo 7.5 – minute maps for DEVORE, CA and FONTANA, CA. Retrieved December 7, 2022.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. (2002). Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Version

2.0. In P. G. Rodewald (Ed.), The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. (2014). The Bumble Bees of North America:

An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. 208 pp.

Yosef, R. (1996). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 231. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union.

Zarn, M. (1974). Technical Note T-N-250 Habitat Management Series for Unique of Endangered Species Report No. 11: Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Zeiner, D.C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (Eds.). (1990). California’s Wildlife, Vol. 1-3.

California Department of Fish and Game.

Fitzgerald Ave
%&g(
Linden Ave
W Walnut Ave
W Baseline Rd
Ayala DrLocust Ave
W Etiwanda Ave
Miro Way
Cedar Ave
W Renaissance Pkwy

FONTANA RIALTO
N
!
Project Site
?z
!"a$ %&h(
AÆ
!"`$
%&g(
%&h( Figure
1 MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE

RIALTO, CA
Project Location
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2023
Regional Map: National Geographic

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
M
iroWay
Linden Ave
Ayala Dr
S-1
D-1
ProjectBoundary
SurveyArea
ReviewArea
Swale*
ConcreteVDitch*
Vegetation
RiversideanSageScrub-Disturbed
DisturbedHabitat
Developed
ObservedSpecial-StatusSpecies
BurrowingOwl(Athenecunicularia)
HornedLark(Eremophilaalpestris)
LoggerheadShrike(Laniusludovicianus)
MonarchButterfly(Danausplexippus)

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
N
Figure
2 BiologicalResources

MIROWAYANDAYALADRIVE

RIALTO,CA
AerialPhoto:Nearmap2024
075150F
eet
*Theobservederosionalfeatureandswaleare
notanticipatedtobejurisdictionalpertheCorps,
RWQCB,andCDFWbasedonconstraints-level
analysis.Formalaquaticresourcesdelineation,
includingadditionaldatacollectionandassociated
aquaticresourcesdelineationreport(ARDR)
wouldbeneededtoreceiveagencyconfirmation
regardingjurisdictionalstatus.

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

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
Figure
3A
0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
USFWS Plants and Wildlife

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE

RIALTO, CA
Date: 8/19/2024
Base Map: Esri Topographic Map
Source: USFWS
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
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

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
Figure
3B
0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
CNDDB Plants and Wildlife

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE

RIALTO, CA
Date: 8/19/2024
Base Map: Esri Topographic Map
Source: CDFW
Foothill Blvd
%&g(
Base Line Rd
Alder Ave
Casmalia St
Renaissance Pkwy
Riverside Ave
Ayala DrCactus AveLinden Ave
Miro Way
Locust Ave
Project Boundary
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Stream/River
Connector
Pipeline
Reservoir
Wash
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Freshwater Pond
Soils
Delhi fine sand
Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Quarries and Pits soils
Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
Figure
4 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE

RIALTO, CA
Source: USFWS; USGS
Aerial Photo: USDA NAIP 2022
Soils, National Hydrology Dataset,
and National Wetland Inventory
M
iroWay
Linden Ave
Ayala Dr
S-1
D-1
ProjectBoundary
DevelopmentFootprint
SurveyArea
ReviewArea
Swale*
ConcreteVDitch*
Vegetation
RiversideanSageScrub-Disturbed
DisturbedHabitat
Developed
ObservedSpecial-StatusSpecies
BurrowingOwl(Athenecunicularia)
HornedLark(Eremophilaalpestris)
LoggerheadShrike(Laniusludovicianus)
MonarchButterfly(Danausplexippus)

RBIOLOOGICACL CONKSULTSING
N
Figure
5 ProposedProjectImpacts

MIROWAYANDAYALADRIVE

RIALTO,CA
AerialPhoto:Nearmap2024
090180F
eet
*Theobservederosionalfeatureandswaleare
notanticipatedtobejurisdictionalpertheCorps,
RWQCB,andCDFWbasedonconstraints-level
analysis.Formalaquaticresourcesdelineation,
includingadditionaldatacollectionandassociated
aquaticresourcesdelineationreport(ARDR)
wouldbeneededtoreceiveagencyconfirmation
regardingjurisdictionalstatus.

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix A
Site Photographs
Photo 1. Overview of project site from the northern portion of the site, showing disturbed habitat (left) and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (right), facing east. October 11, 2022.

Photo 2. View of disturbed habitat in the southern portion of the project site, with disturbed soils supporting sparse vegetation, facing west. October 11, 2022.

Appendix A-2
Photo 3. View of disturbed habitat in the western portion of the project site, showing remnants of a vineyard and small mammal burrows, facing west. October 11, 2022.

Photo 4. View of disturbed habitat and small area of Riversidean sage scrub along the southwestern portion of the project site, facing south. October 11, 2022.

Appendix A-3
Photo 5. View of open water associated with off-site water treatment facilities northwest of the project site, facing north. October 11, 2022.

Photo 6. View of disturbed habitat in the southeastern portion of the buffer, facing southeast.

February 16, 2023.

Appendix A-4
Photo 7. View of disturbed habitat (foreground) and the developed habitat (background) in the western portion of the project site and buffer, facing southwest. February 16, 2023.

Photo 8. View of disturbed habitat (left) and developed land (right) along the eastern portion of the project site and buffer of the project site, facing northeast. February 16, 2023.

Appendix A-5
Photo 9. View of disturbed habitat from the center of the project site facing south. July 11, 2024.

Photo 10. View of disturbed habitat (left) and developed land (right) along the eastern portion of the project site and buffer of the project site, facing north. July 11, 2024.

Appendix A-6
Photo 11. View of concrete v-ditch (D-1) adjacent to development along the boundary of the project site, facing west. This feature has been constructed in an otherwise upland area to manage stormwater and irrigation runoff associated with development. October 11, 2022.

Photo 12. View of swale (S-1) located within the northeastern portion of the project site, facing north. Note that this feature is not expected to be jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW. October 11, 2022.

APPENDIX B

PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED
Appendix B
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Asteraceae annual bursage Ambrosia acanthicarpa
Asteraceae brittlebush Encelia farinosa
Asteraceae common sunflower Helianthus annuus
Asteraceae golden crownbeard* Verbesina encelioides
Asteraceae mule fat Baccharis salicifolia
Asteraceae scalebroom Lepidospartum squamatum
Asteraceae stinknet* Oncosiphon pilulifer
Asteraceae stinkwort* Dittrichia graveolens
Asteraceae telegraphweed Heterotheca grandiflora
Asteraceae valley lessingia Lessingia glandulifera
Asteraceae willow lettuce* Lactuca saligna
Aquifoliaceae holly* Ilex sp.

Boraginaceae Menzies' fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii
Brassicaceae Saharan mustard* Brassica tournefortii
Brassicaceae short pod mustard* Hirschfeldia incana
Chenopodiaceae Russian thistle* Salsola sp.

Chenopodiaceae white goosefoot* Chenopodium album
Cucurbitaceae coyote melon Cucurbita palmata
Cupressaceae Chinese juniper* Juniperus chinensis
Euphorbiaceae California croton Croton californicus
Euphorbiaceae castor bean* Ricinus communis
Euphorbiaceae turkey-mullein Croton setiger
Fabaceae Mexican palo verde* Parkinsonia aculeata
Fabaceae short winged deerweed Acmispon glaber var. brevialatus Fabaceae Spanish lotus Acmispon americanus
Geraniaceae red stemmed filaree* Erodium cicutarium
Lamiaceae white horehound* Marrubium vulgare
Appendix B-2
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Myrtaceae bottlebrush tree* Callistemon sp.

Myrtaceae gum tree* Eucalyptus sp.

Plantanaceae London plane tree* Platanus x hispanica
Poaceae bermudagrass* Cynodon dactylon
Poaceae red brome* Bromus rubens
Poaceae rip gut brome* Bromus diandrus
Poaceae slender oat* Avena barbata
Polygonaceae California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum Polygonaceae slender buckwheat Eriogonum gracile
Solanaceae jimsonweed Datura wrightii
Solanaceae tree tobacco* Nicotiana glauca
Vitaceae cultivated grape* Vitis vinifera
Zygophyllaceae puncture vine* Tribulus terrestris
Invertebrates
Formicidae harvester ant Veromessor sp.

Lycaenidae western pygmy blue Brephidium exilis
Nymphalidae monarch butterfly (CFE) Danaus plexippus plexippus Tenebrionidae darkling beetle Eleodes sp.

Reptiles
Phrynosomatidae western side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans Birds
Accipitridae golden eagle (FP; WL) Aquila chrysaetos
Accipitridae red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Alaudidae horned lark (WL) Eremophila alpestris actia
Anatidae Canada goose Branta canadensis
Charadriidae killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Columbidae mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Columbidae rock pigeon* Columba livia
Corvidae American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvidae common raven Corvus corax
Appendix B-3
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Falconidae American kestrel Falco sparverius
Falconidae merlin (WL) Falco columbarius
Falconidae American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Falconidae prairie falcon (WL) Falco mexicanus
Fringillidae house finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Fringillidae lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Hirundinidae cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundinidae northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Icteridae Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii
Icteridae hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus
Icteridae western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Laniidae loggerhead shrike (SSC) Lanius ludovicianus
Laridae California gull (WL) Larus californicus
Mimidae northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Parulidae yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata
Passerellidae California towhee Melozone crissalis
Passerellidae savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Passerellidae white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Passeridae house sparrow* Passer domesticus
Strigidae burrowing owl (CSE) Athene cunicularia
Sturnidae European starling* Sturnus vulgaris
Trochilidae Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna
Tyrannidae black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Tyrannidae Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Tyrannidae Say's phoebe Sayornis saya
Tyrannidae western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Mammals
Canidae coyote Canis latrans
Leporidae desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Sciuridae California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Appendix B-4
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Invertebrates
Anisoptera (Suborder) dragonfly N/A
Apidae European honeybee* Apis mellifera
Araneidae orb weaver Neoscona sp.

Asilidae bee killer Mallophora fautrix
Asilidae robber fly Efferia sp.

Asilidae robber fly Saropogon sp.

Bombyliidae beefly N/A
Caelifera (Suborder) grasshopper N/A
Coenagrionidae familiar bluet Enallagma civile
Crabronidae sand wasp Bembix sp.

Formicidae harvester ant Pogonomyrmex sp.

Halictidae sweat bee Lasioglossum sp.

Libellulidae flame skimmer Libellula saturata
Lycaenidae Clemence’s blue Icaricia monticola
Lycaenidae gray hairstreak Strymon melinus
Megachilidae resin bee Anthidiellum sp.

Megachilidae woodborer bee Lithurgopsis sp.

Mutillidae velvet ant Dasymutilla sp.

Nymphalidae common buckeye Junonia coenia
Nymphalidae painted Lady Vanessa cardui
Papilionidae swallowtail Papilio sp,
Pentatomidae Say's stink bug Chlorochroa sayi
Pieridae cabbage white Pieris rapae
Pieridae checkered white Pontia protodice
Pieridae sulfur Colias sp.

Pompilidae spider wasp N/A
Pompilidae tarantula hawk Pepsis sp.

Reduviidae assassin bug Zelus sp.

Appendix B-5
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Reduviidae California bee assassin Apiomerus californicus Scarabaeidae figeater beetle Cotinis mutabilis
Sphecidae grasshopper wasp Prionyx sp.

Sphecidae thread-waisted wasp Ammophila sp.

Syrphidae hoverfly N/A
Tenebrionidae darkling beetle Eleodes sp.

Vespidae golden paper wasp Polistes aurifer
* Non-Native Species
CFE: Candidate for listing under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Act CSE: Candidate for listing under California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) California Endangered Species Act
FP: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Fully Protected Species SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List Species

APPENDIX C

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROTOCOL PRESENCE/ABSENCE 2023 SURVEY

REPORT FOR BURROWING OWL (ATHENE

CUNICULARIA)

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROTOCOL PRESENCE/ABSENCE 2023

SURVEY REPORT FOR BURROWING OWL
(Athene cunicularia)
San Bernardino County, California
August 15, 2023
Prepared for:

Kimley-Horn and Associates
1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
(619) 234-9411
Prepared by:

Rocks Biological Consulting
4312 Rialto Street
San Diego, CA 92107
(619) 701-6798

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING i
Table of Contents
1 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Project Location ..............................................................................................................1

2.2 Burrowing Owl Natural History.........................................................................................1 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 2 4 Results..................................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Existing conditions & Habitat Assessment .......................................................................2

4.2 Burrowing Owl Survey Results ........................................................................................3 5 Burrowing Owl Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 4 6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 4 7 References............................................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
Table 1. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Conditions....................................................................3

FIGURES
Figure 1. Survey Results

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Appendix B – Bird Species Observed
Appendix C – California Natural Diversity Database Online Field Survey Form Reports Appendix D – Surveyor Field Notes

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1
1 Summary
This report is a summary of the focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) surveys conducted by Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) for the Miro Way and Ayala Drive Development Project (project) in Rialto, California. The project is located within the San Bernardino County Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone and based on the presence of suitable habitat, RBC conducted focused breeding season BUOW surveys between February 16, 2023, and July 3, 2023, in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Guidelines; CDFW 2012).

Two individual BUOW and several burrows with BUOW sign were observed on the site during the first survey on February 16, 2023. No BUOW, active burrows, or BUOW sign were documented within the project site during the subsequent three BUOW surveys conducted between April 26, 2023, and July 3, 2023.
2 Introduction

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located north of W Baseline Road, west of N Ayala Drive, east of N Linden Avenue, and south of the former Rialto Airport located south of W Renaissance Parkway (Figure 1).

The project site is surrounded by commercial developments and small vacant lots to the west, south, and east, with non-native grassland and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub to the north among the remnants of the Rialto Municipal Airport.

The project proposes the development of six industrial buildings and associated surface parking and landscaping. The project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) that would allow for a land use category (i.e., zone) change from Medium Density Residential, Private Recreation Center, School, Public Park, and Employment to Business Center on the project site. The project would allow for the development of six industrial buildings ranging from approximately 57,770 sf to 184,470 sf including 688,423 sf of warehouse space and 39,000 sf of ancillary office space. Each building would be one level and would not exceed the maximum allowed building height of 75 feet.

Development start time will be dependent on processing time.

2.2 BURROWING OWL NATURAL HISTORY
The CDFW lists the BUOW as a Species of Special Concern. In California, suitable habitat for BUOW is generally characterized by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils, such as naturally occurring grassland, shrub steppe, and desert habitats (Haug et al. 1993). In addition, BUOW may also occur in agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures containing suitable vegetation structure and useable burrows with foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al. 2008). Typically, BUOW use burrows dug by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus tereticaudus) and dens or holes dug by other fossorial species including badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox [Vulpes macrotis mutica]) (Ronan 2002).

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 2
Additionally, BUOW frequently use natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes for nesting and roosting (Rosenberg et al. 1998) and have been documented using artificial burrows for nesting and cover (Smith and Belthoff 2001). Occupancy of BUOW habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one BUOW, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within the last three years (Rich 1984).
3 Methods
RBC biologists Alec Goodman, Hannah Swarthout, and Shannon Mindeman conducted the breeding season BUOW surveys for the project. Alec Goodman is an associate biologist and has nearly seven years of experience in environmental consulting with a focus in Mojave Desert biology.

Hannah Swarthout is a staff biologist with over three years of experience in environmental consulting, with a focus on BUOW for the recent field season. Shannon Mindeman is a senior biologist with over nine years of professional experience. Collectively, RBC surveyors have extensive experience surveying for BUOW and associated sign. Each biologist has experience performing BUOW surveys and is familiar with BUOW natural history and identification.

Four BUOW surveys were conducted during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). In accordance with CDFW recommendations (CDFW 2012), three of the surveys occurred during the peak of breeding season (April 15 – July 15) at least three weeks apart. The survey area included the project site, as well as all suitable habitat within a 500-foot buffer per CDFW guidance (Figure 1).

During each survey, RBC biologists walked through suitable BUOW habitat within the survey area via straight-line transects spaced 10 meters (m) to 30 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, and used binoculars to scan the survey area at least every 100 m for BUOW, active burrows, and/or sign of BUOW. No calls were used. All observed burrows were examined for sign, including feathers, pellets, whitewash, and prey remains. Burrows were considered active if a BUOW was observed at or near the entrance or if recent sign was present. Any BUOW, active burrows, and BUOW sign were mapped in the geographic information system (GIS) program ArcGIS Collector.
4 Results

4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The project site is primarily composed of undeveloped, disturbed habitat, a portion of which was included in the former Rialto Airport and a portion of which was historically used as agricultural land. Several small areas of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub are also present in the center and southeastern portions of the project site. The 500-foot buffer surrounding the project site to the west, south, and east is mainly composed of developed commercial lots, with some small vacant areas that support non-native grassland. The 500-foot buffer to the north of the project site supports non-native grassland and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub.

The vegetation in the survey area was variable, resulting in disparate degrees of habitat suitability throughout the duration of surveys. On the first visit, when two BUOW were observed, most plants

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3
were in their early growth form and suitable habitat was present throughout the site. Habitat was dominated by non-native grasses (e.g., slender wild oat [Avena barbata] and ripgut grass [Bromus diandrus]), small flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), all still below 1 m in height, with shrubs making up a low percentage of total cover, predominately California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and deerweed (Acmisbon glaber).

On the second survey, the vegetation composition remained unchanged; however, the grasses and short-pod mustard had grown densely to nearly 2 m in height causing the previously occupied burrows to be overgrown with vegetation. On the third and fourth surveys, the vegetation had been mowed and the survey area returned to a more suitable state for BUOW. Photographs of the survey area are presented in Appendix A.

4.2 BURROWING OWL SURVEY RESULTS
RBC conducted four focused BUOW surveys during the breeding season between February 16, 2023, and July 3, 2023. Survey dates, times, and weather conditions are presented in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Conditions
Survey
Number Date Surveyor(s) Time
(Start- End)
Temp.
(F)
(StartEnd)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
(StartEnd)
Wind
Range
(mph)
(Start; End)
Precip.
(Lo, Med,
High)
(Start- End)
Visibility
(Lo, Med,
High)
(Start; End)
1 2/16/2023 AG, HS 0700-1030 45-54 5-25 8-12; 12-18 None; None High; High 2 4/26/23 AG 0700-0945 53-65 0-0 1-3; 1-3 None; None High; High 3 6/12/23 HS, SM 0745-1115 55-62 100-98 3-5; 4-6 None; None High; High 4 7/3/2023 AG, HS 0915-1200 80-91 0-1 1-3; 1-3 None; None High; High AG=Alec Goodman, HS=Hannah Swarthout, SM=Shannon Mindeman Two individual BUOW were observed during the first survey, with one near the southern and the second near the southeastern project boundary. Additionally, there were several active burrows observed in the southern portion of the project site, as determined by the presence of BUOW and/or whitewash and pellets. No BUOW, sign, or active burrows were observed during the subsequent three focused surveys.

No evidence of owl predation was observed; however, coyote and an active coyote den were recorded within the survey area. A total of 25 bird species were observed during surveys as listed in Appendix B. Observations of special-status species, including BUOW, were submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (Appendix C). Surveyor field notes are included as Appendix D.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4
5 Burrowing Owl Mitigation
Due the presence of BUOW during the survey, the project’s location within the San Bernardino County Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone, and the presence of suitable habitat, pre-construction take avoidance surveys should be conducted in accordance with the CDFW guidelines at least 14 days and 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities.
6 Conclusions
During the BUOW breeding season surveys, two individual BUOW and several burrows with sign were observed within the project site on February 16, 2023. No BUOW, active burrows, or BUOW sign were documented within the project site during the subsequent BUOW surveys conducted between April 26, 2023, and July 3, 2023. The absence of BUOW during the peak breeding season suggests that the project site is not currently used by BUOW for nesting. The site appears be used by BUOW for refuge and/or foraging outside of the nesting season. Pre-construction surveys will be required to avoid potential direct impacts on BUOW resulting from the project.

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5
7 References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2012). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, CA.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, & L. A. Comrack. (2008). Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Shuford, W. D. & T. Gardali, editors. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, & M. S. Martell. (1993). Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America. Poole, A. & F. Gill, editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Rich, T. (1984). Monitoring Burrowing Owl Populations: Implications of Burrow Re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 12:178-189.

Ronan, N. A. (2002). Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. Ober, & D. F. DeSante. (1998). An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, USA. Publication

95. Institute for Bird Populations, Pt. Reyes Station, CA.

Smith, B. W. & J. R. Belthoff. (2001). Effects of nest dimensions on use of artificial burrow systems by burrowing owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2):318-326.

Miro Way
Linden Ave
Ayala Dr Fitzgerald Ave
Fitzgerald
Ave
Base Line Rd
Leiske Dr
Project Boundary
BUOW Survey Area
Survey Results
BUOW Individual
Occupied BUOW Burrow
Suitable Unoccupied BUOW Burrow
ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
N
Figure
1 Survey Results

MIRO WAY AND AYALA DRIVE

RIALTO, CA
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2023
0 125 250
Feet
!
Project Site
?z
!"a$ %&h(
AÆ
!"`$
%&g(
%&h(
Detail Area 1
Detail Area 2

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix A
Site Photographs
Appendix A-1
Photo 1. Representative view of non-native grassland dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii) within the project site, facing east.

February 16, 2023.

Photo 2. Representative view of disturbed habitat within the project site, facing east. February 16, 2023.

Appendix A-2
Photo 3. View of occupied burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, BUOW) burrow, where live BUOW was observed on the project site immediately northeast of the warehouse building on N Linden Avenue. February 16, 2023.

Photo 4. Representative view of a previously occupied BUOW burrow with overgrown vegetation and no new BUOW sign. Located on the project site northeast of the warehouse building on N Linden Avenue, adjacent to the burrow shown in Photo 3. April 26, 2023.

Appendix A-3
Photo 5. Representative view of vegetation growth. View of the short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) along the eastern edge of the project site, facing north. April 26, 2023.

Photo 6. View of mowed vegetation in the southern portion of the project area, facing northwest.

June 12, 2023.

Appendix A-4
Photo 7. View of non-native grassland in the northern portion of the project site. July 3, 2023.

Photo 8. View of previously occupied BUOW burrow on the project site, immediately northeast of the warehouse building on N Linden Avenue, showing cleared vegetation and no new BUOW sign.

July 3, 2023.

APPENDIX B

BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED
Appendix B
Bird Species Observed
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris California horned lark (WL)† Charadriiformes Larus californicus California gull (WL)† Columbidae Columba livia rock pigeon*
Columbidae Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvidae Corvus corax common raven
Falconidae Falco columbarius merlin (WL)†
Falconidae Falco mexicanus prairie falcon (WL)†
Falconidae Falco sparverius American kestrel
Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Fringillidae Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow
Hirundinidae Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Icteridae Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole
Icteridae Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole
Icteridae Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark
Passerellidae Melozone crissalis California towhee
Passerellidae Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird
Passeridae Passer domesticus house sparrow*
Strigidae Athene cunicularia burrowing owl (SSC)†
Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris Eurasian starling*
Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
Tyrannidae Sayornis saya Say's phoebe
Tyrannidae Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird
*Introduced species
†
No nesting or wintering behavior observed
SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List Species

APPENDIX C

CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE ONLINE

FIELD SURVEY FORM REPORTS
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916.324.0475
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
[email protected]
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff GOO23F0008
3411714
Scientific name: Eremophila alpestris actia
Common name: California horned lark
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 07-03-2023
Comment about field work date(s): Also observed during survey on 12 June 2023 Observer: Alec G. Goodman
Affiliation: Rocks Biological Consulting
Address: 5606 Meade Ave
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (619) 701-6798
Other observers: Hannah Swarthout

DETERMINATION
Keyed in:

Compared w/ specimen at:

Compared w/ image in:

By another person:

Other: Heard, then seen
Identification explanation:

Identification confidence: Very confident
Species found: Yes If not found, why not?
Total number of individuals: 5
Collection? No Collection number:

Museum/Herbarium:

ANIMAL INFORMATION
How was the detection made? Heard singing then seen
Number detected in each age class:

Age class comment:
adults juveniles larvae egg mass unknown
5 Level of survey effort: Incidentally observed during breeding season BUOW surveys.

OBSERVER INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0008 Page 1 of 3
Bird site use:

Nesting Rookery Nesting colony Burrow site Lek
Non-breeding (over-wintering) Communal roost Other
Site use description: No signs of nesting observed, likely foraging ground.

What was the observed behavior? Flushed from ground, then landed to forage.

Describe any evidence of reproduction: None.

SITE INFORMATION
Habitat description:

Slope: Land owner/manager:

Site condition + population viability:

Aspect:

Immediate & surrounding land use:

Visible disturbances:

Threats:

General comments:

The mapped feature is accurate within: 20 m
Source of mapped feature: ArcGIS Field Maps
ID
County
San Bernardino
1 24K Quadrangle Elev. (ft) Latitude
NAD83
Longitude
NAD83
UTM E
NAD83
UTM
Zone
Fontana 1397 34.12408 -117.39673 463415 3775985 11
Public Land Survey
S T01N R05W 34
Feature Comment
UTM N
NAD83

MAP INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0008 Page 2 of 3
Attachment(s):

Mapping notes:

Location/directions comments:

Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0008 Page 3 of 3
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916.324.0475
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
[email protected]
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff GOO23F0009
3411714
Scientific name: Larus californicus
Common name: California gull
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 02-16-2023
Comment about field work date(s):

Observer: Alec Goodman
Affiliation: Rocks Biological Consulting
Address: 5606 Meade Ave, San Diego, CA 92115
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (619) 701-6798
Other observers: Hannah Swarthout

DETERMINATION
Keyed in:

Compared w/ specimen at:

Compared w/ image in:

By another person:

Other: Seen
Identification explanation:

Identification confidence: Confident
Species found: Yes If not found, why not?
Total number of individuals: 1
Collection? No Collection number:

Museum/Herbarium:

ANIMAL INFORMATION
How was the detection made? Seen
Number detected in each age class:

Age class comment:
adults juveniles larvae egg mass unknown
1 Level of survey effort: Incidental observation during breeding BUOW survey

OBSERVER INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0009 Page 1 of 3
Bird site use:

Nesting Rookery Nesting colony Burrow site Lek
Non-breeding (over-wintering) Communal roost Other
Site use description: Fly over. No Evidence of site use.

What was the observed behavior? In flight
Describe any evidence of reproduction: None

SITE INFORMATION
Habitat description:

Slope: Land owner/manager:

Site condition + population viability:

Aspect:

Immediate & surrounding land use:

Visible disturbances:

Threats:

General comments:

The mapped feature is accurate within: 500 m
Source of mapped feature: ArcGIS Field Maps
ID
County
San Bernardino
1 24K Quadrangle Elev. (ft) Latitude
NAD83
Longitude
NAD83
UTM E
NAD83
UTM
Zone
Fontana 1405 34.12496 -117.39768 463329 3776083 11
Public Land Survey
S T01N R05W 34
Feature Comment
UTM N
NAD83

MAP INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0009 Page 2 of 3
Attachment(s):

Mapping notes:

Location/directions comments:

Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0009 Page 3 of 3
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916.324.0475
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
[email protected]
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff GOO23F0010
3411714
Scientific name: Falco columbarius
Common name: merlin
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 02-16-2023
Comment about field work date(s):

Observer: Alec Goodman
Affiliation: Rocks Biological Consulting
Address: 5606 Meade Ave, San Diego, CA 92115
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (619) 701-6798
Other observers: Hannah Swarthout

DETERMINATION
Keyed in:

Compared w/ specimen at:

Compared w/ image in:

By another person:

Other: Seen
Identification explanation: Larger than kestrel, streaky markings on underside and striped tail Identification confidence: Very confident
Species found: Yes If not found, why not?
Total number of individuals: 1
Collection? No Collection number:

Museum/Herbarium:

ANIMAL INFORMATION
How was the detection made? Seen
Number detected in each age class:

Age class comment:
adults juveniles larvae egg mass unknown
1 Level of survey effort: Incidental observation during nesting season BUOW survey.

OBSERVER INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0010 Page 1 of 3
Bird site use:

Nesting Rookery Nesting colony Burrow site Lek
Non-breeding (over-wintering) Communal roost Other
Site use description: Observed flying low to the ground through the site. Site possibly used as hunting ground.

What was the observed behavior? In flight
Describe any evidence of reproduction: None

SITE INFORMATION
Habitat description:

Slope: Land owner/manager:

Site condition + population viability:

Aspect:

Immediate & surrounding land use:

Visible disturbances:

Threats:

General comments:

The mapped feature is accurate within: 20 m
Source of mapped feature: ArcGIS Field Maps
ID
County
San Bernardino
1 24K Quadrangle Elev. (ft) Latitude
NAD83
Longitude
NAD83
UTM E
NAD83
UTM
Zone
Fontana -9999 34.12491 -117.39856 463247 3776078 11
Public Land Survey
S T01N R05W 34
Feature Comment
UTM N
NAD83

MAP INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0010 Page 2 of 3
Attachment(s):

Mapping notes:

Location/directions comments:

Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0010 Page 3 of 3
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916.324.0475
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
[email protected]
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff GOO23F0011
3411724
Scientific name: Falco mexicanus
Common name: prairie falcon
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 07-03-2023
Comment about field work date(s):

Observer: Alec Goodman
Affiliation: Rocks Biological Consulting
Address: 5606 Meade Ave, San Diego, CA 92115
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (619) 701-6798
Other observers: Hannah Swarthout

DETERMINATION
Keyed in:

Compared w/ specimen at:

Compared w/ image in:

By another person:

Other: Observed
Identification explanation:

Identification confidence: Very confident
Species found: Yes If not found, why not?
Total number of individuals: 1
Collection? No Collection number:

Museum/Herbarium:

ANIMAL INFORMATION
How was the detection made? Seen
Number detected in each age class:

Age class comment:
adults juveniles larvae egg mass unknown
1 Level of survey effort: Incidental observation during breeding season BUOW survey

OBSERVER INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0011 Page 1 of 3
Bird site use:

Nesting Rookery Nesting colony Burrow site Lek
Non-breeding (over-wintering) Communal roost Other
Site use description: Observed flying overhead
What was the observed behavior? In flight
Describe any evidence of reproduction: None

SITE INFORMATION
Habitat description:

Slope: Land owner/manager:

Site condition + population viability:

Aspect:

Immediate & surrounding land use:

Visible disturbances:

Threats:

General comments:

The mapped feature is accurate within: 20 m
Source of mapped feature: ArcGIS Field Maps
ID
County
San Bernardino
1 24K Quadrangle Elev. (ft) Latitude
NAD83
Longitude
NAD83
UTM E
NAD83
UTM
Zone
Devore 1399 34.12516 -117.39530 463548 3776105 11
Public Land Survey
S T01N R05W 34
Feature Comment
UTM N
NAD83

MAP INFORMATION
Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0011 Page 2 of 3
Attachment(s):

Mapping notes:

Location/directions comments:

Submitted: 08/04/2023 GOO23F0011 Page 3 of 3
California Natural Diversity Database
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1416 9th Street, Suite 1266
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916.324.0475
CNDDB Online Field Survey Form Report
[email protected]
www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Source code_____________________
Quad code______________________
Occ. no. ________________________
EO index no._____________________
Map index no.____________________
This data has been reported to the CNDDB, but may not have been evaluated by the CNDDB staff GOO23F0012
3411714
Scientific name: Athene cunicularia
Common name: burrowing owl
Date of field work (mm-dd-yyyy): 02-16-2023
Comment about field work date(s):

Observer: Alec Goodman
Affiliation: Rocks Biological Consulting
Address: 5606 Meade Ave, San Diego, CA 92115
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (619) 701-6798
Other observers: Hannah Swarthout

DETERMINATION
Keyed in:

Compared w/ specimen at:

Rialto City CouncilJanuary 13, 2026

Rialto City Council
January 13, 2026