Rialto City Council
January 27, 2026

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-6
acres of the project site and offsite improvement areas . Developed habitat is not recognized by CDFW; 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) . Non-native annual species and perennial broadleaf species typically dominate the habitat. Disturbed land on site is primarily vegetated by short-pod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana) and other non-native species, such as tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). There are a few scattered native species throughout the disturbed land, such as common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), California croton (Croton californicus), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia); however, they are isolated occurrences and do not function as separate vegetation communities or land cover types. Disturbed land occurs on 7. 2 acres of the project site and offsite improvement areas. Disturbed land is not recognized by CDFW; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Riversidean Sage Scrub . Riversidean sage scrub is a coastal scrub community typically occupying xeric sites with steep slopes and well -draining soils. Vegetation cover usually stands fairly open and is dominated by coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). Riversidean sage scrub occurs within 5.4 acres of the project site in the northeast portion and is primarily composed of California buckwheat, coastal sagebrush, Californi a matchweed ( Gutierrezia californica ), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Riversidean scrub is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is “demonstrably secure because of its worldwide/statewide abundance” (CDFW, 2024); therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub. Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub is Riversidean sage scrub that has a marked disturbance resulting in an atypical vegetation community. The disturbed Riversidean sage scrub primarily occurs in two distinct areas within the project site, one in the north and one in the south, totaling

12.9 acres. The northern area is dominated by short -pod mustard, tocalote, Spanish -clover (Acmispon glaber), coastal sagebrush, and tree t obacco ( Nicotiana glauca ). The southern area is denser and is dominated by California buckwheat, holly -leaf cherry ( Prunus ilicifolia ), and spiny redberry ( Rhamnus crocea). Small patches of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub also occur within the developed areas in the southernmost portion of the site. Riversidean sage scrub is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is “demonstrably secure because of its worldwide/statewide abundance”; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Chamise Chaparral. Chamise chaparral is a one - to three-meters tall chapparal vegetation community overwhelmingly dominated by chamise ( Adenostoma fasciculatum ) with little to no herbaceous understory. The on-site chaparral habitat is dominated by chamise, holly-leaf cherry, Vasey’s prickly pear (Opuntia vaseyi), California matchweed, and valley cholla (Cylindropuntia bernardina). Some disturbances were observed within this vegetation community, including disturbed bare earth, trash, and an encampment. Chamise chaparral occurs densely in a south -central portion of the project site on 10.4 acres. Chamise chaparral is ranked as G5/S5, meaning it is “demonstrably secure because of its worldwide/statewide abundance”; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-7
Special-Status Biological Resources
A literature review and records search was conducted for special -status biological resources potentially occurring on or proximate to the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project site were determined through a review of pertinent literature and databases, including but not limited to the following (Appendix D). ▪ CDFW California Natural Diversity Database
▪ California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
▪ USFWS Special-Status Species Database
▪ USFWS Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) Database ▪ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database
▪ USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Database
▪ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Survey Database Special-status wildlife and plant species and their potential to occur within the project site is presented in Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site. The table includes 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 (CNDDB and USFWS Special-Status Species Database) and determined to be potentially present in the IPaC Database, as well as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 species that occur within the “Nine Quads” search within an elevational range of approximately 1,590 to 1,650 feet above mean sea level. The CNPS “Nine Quads” search queries the USGS quadrangle in which the Project site is located and the surrounding eight quadrangles, which includes Devore, Silverwood Lake, San Bernardino South, San Bernardino North, Telegraph Peak, Cajon, Guasti, Fontana, and Cucamonga Peak. The potential for special-status species to occur on the project site was refined by considering the habitat affinities of each species, field habitat assessments, vegetation mapping, and knowledge of local biological resources. Please note the special-status species with low potential to occur or that are not expected to occur are not addressed further in this EIR as no impacts are anticipated to these species; see Appendix D for the full list of species.

Special-Status Plants
One special-status plant species, Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), was observed on the site. No additional special-status plant species were observed or have a high probability for occurrence based on the lack of suitable habitat on site. The project site has been subject to varying degrees of human disturbances from on -site materials -extraction operations, off -road vehicular access, and surrounding development. These disturbances have reduced the suitability of the habitat to support speci al-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Although special -status pl ant species were not observed during the general biological field survey, Parry’s spineflower was assessed to have a moderate potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat.

Focused rare plant surveys were conducted du ring appropriate blooming period for this target species, and surveys were positive for Parry’s spineflower. All other special-status plant species with low potential to occur or not expected to occur are presumed absent from the project site, due to a hig h degree of habitat fragmentation and routine on-site disturbances. Additionally, 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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-8
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur

PLANT SPECIES
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 feet.

Low. Sage scrub and chaparral habitats are present on site, however, suitable aquatic habitat such as wet springs, meadows, streambanks, and floodplains are not present, and species has not been documented within the project vicinity since 1907.

Chaparral ragwort
(Senecio aphanactis)
CRPR 2B.2 Annual herb. Blooms January-April. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub. Elevation 50-
2,625 feet.

Low. Native scrub habitat on site is isolated and disturbed, and woodland habitat is not present in the project site or surrounding landscape. Chaparral is present on site; however, no recent occurrences of this species are documented within vicinity of project site.

Mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Blooms February-September. Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub.

Elevation 230-2,657 feet.

Low. Chaparral habitat and dry loamy sands present on site. Species prefers foothill habitat, which is not found on site. No contemporary occurrences recorded within the vicinity of the project site.

Nevin’s barberry
(Berberis nevinii)
FE; SE; CNPR
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Blooms (February) March-
June. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
and Riparian scrub. Elevation 230-2,705 feet.

Low. Occurs in riparian habitat and/or washes that are not present on site; however, chaparral is found on site. Species is a conspicuous perennial that 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.

Present. Suitable chaparral habitat with sandy soil present on site. Species observed in 2012 less than one-half mile south of the project site in loamy sand conditions similar to those found on site. Observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

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.

Low. Chaparral with sand and gravel substrate habitat is present on site, however, local occurrences are restricted to alluvial benches in Lytle Creek Wash and Cajon Wash, which are the preferred habitat for this species. Not observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

Smooth tarplant
(Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms April-September. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playa, riparian woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation 0-2,100 feet.

Low. Species prefers open, poorly drained flats and waterway banks/beds.

Contemporary observations of this species from the project vicinity are restricted to the floodplain, which does not overlap with the project site. Not observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

White rabbit-tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms (July) August-November (December). Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian woodland. Elevation 0-6,890 feet.

Low. Chaparral and disturbed sage scrub habitats are present on site.

However, this species is most commonly associated with washes, streams, and canyon bottoms, which are not found on site, and this species is not known to occur within project vicinity.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-9
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
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. Although sage scrub habitat with sandy to gravelly soils are present on site, this species prefers alluvial fans which are not present on site. Species was documented in 2012 less than two miles northeast of project site at lower Lytle Creek in sand-gravel substrate. Not observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

WILDLIFE SPECIES
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CSE Arid shrublands and grasslands in coastal and foothill areas of southern California. Nectar plants include
milkweeds, buckwheat, and lupines.

Present. Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on site during 2025 focused surveys. This species can persist in semi-natural habitats surrounded by intensely modified landscapes, such as the sparse disturbed scrub habitat within the project site. Suitable potential nectar sources and small mammal burrows are present on the site. Species have been reported approximately

1.3 miles northwest of the site in 2024.

Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly
(Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis)
FE Found in sandy areas composed of Delhi fine sands,
stabilized by sparse native vegetation.

Low. Delhi fine sands are present in the region; however, on-site soils are Soboba gravelly and stony loamy sands, which are not suitable for this species.

Monarch butterfly,
California
overwintering
population (Danaus
plexippus plexippus
pop. 1)
FPT 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.

Nectarivorous adults require flowering plants. Roost in eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and Monterey cypresses in
California.

Low, no potential for overwintering. Many potential nectar sources observed; however, overwintering habitat does not occur on site.

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. Chaparral and sage scrub habitat on site are marginally suitable for this species; however, local occurrences are restricted to rocky washes which are not present on site. Loose soils suitable for burrowing occur on site in dense shrubby habitat.

Coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC A variety of rocky, sandy, dry habitats including sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands on friable loose soil.

Present. Chaparral and sage scrub habitat on site are suitable for this species.

Suitable loose soils are present on site in dense shrubby habitat.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-10
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
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.

Low-to-Moderate. Suitable chaparral and sage scrub habitats with sandy and friable soils are present on site in dense shrubby habitat.

Southern California
legless lizard
(Anniella stebbinsi)
SSC Found in a variety of habitats including coastal dunes, chaparral, coastal scrub, sandy washes, and alluvial fans, containing moist, loose soils.

Moderate. Suitable chaparral and disturbed sage scrub habitats with leaf litter under shrubs and loose sandy soils present on site. Species has been documented approximately two miles northwest of project site in 2018, and there have been two observations reported within 1.5 miles of the site since 2023. Species was searched for during 2025 focused surveys and not found.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT; SSC Found in temporary ponds, vernal pools, and backwaters of flowing creeks, as well as adjacent upland habitats
such as grasslands and coastal sage scrub for burrowing.

May use kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) or other
burrows for cover during hot, dry season.

Low. Aquatic resources required by this species do not occur on site. Though potentially suitable upland habitat is present, it is isolated from suitable aquatic resources.

Bell’s sparrow
(Artemisiospiza belli
belli)
WL Found in sagebrush, alkali desert scrub, and desert scrub in low, dense stands of shrubs. Frequently associated
with Atriplex spp. in desert habitats.

Low. Dense and low areas of sage scrub habitat on site is marginally suitable for this species.; however preferred habitat is not present.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSE; SSC Found in grasslands and open scrub from coast to foothills. Strongly associated with California ground
squirrel and other fossorial mammal burrows.

Moderate (Surveys Negative). Suitable open scrub habitat is present on site.

A relatively small number of California ground squirrel burrow complexes occur on site. This species is known to occur locally and has been recorded less than two miles southeast of the project site. Focused non-breeding surveys were negative; however, future occupation is possible based on suitable habitat.

California gull (Larus
californicus)
WL Preferred coastal habitats include sandy beaches,
mudflats, rocky intertidal, and pelagic areas of marine and estuarine habitats, as well as fresh and saline
emergent wetlands. In inland settings, his species
frequents lacustrine, riverine, and cropland habitats in addition to landfill dumps, and open lawns in cities.

Low. This species is known to occur inland and utilize landfill dumps as foraging habitat. The Mid-Valley Landfill, located immediately southwest of the project site, provides suitable habitat. However, suitable habitat for nesting and foraging is not present on the project site.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher
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
Low. Sage scrub habitat present on site is fragmented and disturbed. Species was observed in a now developed area adjacent to the site in 1997, but the species is likely extirpated from the immediate area. The most recent, nearby

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-11
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
(Polioptila californica
californica)
habitats in coastal areas, with most populations
occurring below 1,500 feet in elevation.
observation of this species was approximately three miles east of the project site near Lytle Creek Wash. Would have likely been detected during surveys if present (e.g., focused burrowing owl, rare plant, and Crotch’s bumble bee surveys).

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.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is present. Species is known to be tolerant of development and can inhabit a variety of habitats. This species has been observed in the project vicinity in habitats with similar conditions.

Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)
WL Found in oak woodlands and occasionally in willow or eucalyptus woodlands.

Present. Species was observed flying above site before it perched atop a building adjacent to the northern project boundary. Individual was not observed directly using the project site.

Costa’s hummingbird
(Calypte costae)
BCC Breeds in desert scrub. Occurs in Sonoran and Mojave Desert scrub, coastal California chaparral, California sage scrub, deciduous forest, and desert scrub.

Present. Observed on the project site on May 8, 2025. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat are present.

Ferruginous hawk
(Buteo regalis)
WL Found in open grasslands, agricultural areas, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills surrounding valleys, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats.

Low. Open areas within disturbed and sage scrub habitat on site are marginally suitable for species foraging. Migrates through the region but is not a resident species.

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,
chaparral, shrubland, forest, and other vegetated areas.

Low. Suitable nesting and overwintering habitat are not present on site.

Disturbed land in northern portion of site may provide marginally suitable habitat for foraging and prey species (California ground squirrel and desert cotton tail) which were recorded on site; however, the site is not contiguous with large areas of undeveloped land.

Lawrence’s goldfinch
(Spinus lawrencei)
BCC Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, pinyon pine-juniper woodlands, oak woodlands, riparian, and disturbed
habitats. Also found in semi-urban, weedy, and
agricultural environments. Generally associated with a
water source, especially in drier regions.

Present. Observed on the project site on May 8, 2025. Site is highly suitable for foraging and moderately suitable for nesting.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
SSC Found within grassland, chaparral, desert, and desert edge scrub, particularly near dense vegetation used for nesting. Species requires vegetation with spines or
thorns (Yosef 1996), or artificial objects such as barbed wire to impale its prey species.

Moderate. Suitable chaparral and dense vegetation found on site. Project site contains barbed wire and sharp fencing appropriate for species feeding techniques. This species has been observed in the project vicinity in habitats with similar conditions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-12
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Merlin (Falco
columbarius)
WL Found in edges of grasslands and deserts. In open
country, clumps of trees or windbreaks are required for roosting.

Low-to-Moderate. Semi-open disturbed habitats marginally suitable for foraging are present on site. Species does not nest in southern California. This species has been observed in the project vicinity in habitats with similar conditions.

Prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus)
WL Found in desert shrubland and grasslands. Primarily
forage in grassland habitats.

Low-to-Moderate. Species tends to forage in areas with lower and sparser vegetation than found on site. Suitable breeding habitat is not present. This species has been observed in the project vicinity in habitats with similar conditions.

Northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus)
SSC Found in meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands. Nest
on the ground, often near an aquatic resource or within the waterbody itself using sticks or sedge tussocks as a foundation. May also nest in grasslands, grain fields, or sagebrush flats several miles from water.

Low. Disturbed land in the northern portion of site may provide marginally suitable habitat suitable for foraging and prey species (California ground squirrel and desert cotton tail) which were recorded on site; however, the site is not contiguous with large areas of undeveloped land.

Southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow (Aimophila
ruficeps canescens)
WL Found in mostly in sage scrub and chaparral, but also grassland habitats with scattered scrubs. Prefers open
habitat with rocky slopes. May also be found in open
sage scrub/grassy areas of successional growth for
example, after a fire.

Low. Sage scrub and chaparral habitat on site are marginally suitable for this species; however, preferred rocky slopes are not present and this species is not generally tolerant of human disturbance.

Los Angeles pocket
mouse (Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
SSC Found in low elevation grassland, alluvial sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub.

Low. Sage scrub habitat on site is marginally suitable for this species; however, disturbance and surrounding development make it unlikely for this species to occur. This species was previously recorded adjacent to the project site in 2003; however, that land has since been developed. Species was also observed near the project site in 2015 prior to the development of Sierra Lakes Commerce Center. Very few small mammal burrows were observed on site and friable sandy soils are limited to dense shrubby areas.

Northwestern San
Diego pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland
ecotones, and chaparral communities.

Low. Disturbed scrub and chaparral on site are marginally suitable for this species; however, disturbance and surrounding development make it unlikely for this species to occur. Species observations were recorded adjacent to the project site in 2003 prior to development of Target Distribution Center. Very few small mammal burrows were observed on site.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-13
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
merriami parvus)
FE; SE; SSC Found along floodplains, washes and alluvial fans in scrub and chaparral habitats. Soft soil required to
burrow.

Low. Riversidean alluvial fan, floodplains, and washes are not present on site.

Sandy soils for burrowing do not occur within open areas on the project site; openings are compacted and non-friable. Friable soils are present on site but occur in areas of dense vegetation not suitable for San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Very few small mammal burrows were observed on site. The site is isolated from other areas of suitable habitat. Final critical habitat for this species is located less than 700 feet west of the site but has since been developed for Target Distribution Center and habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat no longer occurs in this location. The nearest extant population is greater than 0.5 mile to the north within Lytle Creek Wash; however, San Bernardino kangaroo rats only disperse up to 0.3 mile (USFWS 2009) and no suitable habitat is present between this population and the 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.

Low. Species prefers roosting in trees over three meters (10 feet) tall, which are not present on site but occur as ornamental pines in the southern buffer zone. However, sage scrub and chaparral habitat within the project site is unlikely to be used by this species.

Notes:

BCC: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
CSE: Candidate Species under CESA
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
FPT: Federally Proposed Threatened
FP: CDFW Fully Protected
SE: State Endangered
SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List Species
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 4 Plants of Limited Distribution (Watch List)
CNPS Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California

0.2 Moderately threatened in California

0.3 Not very threatened in California
Source:

Rocks Biological Consulting, Biological Technical Report, included as Appendix D to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-14
Special-Status Wildlife
Of the special -status wildlife species evaluated five special-status wildlife species, Crotch’s bumble bee (state candidate for listing under the CESA), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii; CDFW Watch List [WL]), coastal whiptail ( Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri ; CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), Costa’s hummingbird ( Calypte costae ; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern [BCC]), and Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS BCC), were observed during project field surveys, and seven additional species have a low-to-moderate or moderate potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat . Please note that special -status wildlife species with low potential to occur or not expected to occur are not addressed further in this report; due to a high degree of habitat fragmentation and routine on-site disturbances no impacts are anticipated with these species.

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. The 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 overlaps with the project site; however, there is critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat less than 700 feet west of the site. This area of critical habitat is separated from the project site by a paved road and is now developed. Additional critical habitat can be found approximately 0.5-mile north of the site but is separated from the project site by dense development .

Refer to Figure 3a in Appendix D.

Wildlife Corridors
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development.

Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.

Based on a review of the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System data, no wildlife movement corridors are mapped within the project site (Appendix D). The land within and around the project site is designated as Rank 1, “Limited Connectivity Opportunity,” and Rank 2, “Large Natural Habitat Areas.” These ranks are the two lowest within the Terrestrial Connectivity, Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE) dataset (CDFW 2025c). Although the project site supports chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub habitat, it is surrounded by development and has been previously disturbed. There are no large areas of native vegetation contiguous with the habitat on site; however, the project site is less than one mile south of a “less permeable” California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) Essential Connectivity Area and a Natural Landscape Block associated with Lytle Creek Wash. Lytle Creek Wash also contains a Missing Linkage in California’s Landscape as mapped by the Science & Collaboration for Connected Wildlands organization.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-15
Jurisdictional Waters and Streambed
No aquatic resources were identified within the project site and 50-foot buffer during desktop review of the NWI, NHD databases, and historic aerial photos. Additionally, during the constraints -level aquatic resources assessment on October 29, 2024, no aquatic resources potentially jurisdictional per the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW were observed within the project site. Lastly, all soil types documented within the review area are not considered hydric, nor are there vegetation communities occurring within the review area contain riparian and/or hydrophytic species.

4.3.4 Methodology
This analysis considers the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, as described above, in determining whether Project implementation would result in a substantial impact to biological resources (i.e., environmental study areas, protected wetlands, marine resources). The evaluation was based on a review of regulations and determining their applicability to the Project. The determination that the Project would or would not result in “substantial” temporary or permanent impact to biological resources considers the relevant policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the Project’s compliance with these policies. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Outlined in the Biological Technical Report prepared for the Project, biologists conducted database research, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments for special -status species, and an initial general biological survey on October 29, 2024 (Appendix D). Biologists also 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 USACE 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 California Fish and Game Code, was not conducted. The general biological survey, vegetation mapping, and habitat assessments were conducted within the approximately 44.2-acre project site and a surrounding 100 -foot buffer (survey area) for a total of 66.7 acres. The constraints -level aquatic resources assessment was conducted within the project site plus a surrounding 50 -foot buffer for a total of 5 5.3 acres. Table 4.3-2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted lists survey dates and conditions.

Burrowing owl surveys were conducted within the project site and a surrounding 500 -foot buffer, resulting in a burrowing owl survey area of 168 acres. Focused non -breeding season burrowing owl surveys were conducted on October 29, 2024, November 26, 2024, January 7, 2025, January 16, 2025, and January 31, 2025. All surveys were scheduled to be conducted at least three weeks apart, in accordance with CDFW BUOW Guidelines. However, wind conditions caused the third survey on January 7, 2025, to be partially out of protocol. As a result, this survey was repeated on January 16, 2025, resulting in the final two focused surveys occurring two weeks apart. Surveys were conducted by walking transects spaced approximately 20 meters apart throughout all suitable habitat within the survey area. 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. No burrowing owl individuals, or active sign, or evidence of burrowing owls were observed.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-16
Table 4.3-2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted
Date Activity Surveyor(s)
Time
(Start- End)
Temp.
(F)
(Start-
End)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
(Start-
End)
Wind
Range
(mph)
(Start; End)
10/29/2024 Burrowing owl survey AG, HS 0730-1100 49-64 25-50 3-5; 3-5 10/29/2024
General biological survey,
vegetation mapping, constraints-
level aquatic resources assessment
AG, HS 1100-1145 64-64 50-50 3-5; 3-5
11/26/2024 Burrowing owl survey HS, KW 0700-0900 51-55 95-95 0-2; 0-2 1/7/2025 Burrowing owl survey AG, MT 0730-0930 51-54 100-90 15-25; 10- 15 1/16/2025 Burrowing owl survey AG, KW 0715-0915 54-56 0-0 5-8; 3-5 1/31/2025 Burrowing owl survey IB, KW 0750-0940 41-52 10-15 0-2; 0-2 4/29/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH, KW 1030-1430 65-76 0-20 0-2; 4-8 5/8/2025 Rare plant survey JR, AG 1000-1530 69-80 0-0 1-3; 1-3 5/22/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH 1045-1430 81-87 10-5 0-3; 3-7 5/22/2025 Rare plant survey JR, AG 1045-1430 81-87 10-5 0-3; 3-7 6/9/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH, IB 0945-1345 67-80 50-20 3-6; 1-4 6/18/2025 Parry’s spineflower assessment JR 1015-1405 87-96 0-0 1-3; 2-6 Notes: AG=Alec Goodman, HS=Hannah Swarthout, IB=Imran Badar, IH=Ian Hirschler, JR=Jim Rocks, KW=Kelsey Woldt, MT=Melissa Tamarkin Source: Rocks Biological Consulting, Biological Technical Report , included as Appendix D to this EIR.

Focused rare plant surveys were conducted on May 8 and May 22, 2025, and an additional Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) assessment was conducted on June 18, 2025. Surveys were conducted during the appropriate blooming periods for the target species, Parry’s spineflower. The survey was conducted on the project site plus a 50-foot buffer by walking meandering transects within suitable habitat. Any special -status plants observed were mapped using a GPS; population size, phenology, and other relevant field observations were recorded. Biologists identified all plant species on site to species, subspecies, or varietal level and a compendium of all plant species identified on site was generated. Plants that could not be identified to the species, subspecies, or varietal level in the field were collected and identified in the laboratory using a microscope and dichotomous key. Additi onal details of survey methodology can be found in Appendix D.

Focused Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) surveys were conducted on April 29, May 22, and June 9, 2025, within the time period when detection of Crotch’s bumble bee is greatest (i.e., April through August). Three surveys were performed in accordance with the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2024b). Surveys were conducted by walking transects through the project site 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 re cord 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 identif ied and recorded. Full survey methods, details, and species lists can be found in Appendix D.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-17

4.3.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to biological resources if it would:
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. ▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
▪ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
▪ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

As addressed in Section 5.1: Effects Found Not to be Significant, the City has determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the following threshold for the reasons stated below and that no further analysis was required in the EIR:
▪ Would the Project c onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located with an active HCP or NCCP area.2

4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation

The proposed Project involves ground disturbance (e.g., grubbing, clearing and grading) and construction of a warehouse, access roadways, and other needed infrastructure and improvements that could result in impacts to special status plant and wildlife species during construction. Impacts to special-status species could also occur during project operations from either direct (e.g., destruction of potential habitat, disturbance of species located on the site) or indirect impacts (e.g., disturbance of habitat or species as a

2 Rocks Biological Consulting. 2025. Biological Technical Report . Included as Appendix D to this EIR.

Threshold 4.3-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with the incorporation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-18
result of increased noise, vibration, dust, nighttime lighting, and human activity in the area). Potential impacts are discussed in more detail below.

Special-Status Plant Species
Parry’s spineflower. Parry’s spineflower is native and endemic to Southern California and blooms from April to June. Parry’s spineflower is a CRPR rank 1B.1 species, meaning it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere and eligible for state -listing under CEQA. Parry’s spineflower is also a State Rank S2, meaning it is imperiled because of rarity making it very vulnerable to extirpation.

Parry’s spineflower was not detected on the project site during the general biological survey; however, this species was observed during focused rare plant surveys conducted within the species’ typical blooming period (April – June) in 2025. Parry’s spinef lower was found within the chaparral vegetation community near the center of the project site. Occurrences were primarily associated with open shallow basins consisting of lower growing perennial species such as California matchweed with larger chaparral species such as chamise and holly -leaved cherry (Prunus Illicifolia) on the margins. Approximately 1,200 individuals of Parry’s spineflower were documented on site; please refer to Appendix D for the full survey results. Surveys were positive for Parry’s spineflower; therefore, this species would be impacted with Project implementation.

Project implementation could result in a potentially significant impact due to crushing of adult plants, bulbs, or seeds during vegetation removal or operation of heavy machinery associated with construction activities which could result in harm or mortality of Parry’s spineflower . Additionally, a potentially significant impact could occur if invasive plants are introduced during or after construction activities because invasive species produce competition which could adversely impact the proliferation and survivorship of Parry’s spineflower. As set forth in MM BIO-1, compensatory mitigation would be required to conserve, enhance, or restore Parry’s spineflower habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 and a rare plant mitigation plan would be developed and implemented. Therefore, with mitigation, the removal of Parry’s spineflower on site would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the species. Additionally, the Project would implement MM BIO-2, which would require the avoidance of invasive species in landscaping. This would ensure that competition from invasive species would not negatively impact the proliferation and survivorship of Parry’s spineflower. Impacts to Parry’s spineflower can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The proposed Project would not impact other special-status plants as no additional special-status species were observed and none have a moderate to high potential to occur within the project site due to lack of suitable habitat.

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Despite negative survey results, suitable habitat for burrowing owl ( State candidate species for listing under the CESA) is present on site; therefore, this species may be impacted by project implementation if present on site during construction, as discussed below. Crotch’s bumble bee ( State candidate for listing under the CESA) was observed on the project site and may be impacted by 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 isolated nature of the site.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-19
Burrowing Owl. On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission unanimously approved the listing of burrowing owl as a candidate species for listing under CESA. The species will undergo a one- year review prior to the issuance of a final decision on listing. As a candidate for potential listing, the species is temporarily awarded the same protections as a state-listed endangered or threatened species.

As noted above, t he project is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone per the San Bernardino County Museum Biological Species Database and General Plan. No burrowing owl individuals, active sign, or evidence of burrowing owls were observed during the general biological survey on October 29, 2024, or during focused burrowing owl surveys between October 29, 2024 and January 31, 2025. Suitable habitat and mapped burrows were inspected during focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee and rare plants in spring and early summer of 2025 and continued burrowing owl absence was recorded. Despite negative survey results, burrowing owl could forage, seek refuge, and/or breed on site in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat and burrows throughout the project site.

With Project implementation, a potentially significant impact 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 popula tions 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. In addition, impacts on burrowing owl could occur if owls were to enter the project site during active construction. Burrowing owls are particularly susceptible to vehicle strikes because they utilize roadways and adjacent areas for hunting. Burrowing owls are known to use manmade materials, such as pipes and culverts, for shelter and nesting. Impacts on burrowing owl, if they were to subsequently inhabit the site, are potentially significant. To avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls, pre-construction clearance surveys, CDFW consultation, and best management practices as outlined in MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3A, and MM BIO-3B would be implemented. With implementation of the mitigation measures, direct impacts on burrowing owls, if present, would be reduced to less than significant.

Additionally, a potentially significant impact could occur if burrowing owl is present adjacent to the project site during nighttime construction that involves the use of lighting. Such impacts are potentially significant because lights could reduce burrowing owls’ hunting success and make burrowing owls easier targets for predators. To avoid potential impacts on burrowing owl from nighttime construction and lighting, construction would occur during the day as outlined specifically in MM BIO-2(c).

Further, a potentially significant impact could occur if burrowing owl is present in the suitable habitat west of the project site due to elevated noise, vibration, and dust levels generated by construction equipment.

However, t hese disturbances are temporary and relatively short in duration, thus unlikely to affect burrowing owl behavior. In addition, as outlined in MM BIO -3A and MM BIO -3B, 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. If burrowing owls are detected within 500 feet of the project site, CDFW would be consulted for additional guidance. As such, impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, with adherence to MM BIO-1, MM BIO- 3A, and MM BIO-3B, potential impacts to burrowing owl would be reduced to less than significant.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee. The 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 ( Appendix D ). One Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on the project site

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-20
during a focused survey on June 9, 2025. Suitable nectar sources and habitat (i.e., small rodent burrows) are present on the project site and, although nests were not observed, the potential for nesting is moderate. Due to species presence, the Project could result in potentially significant impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee in the form of death, injury, or harassment and if present in the future could result in the destruction of nesting sites which could result in significant direct take of Crotch’s bumble bee.

Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, as required by MM BIO-1(j), construction personnel would be provided training with instructions to follow in the event a Crotch’s bumble bee nest is observed or suspected to be on site. In accordance with MM BIO-4A, pre-construction surveys would be conducted to locate any active Crotch’s bumble bee nests within or adjacent to construction areas, if nests are detected, as required under MM BIO -4B. Avoidance and minimization measures as outlined in project -specific permits (i.e., CESA ITP) would be followed to ensure unauthorized take does not occur . In addition to nests, impacts could occur to Crotch’s bumble bee if a bee enters the project site during active construction. In compliance with MM BIO -4C, a biological monitor would be present on site during removal of suitable nectar sources and if an individual is identified would stop construction work to allow Crotch’s bumble bee to move out of harm’s way. MM BIO -1 would also require compliance with construction BMPs to further avoid or minimize the potential for direct adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee during construction activities.

Project implementation could still result in a potentially significant impact on Crotch’s bumble bee through destruction or degradation of suitable habitat, including nectar sources and potential nest burrows located on the project site. However, as set fo rth in MM BIO -4B, ITP compensatory mitigation shall be provided by one or more of the following mechanisms: 1) purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved conservation or mitigation bank (if available); 2) execution of a Mitigation Credit Agreement; or 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition. Therefore, with mitigation, the removal of Crotch’s bumble bee habitat on-site would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the species.

Indirect impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee, if present adjacent to 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 and are unlikely to affect Crotch’s bumble bee behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.

Adherence with the mitigation measures listed above would ensure impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant. It should be noted, if Crotch’s bumble bee is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of Project construction, then these mitigation measures would not be required.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
As identified in Table 4.3-1, it was determined that six additional non-listed special-status wildlife species have a moderate to low -to-moderate potential to occur on the project site; California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, prairie falcon, merlin, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard.

Additionally, four non-listed special -status species were observed on -site; Cooper’s hawk, coastal whiptail, Costa’s hummingbird, and Lawrence’s goldfinch . None of the special -status wildlife species identified above are federally or State listed as endangered or threatened. The Project’s potential to impact spe cies or indirectly impact foraging and movement behavior of species is discussed in detail below.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-21
California Horned Lark , Costa’s Hummingbird, Lawrence’s Goldfinch, and Loggerhead Shrike . Costa’s hummingbird and Lawrence’s goldfinch were observed on site and California horned lark and loggerhead shrike have moderate potential to occur on the project site; therefore, direct impacts through loss of suitable foraging habitat could occur with Project implementation. Suitable foraging habitat for Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark and loggerhead shrike is present within proximity to the project site and is abundant throughout the region. In addition, as required by MM BIO- 4B, compensatory habitat mitigation lands for Crotch’s bumble bee are likely to be suitable for these four non-listed avian species. As such, removal of suitable foraging habitat would be less than significant.

However, Project construction activities could result in potentially significant impacts on nesting Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, 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. The Project would implement MM BIO -2, which would require best management practices including flushing species from the site prior to vegetation removal. Additionally, MM BIO-5A and MM BIO-5B would require compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 avoidance of nesting season if feasible, nesting bird surveys 3 days prior to site disturbance, and buffers to be established around active nests.

Indirect impacts on Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark, and loggerhead shrike, if present adjacent to 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 and are unlikely to affect Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark, or loggerhead shrike behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant.

Overall, with implementation of MM BIO-2, MM BIO-4B, MM BIO-5A, and MM BIO-5B, impacts to Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California Horned Lark and Loggerhead Shrike would be less than significant.

Cooper’s Hawk, Prairie Falcon, and Merlin. One adult Cooper’s hawk was observed flying overhead during a biological survey. The hawk flew over the project site and was not observed directly using it. Although the project site supports suitable foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk, this species is no t expected to rely on the habitat on the project site. Removal of foraging habitat as a result of project implementation is anticipated to be less than significant due to the abundance of suitable Cooper’s hawk habitat throughout the region. Prairie falcon and merlin both have low -to-moderate potential to occur on the project site.

Due to the low -quality foraging habitat on site and proximity to preferred foraging areas, these species are also not expected to rely on the project site. Suitable nesting habit at is not present for any of these raptor species. Prairie falcon primarily nests on ledges and cliffs which are absent from the project site, and merlin is not known to nest in Southern California. The project site also lacks woodlands appropriate for Coo per’s hawk nesting. Therefore, these species are not anticipated to nest on or immediately adjacent to the site and impacts on Cooper’s hawk, prairie falcon, and merlin would be less than significant.

Coastal Whiptail, Coast Horned Lizard, and Southern California Legless Lizard . Coastal whiptail was observed on-site and coast horned lizard and Southern California legless lizard have moderate or low-to- moderate potential to occur on site. The project site supports approximately 28.6 acres of native upland

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-22
habitat, the on-site chaparral and sage scrub are disturbed and isolated from other areas of suitable native habitat. Coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard exhibit high site fidelity and are not capable of dispersing long distances through urban environments. As such, on site habitat, if occupied by special-status lizards, does not contribute to the species’ long-term survival. The surrounding urban landscape acts as a barrier to dispersal, cutting off special-status lizard populations, if present, from other populations, limiting genetic diversity and effectively creating a ‘sink’. Other natural lands in the project vicinity, such as Lytle Creek, Jurupa Hills, the Santa Ana River corridor, and the Cucamonga Wilderness provide suitable habitat with connectivity to other populations. As such, loss of on-site suitable habitat would not result in a significant impact on the species or habitat due to the lack of value this land provides to the long-term viability of the species.

However, vegetation clearing and grading and other construction activities could result in harassment, injury, and/or death of coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard and Southern California legless lizard.

Therefore, Project construction activities could result in a potentially significant impact on these special- status species, if present on site. As set forth in MM BIO-2 construction best management practices would be implemented. As outlined in MM BIO-6A and MM BIO -6B, pre-construction surveys for the special - status lizard species would be required , if identified and avoidance is not feasible , species would be relocated. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in potential direct harassment, injury, and/or mortality of coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard and impacts would be less than significant with MM BIO-2, BIO-6A, and MM BIO-6B.

Riparian areas are ecosystems bordering a river or stream, where soil moisture is more or less permanently available. Riparian areas are highly productive transitional areas between streams and terrestrial uplands and support a diverse community of plants and animals. The project site is currently vacant undeveloped land and does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils ( Appendix D). Further, the constraints -level aquatic resources assessment and NWI and NHD database research did not reveal any jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features, blueline streams, or riparian habitat. Therefore, Project implementation would not adversely affect any riparian habitat and no mitigation is required.

As discussed above in Section 4.3.3, Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in impacts on five land uses/vegetation communities, developed land, disturbed land, Riversidean sage scrub, disturbed Riversidean sage scrub, and chamise chaparral. Developed land and disturbed land are not considered native vegetation communities. Alth ough chamise chaparral, Riversidean sage scrub, and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub are native upland habitat they are not considered sensitive natural communities under CEQA and impacts on these communities are not anticipated to be significant due to their abundance in the region. Therefore, impacts to native vegetation communities resulting from the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.3-2: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-23

As previously addressed and verified during the fi eld investigation, t here are no riparian habitats or federally protected wetlands or resources on the project site or in its immediate vicinity. The project site does not contain any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels, vernal pools) nor would project implementation potentially affect wetlands. Additionally, t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset databases do not map any features within the project site (Appendix D). Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any State or federally protected wetlands and no impact would occur.

Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development.

Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species.

As previously discussed, the project site does not function as part of a wildlife corridor. However, important connectivity corridors occur less than one mile north of the project site in association with Lytle Creek Wash, which is identified in the Rialto General Plan as unique and valuable habitat. Due to the site’s proximity to an important connectivity area, the project area could potentially be used by wildlife as a refuge between larger areas of naturally occurring habitat . However, the project site does not contain large areas of contiguous native vegetation and is surrounded by development. Therefore, only species capable of flight would be able to use the site as a stepping stone between habitats. Implementation of the Project would preclude the use of the site as a stepping-stone refuge. However, other nearby green spaces, such as Alec Fergusson Park, Sierra Lakes, and Roger Birdsall Park, provide suitable refugia for flight-capable species. As such, project implementation would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement opportunities or a wildlife corridor, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds which have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs. The project site contains habitat with the potential to support avian nests and impacts on nesting birds. 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 direct injury or death of a migratory bird due to construction or other disturbance that causes nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered a significant impact as impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.

The Project would implement MM BIO-5A which would require compliance with California Fish and Game Threshold 4.3-3: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact
Threshold 4.3-4: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM BIO-5.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-24
Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, avoidance of nesting season if feasible, nesting bird surveys three days prior to site disturbance, and MM BIO -5B which would require buffers to be established around active nests. Adherence to MM BIO -5A and MM BIO -5B would ensure Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to migratory birds. Therefore, the Project would not 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.

As previously discussed, the project site is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone identified on San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Map. However, the project site has been subject to a va riety of human disturbances and is bordered by industrial development. These disturbances have heavily impacted the natural plant communities, which reduces potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species.

Pursuant to San Bernardino requirements, focused surveys and pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl are necessary to determine presence/absence within the project site. As noted above, f ocused surveys have been conducted, and no burrowing owl individuals or active signs were observed during the general biological survey on October 29, 2024, nor during focused surveys between October 29, 2024, and January 31, 2025. Despite negative survey results, burrowing owl could forage, seek refuge, and/or breed on site in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat and burrows throughout the project site. As set forth in MM BIO -3A, pre-construction clearance survey s for burrowing owls would be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. As such, the project would not conflict with the County of San Bernardino Biotic Resources Overlay Zones.

As noted above, Rialto General Plan Policy 2-39.3 outlines continued support for the Delhi Sands Flower- loving Fly. It was determined the project site does not contain suitable soils for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. As such, protocol surveys are not required, and the Rialto General Plan policy related to this species is not applicable. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance , project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. With implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Mitigation would inclu de construction BMPs to avoid potential impacts and disturbance to special status species, and Parry’s spineflower, burrowing owl, nesting bird, Crotch’s bumble bee, Coastal whiptail, Coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures. Project level impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these measures and therefore would not contribute to a Threshold 4.3-5: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM BIO-3A.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-25
cumulative impact. Additionally, as discussed in this section, the project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources. Additionally, the project site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. The project site is not located within a designated protected area, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. Lastly, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resour ces. Therefore, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biological resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

4.3.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Rare Plant Mitigation Plan. Parry’s spineflower (CRPR 1B.1) is present on site and impacts are unavoidable; therefore, compensatory mitigation shall be provided to offset impacts.

A rare plant mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant or its designee. The plan will demonstrate the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, or restoring Parry’s spineflower habitat in areas to be managed as natural open space without conflicting with other resource management objectives. Habitat conservation, enhancement, or restoration will be at a minimum 1:1 ratio (acres conserved, enhanced, or restored to acres impacted).

If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes conservation of an extant population, the plan shall include at a minimum: (a) the location of the conserved habitat and an analysis of its suitability as compensatory mitigation; (b) an assessment of the extant P arry’s spineflower populations at the proposed conservation site; (c) a long-term management plan which includes objectives, management practices, monitoring protocols, adaptive management strategies, and reporting requirements; and (d) details regarding t he establishment of a non -wasting endowment to perpetually fund management of the conserved land, or such other funding mechanism acceptable to CDFW.

If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes enhancement or restoration, the plan shall include at minimum: (a) collection/salvage measures for plants or seed banks, to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding stor age of plants or seed banks; (c) location of the proposed recipient site, and detailed site preparation and plant introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding will occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.

MM BIO-2 Best Management Practices. To avoid impacts to special -status resources and inadvertent disturbance, the following monitoring requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented:
a. 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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-26
b. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall screen, cover, or elevate at least one foot above ground, all construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of three inches or greater that are stored on site overnight. These pipes, culverts, and similar structures shall be inspected by the project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.
c. 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.
d. 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 remo ved and towards adjacent open space.
e. At the end of each workday during construction, the applicant, or its contractors, shall 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 applicant, or its contractors shall thoroughly inspect holes and trenches for trapped animals each workday.
f. Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site. g. 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. h. 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.
i. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in the associated landscaping.
j. 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 sensitive biological resources that may be encountered within, or adjacent to, the

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-27
project. The training will provide workers with instructions to follow in the event a sensitive species is observed or suspected to be on site. Biologists shall provide WEAP training materials, including but not limited to the key fact sheet, to constructi on 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. Upon completion of the WEAP training, each member of the construction crew shal l 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. Biologists shall provide updates relevant to the training to construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”) meetings, as needed.

MM BIO-3A Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. 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. Time lapses between project activities greater than one week (7 days) would trigger subsequent 24-hour take avoidance surveys to confirm burrowing owl absence. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW survey methods. If burrowing owls are not observed during clearance surveys or biological monitoring, no additional conditions are required to avoid impacts to burrowing owl.

The Project Applicant shall submit at least one burrowing owl pre -construction 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 BUOW Guidelines (CDFW 2012).

MM BIO-3B Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. If burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof are 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 with the potential to impact burrowing owl. 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 av oidance measures if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 500 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

If project activities, including occupied burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081) prior to commencement of project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl . 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) purchase of credits at a CDFW -approved conservation or

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-28
mitigation bank (if available); 2) execution of a Mitigation Credit Agreement; or 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

The conditions of the permit or measures outlined in the plan shall be adhered to by the applicant and any required compensatory mitigation of habitat would be provided.

MM BIO-4A Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys. At a minimum, two pre-construction nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to project implementation. Surveys shall occur within 1) one week; and 2) within 24 -hours prior to any vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities scheduled to occur during the Crotch’s bumble bee flight season (February through October). Surveys shall follow the guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (2024b) and shall occur within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. The surveyors shall be qualified biologists familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

MM BIO-4B Crotch’s Bumble Bee CESA ITP. Suitable Crotch’s bumble bee habitat and Crotch’s bumble bee presence has been confirmed on the site; therefore, a CESA ITP shall be applied for and obtained prior to the commencement of project activities with the potential to impact Crotch’s bumble bee. The ITP shall include, at a minimum, a description of project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, identification of temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring requirements, relocation and/or translocation protocols, and compensatory mitigation measures. Compensatory mitigation will be at a minimum 1:1 ratio (acres conserved, enhanced, or restored to acres impacted). ITP compensatory mitigation shall be satisfied by one or more of the following mechanisms: 1) purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved conservation or mitigation bank (if available); 2) execution of a Mitigation Credit Agreement; or 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

MM BIO-4C Crotch’s Bumble Bee Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct full- time monitoring during removal of suitable nectar plants that is scheduled to occur during the queen flight period (February through March), colony active period (March through September), and/or gyne fligh t period (September through October). The monitor shall have authority to temporarily halt or redirect activities as needed to avoid unauthorized impacts.

MM BIO-5A Nesting Bird Surveys. To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code 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), if feasible. Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist shall 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, staging, or grading.

MM BIO-5B Nesting Bird Surveys. 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. 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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources

City of Rialto 4.3-29
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 to avoid take o f nesting birds.

If nesting birds are not documented during the pre -construction survey, adherence to additional measures may not be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

MM BIO-6A Special-Status Preconstruction Lizard Surveys. Within 30 days prior to the commencement of any on -site project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre - construction surveys in suitable special-status lizard habitat throughout the project site.

Project-related activities that would result in ground disturbance include any construction, vegetation removal, and equipment and vehicle access, parking, and staging.

The qualified biologist shall have familiarity with special -status lizard species as recognized by CDFW. A minimum of one daytime survey during suitable weather for lizard activity shall be conducted by walking linear transects spaced to provide 100 percen t coverage of suitable habitat. The location of any observed special -status lizards shall be documented. If feasible, the locations of any special -status lizards shall be avoided.

Avoidance measures shall be monitored by the qualified biologist.

MM BIO-6B Special-Status Preconstruction Lizard Surveys. If pre-construction surveys are positive for coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, or Southern California legless lizard and avoidance is not feasible, CDFW shall be notified in writing. In addition, relocation of all observed special-status lizard individuals shall be attempted and, if feasible, lizards would be relocated to the nearest available suitable habitat on conserved land in consultation with CDFW.

4.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant after implementation of the specified mitigation set forth in this section.

4.3.10 References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Community List. Retrieved from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. Accessed July 1, 2024.

County of San Bernardino. December 2021. Biotic Resources Map. Retrieved from:
https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/GeneralPlan/cnty-all-biotic-resources-map- final.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Rocks Biological Consulting. August 2025. Biological Technical Report. Included as Appendix D to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-1

4.4 CULTUR AL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Introduction
This section provides contextual background information on resources on or near the project site , including the area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. The extent to which development of the proposed Project could impact existing historic or prehistoric resources is evaluated. A Cultural Resources Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in May 2024 and is included as Appendix E of this EIR.

Tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 (sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objectives with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) are addressed in Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources , of this EIR. Paleontological resources are addressed in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the federal government, acting through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, maintains an inventory of historic and archaeological resources — referred to as the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) — that are worthy of preservation based on meeting certain criteria. The NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed actio n affects a property that is included or may be eligible for inclusion, on the NRHP. The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA.

The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 § 60.2). To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance) is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following four established criteria:
 Criterion A: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
 Criterion B: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;  Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Eligible properties meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-2
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Sites that meet one or more NRHP eligibility criteria but do not retain integrity are not eligible for the NRHP. Guidance regarding the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association is provided by National Register Bulletin 15.
1 State Regulations
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
In 1992, Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 was signed into law establishing the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. Eligibility for the CRHR is determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation in a formal review process in which a resource is proposed for listing. A resource deemed eligible for the NRHP is typically deemed eligible for the CRHR. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included in the CRHR, including California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the NRHP, as well as State Landmarks and State Points of Interest. The CRHR is maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation’s State Historic Preservation Officer.

For a historic resource to be listed, the resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

California Public Resources Code
The Public Resources Code establishes the definition and criteria for historical resources. “Historical resources,” according to Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j), “includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultu ral, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annuals of California.” Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “[g]enerally, a resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.” CEQA has established statutory requirements for the formal review and analysis of projects that fall under its jurisdiction. CEQA maintains that any property listed in, determined, or found eligible for listing in the CRHR is a “historical resource” and shall be considered historically significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the

1 NRHP. 2002. National Register Bulletin 15 . Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1912/ML19120A529.pdf . Accessed September 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-3
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” Impacts to cultural resources are considered significant if a project (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource that contributes to its significance; and/or (3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.

The Lead Agency must concurrently determine whether a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource ( as defined in Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b)) and, if so, must make reasonable efforts to permit the resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbed. An archaeological resource must be determined to be “unique” or “historic” for an impact to the resource to be considered significant. Section 2 1083.2(g) of CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be demonstrated that without merely adding to the existing body of archaeological knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If a resource is neither unique nor historical, the effects of a project on that resource will not be considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(C)(4)).

California Health And Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 govern the process for reporting inadvertent discoveries of human remains to the County Coroner; the process for the County Coroner to report human remains of Native American descent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); and the protections offered against removal or desecration of human remains.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations governs the nomination of resources to the CRHR (14 California Code of Regulations §4850). The regulations set forth the criteria for eligibility as well as guidelines for assessing historical integrity and other resources that have special considerations.

California Historic Building Code
The California Historic Building Code-California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8- provides regulations for dealing with structures designated as historical buildings or properties. The California Historic Building Code provides solutions for preservation of these structures, promotes sustainability, provides disability access, provides a cost-effective approach to preservation, and provides for safety of occupants or users.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-4
Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
General Plan Chapter 7 Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Resources Element, recognizes that the “future of Rialto is linked strongly to its past.” The following list includes General Plan goals and policies that have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project.

Goal 7-1 Preserve Rialto’s significant historical resources as a source of community identity, stability, aesthetic character, and social value.

Policy 7-1.1 Protect the architectural, historical, agricultural, open space, environmental, and archaeological resources in Rialto.

Goal 7-3 Identify, document, and protect significant archaeological resources in Rialto.

Policy 7-3.1 Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all projects in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.

Policy 7-3.3 Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.

Policy 7-3.4 Reduce adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources that cannot be protected in place through data recovery excavations.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to cultural resources.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 establishes the Historical Preservation Commission . The commission is authorized to make recommendations, decisions and determinations concerning the designation, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of these historical and cultural resources which contribute to the culture and aesthetic values of the City. Government Code Section 37361 empowers cities to adopt regulations and incentives for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of such places, buil dings, structures and other objects. The adoption of reasonable and fair regulations is necessary as a means of recognition, documentation, preservation and maintenance of resources of cultural, aesthetic, or historical significance. Such regulation serves to integrate the preservation of resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development processes, and to identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-5
between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses. C hapter 2.20 is intended to carry out the goals and policies of the G eneral Plan.

4.4.3 Existing Conditions
Natural Setting
The project site is situated to the southwest of the Cajon Pass, 2.5 miles southeast of the San Bernardino National Forest in the northwestern portion of the City of Rialto. On-site elevation s range from approximately 1,612 to 1,649 feet above mean sea level ; the site generally slope s from northwest to southeast on an approximately 2 to 9 percent grade. The City is largely urbanized and bordered by other developed areas; the setting surrounding the project site is primarily light and heavy industrial. Residential land uses are located east of Locust Avenue . Previous on-site land uses include a historic ammu nition complex and stockpiling and storage activities. The project site has been heavily disturbed and currently vacant and contains vegetation noted as a mix of chaparral and non-native grasslands.

Historic Setting
Typical of many San Bernardino County towns, the area that would one day become Rialto was a fertile agricultural area due to the warm, dry climate. Southern California’s citrus culture can be traced to the Mission San Gabriel; an orange grove was planted on mission lands in 1804. In 1841, William Wolfskill used seedlings from the San Gabriel orchard to plant his own larger orchard. Wolfskill is credited with establishing citrus commercially. Small ranching operations were established in the Rialto area in the mid- 19th century. In 1887, the first railroad connection was established and the land that now comprises Rialto was purchased by the Semi Tropic Land and Water Company. The company named the community Rialto and began development in the area. Shortly thereafter, a group of midwestern Methodists immigrated to Rialto and furthered its development. By the late 19th century, Rialto was an agricultural community for which citrus was the main crop. In 1893, the community contained approximately 35 homes with 250 residents, a few local businesses, and the Hotel del Rialto. The first citrus packing house was built in 1894, and a citrus association was established.

Rialto was incorporated in 1911. Citrus agriculture was the most important industry to Rialto in the 20th century. Connections to improved transportation resulted in steady growth as the small agricultural community was able to expand the market for their local product. In addition to the Santa Fe R ailroad connection, in 1914, Pacific Electric Railway completed the San Bernardino line through the City. Improved transportation through Rialto not only included the rail line but also the repaving of Foothill B oulevard (the main east -west transportation route) in 1913, which eventually became part of U .S. Highway 66, better known as the transnational Route 66. With these improved transportation connections, small local agricultural operations developed into a robust citrus packing industry.

The project site was vacant until the 1940s when the City expanded its infrastructure to support the war effort, when the U.S. Army built rail spurs and bunkers for weapon and ammunition storage. The ammunitions bunker area was over 2,000 acres of land located in the northern portion of the City that overlaps with the project site. The bunkers were abandoned after the war effort and used as a place for storing, manufacturing, and storing explosives until 1994.

Since then, the site has been mainly clear of any development with limited portions of the site used for additional storage by various facilities adjacent to the site. Site reconnaissance identified an empty

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-6
munitions bunker remaining from the U.S. Army use and two empty poly totes (Appendix G1).2 The bunker as well as a small brick and mortar structure were observed at the southern portion of the L - shaped project site.

Native American Tribal Setting
Please refer to Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

4.4.4 Methodology
An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historic Resources Inventory System on April 3, 2024, by Kimley-Horn, which included the project site and a half-mile buffer around the site. The search included a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. A Sacred Lands File search for the project site and immediate vicinity through the Native American Heritage Commission was also performed. Historic aerial photographs and historic USGS topographic maps of the project site were consulted. Kimley-Horn Cultural Resources Management staff conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site on April 9, 2024. Transects w ere spaced approximately 15 meters apart and all surface exposures were inspected. Ground visibility ranged from poor to excellent, with graded/vacant areas having high visibility and densely vegetated areas having low visibility.

Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

4.4.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for cultural resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
CEQA Guidelines Section 16064.5 defines “historical resources” as being a resource listed in or eligible for listing as a significant resource in State or local registers of historical resources, or by determination of a

2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Hazard Management Consulting, Inc., July 2023; Appendix G 1 of this EIR.

Threshold 4.4-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with the incorporation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-7
lead agency which is supported by substantial evidence. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Public Resources Code § 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as define d in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Kimley-Horn conducted a records search of cultural resources at the SCCIC for the project site plus a 0.5- mile buffer. The results of the record search indicated that three cultural resources have been previously recorded within the search area, with one historic age resource, CA-SBR-8696H, partially located within the southwestern portion of the project site.

The record search results also identified 12 cultural resource studies that had been completed within the search area, four of which include a portion of the p roject site. Three of the studies overlap with the project site and focus on cultural resource CA-SBR-8696H; no other resources were identified. The fourth study was conducted in 2007 and analyzed the same area as the project site. Again, the only resource identified was CA-SBR-8969H.

Resource CA-SBR-8696H is a historic -age resource originally recorded in 1996 and encompasses 2,822 acres including a World War II-era complex with 20 earth-covered bunkers, one of which is located within the boundaries of the project site and was given the resource name Rialto Military Munitions Bunker Complex. Upon review of previous reports and site records, it was noted that different portions of the historic site were re-visited in 1997, 1998, 2006, and 2010, with the 1998 visitation resulting in a larg e- scale evaluation effort for the entirety of the site (Appendix E). As a result of this evaluation, CA -SBR- 8969H was not recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under any criteria. During the 2006 site visit, it was noted that much of the site had been destroyed by development and it was recommended that the site was not eligible for listing in the NRHP or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The site visit in 2010 noted additional destruction to the historic site and overall lack of integrity. None of the previous cultural resource studies conducted found resource CA-SBR-8969H eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

The intensive-level pedestrian survey conducted of the project site for this EIR found the entire site highly disturbed due to prior grading and development with various instances of modern dumping and squatting observed. The field survey also confirmed the presence of resource CA-SBR-8696H at the project site and noted the collapsing entry structure to the bunker and historic debris. As such, Kimley-Horn cultural staff concurred with the prior recommendations that CA-SBR-8696H is not eligible for listing i n the NRHP or CRHR and further noted that the site does not meet the definition of a “Historical Resource” or “Unique Archaeological Resource” under CEQA. No new or other resources were identified at the project site as a result of the survey.

In addition to the walkover survey, research within the National Register, California Register, National Historic Landmarks list, and other cultural databases revealed no other cultural resources. Historical aerial imagery was also reviewed for the presence of a potential resource. The imagery revealed development associated with the Rialto Military Munitions Bunker Complex and grading activities occurring in the northern and southern portions of the project site from the 1980s through the 2000s. No other potential cultural resources were revealed.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-8
Although the project site was noted as highly disturbed due to prior grading and development, and no known NRHP or CRHR eligible historical resources were identified, t here is the potential for Project implementation to unearth and impact unknown, subsurface cultural resources . Therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 requires the retention of an archaeologist, MM CUL-2 requires the preparation of a Cultural Resource Management Plan for the project, MM CUL-3 requires cultural sensitivity training, MM CUL-4 requires archaeological monitoring, and MM CUL-5 outlines appropriate protocol and treatment in the event a cultural resource is discovered . MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -5 would ensure that if an unknown cultural resource is unearthed during Project construction it would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. Therefore, potential impacts to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 would be reduced to a less than significant level.

As noted above, one cultural resource , the World War II -era complex CA-SBR-8696H, was identified as partially located within the southwestern portion of the project site . In concurrence with prior recommendations, CA-SBR-8696H was found not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, and the site does not meet the definition of a “Historical Resource” or “Unique Archaeological Resource” under CEQA.

The intensive-level pedestrian survey conducted for the project site found the entire site highly disturbed due to prior grading and development. The field survey confirmed the presence of CA-SBR-8696H at the project site and noted the collapsing entry structure to the bunker and historic debris. No new or other cultural resources (including other architectural historical resources, prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic archaeological resources) were identified on the project site as a result of the survey. Further, the extent of prior disturbance indicates there is low potential for intact buried cultural resources at the project site.

Although low, there is the potential for Project implementation to unearth and impact an unknown, subsurface archaeological resource that could be determined a “Unique Archaeological Resource. ” Despite the low likelihood of discovery, if a “ Unique Archaeological Resource” is discovered during the Project’s ground-disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur. As outlined above the Project would comply with MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5, which would ensure the discovery of unrecorded cultural resources during construction activities would not result in potential impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 and impacts would be less than significant.

There are no dedicated cemeteries on or near the project site. The disturbance of most Native American human remains is typically in association with prehistoric archaeological sites. As discussed previously, the project site is not near an identified archaeological resource and the pedestrian survey conducted did Impact 4.4-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with the incorporation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5.

Impact 4.4-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-9
not identify any human remains ( Appendix E). Additionally, as noted above the p roject site is highly disturbed. Given the absence of known archaeological resources and the extent of on- site disturbance, there is low potential for Project excavation and grading to encounter human remains. Despite the low likelihood of discovery, if previously unknown human remains are discovered during the Project’s ground- disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur.

Therefore, in the event human remains are encountered during excavation or disturbance activities, compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, outlined below and identified in Standard Condition (SC) CUL -1 would preclude significant impacts to human remains.

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws and describe the general provisions for the treatment of human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during site excavation. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately and that a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by State law, the future development facilitated by the Project would implement the procedures set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5087.98, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC in the unlikely event that Native American human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities. The NAHC would designate the “Most Likely Descendent” of the unearthed human remains. If excavation results in the discovery of human remains, the future development would halt excavation near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for treatment and disposition of the remains. Therefore, following compliance with the established regulatory framework, specifically SC CUL-1, future development facilitated by the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning human remains. No mitigation is required.

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural resources, the geographic context for cumulative analysis of the Project is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological and historical resources within this area are expected to be similar to those that occur on the project site due to their similar environment, geology, and hydrology. This discussion is focused on the Project’s potential for resulting in site-specific impacts that could contribute to a cumulative loss. However, cultural resources impacts are site-specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or a significant affected resource extends off the site, such as a historic townsite or district. With this consideration, the cumulative analyses for historical and archaeological resources considers whether the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common cultural resources.

The Project could result in potential site-specific impacts to unknown cultural resources discovered during Project construction, especially ground-disturbing activities. However, implementation of MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -5 would reduce the P roject’s incremental potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources to less than significant and ensure site -specific impacts to cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-10
potential to result in damage and/or loss to unknown cultural resources. Similar to the proposed Project, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above, Project construction has the potential to disturb unknown human remains .

Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, as outlined in SC CUL -1, would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws for human remains and reduce potential site-specific impacts to less than significant. Similar to the proposed Project, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City would also be required to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 which would reduce potential adverse impacts to human remains in the cumulative study area. Therefore, the Project’s incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other closely related past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Thus, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

4.4.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC CUL-1: If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that excavation shall stop and no further disturbance shall occur within 100 feet of the discovery until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native America n Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery within 48 hours of notification. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his/her authorized representative rejects the recommendation, the human remains and associated items will be interred on the property with appropriate dignity in a location that will not be subject to future disturbance.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Retention of Archaeologist . Prior to issuance of any permit for ground -disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Rialto that a qualified professional archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior professional qualifications (Project Archaeologist) has been retained.

MM CUL-2: Cultural Resources Management Plan. Prior to any ground- disturbing activities the Project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. The CRMP shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribes and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/ Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-11
responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the Project schedule.

MM CUL-3: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. A Cultural Resources Training shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work within the project area. The training shall be prepared and conducted or overseen by the Project Archaeologist. The training content shall include, but is not limited to, information about any known cultural resources in Project area and vicinity and the process for inadvertent discovery. The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. The Qualified Archeologist or designated Archaeological Monitor and Monitoring Tribes’ designated representatives shall attend the pre -grade meeting with the grading contractors to conduct the initial training and explain and coordinate the requirements of the Cultural Resource Management Plan.

MM CUL-4: Archaeological Monitoring. The Project Archaeologist shall monitor or supervise archaeological monitors (Monitors) for initial ground disturbing activities. After initial grading, should no cultural resources be present and/or subsurface soils indicate a low likelihood for significant intact resources, the Project Archaeologist shall have the ability to recommend archaeological monitoring be decreased or eliminated after initial ground- disturbing activities are complete, which shall be approved in writing by the City. Any such recommendation shall be specific to archaeological monitoring and not impact the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and/or TCR-2.

MM CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project implementation, all earthwork and ground-disturbing activities shall halt within a buffer of the discovery established by the Project Archaeologist and the Project Archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find. The Project Archaeologist shall coordinate with the City and identify whether the resource is potentially significant and if it requires further evaluation. Work on the other portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

If the cul tural resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribes must be immediately contacted and consulted regarding potential significance and treatment of the resource. Specifically, the Consulting Tribes shall be contacted, as detailed within Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) Mitigation Measure 3, regarding any pre-contact finds and shall be provided information after the Project Archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment. For any potential significant cultural resources, the Project Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City to avoid or mitigate impacts to the resource. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the Consulting Tribes for review and comment, as detailed within TCR -1. The Project Archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. Preservation in place (i.e. avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.4-12
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery to excavate the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.

Disposition of significant Native American archaeological materials, such as reburial or curation by a qualified repository within San Bernardino County, shall be agreed upon by the City and Consulting Tribes. Any significant non -Native American archaeological material shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials within San Bernardino County, if such an instituti on agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. All identified cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (CA DPR 523) series forms and evaluated for significance. All findings shall be included within a Monitoring Report drafted by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes for review. Final copies of the Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City, Consulting Tribes, and South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

4.4.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant after implementation of the specified mitigation set forth in this section.

4.4.10 References
Hazard Management Consulting, Inc. July 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), included as Appendix G1 to this EIR.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. May 2024. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Locust Gateway Logistics Project, included as Appendix E to this EIR.

NRHP, 2002. National Register Bulletin 15, Retrieved from:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1912/ML19120A529.pdf, Accessed September 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY

4.5.1 Introduction
This EIR section examines the existing setting as it relates to energy conservation, identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements, and presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the Project. Energy calculations for the Project are included in Appendix B: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data of this EIR.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Energy Conservation Policy Act
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements. Signed into law in 1978, it has been regularly updated and amended by subsequent laws and regulations. This Act is the foundation of most federal energy requirements.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. FERC also regulates natural gas and hydropower projects.

As part of that responsibility, FERC regulates the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce, the transmission of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce, and the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce. FERC also licenses and inspects privat e, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects; approves the siting and abandonment of interstate natural gas facilities, including pipeline, storage, and liquefied natural gas facilities; oversees environmental matters related to natural gas and hydroelectricity projects as well as major electricity policy initiatives; and administers accounting and financial reporting regulations and the conduct of regulated companies.

Electricity is run by the states; however, FERC has jurisdiction over certain matters.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. The act includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. The Act requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light -duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in the Act. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the Energy Policy Act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110 -140) was signed into law by former President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-2
and storage. Under the EISA, the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2) was expanded in several key ways:
 Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;  Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;  Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each; and
 Required U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector.

The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.

State Regulations
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05) and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions.

Reductions in overall energy consumption have been implemented to reduce emissions.

In September 2016, then Governor Jerry Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 32, which builds on AB 32 and requires the state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32, the Legislature also passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target codified in SB 32. Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet these goals as well as the AB 32 GHG reduction goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the SB 32 goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and the AB 1279 goal of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045; see Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a discussion of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279). To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage.

Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil -fuel

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-3
fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.

Advanced Clean Cars II
The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations will rapidly scale down light -duty-passenger, pickup truck and sports utility vehicle emissions starting with the 2026 model year through 2035. The regulations will first amend the Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles and rely on currently available advanced vehic le technologies (i.e., battery -electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric and plug-in hybrid) to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards. Second, the Low- emission Vehicle Regulations were amended to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog -forming emissions. The regulations will substantially reduce air pollutants that cause climate change and threaten public health. In addition, the regulations will provide public health benefits of at least 12 billion dollars over the life of reductions by reducing premature deaths, hospitalizations and lost workdays associated with exposure to air pollution.

Advanced Clean Trucks
The Advanced Clean Trucks regulations is a manufacturer zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales requirement and a one-time reporting requirement for fleets and large entities. The development and use of advanced clean trucks will help CARB achieve its emissions reduction strategies as outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Sustainable Freight Action Plan, SB 350, and AB 32.

On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew its requests for CAA waivers from the U.S. EPA needed to support four adopted vehicle emissions regulations: (1) the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations; 2) the In- Use Locomotive Regulations; 3) part of the Commercial Harbor Craft and Ocean -Going Vessels At -Berth Regulations; and 4) part of the Transport Refrigeration Unit Engine Standards Regulations.

Implementation of these regulations is currently unknown.

Renewable Portfolio Standards1
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the State’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least one percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity ( Public Utilities Code §399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, CARB adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the State’s load -serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then -Governor Brown signed into legislation SB 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030.

1 California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. Retrieved from: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/ .

Accessed August 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-4
SB 100 established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Approved in 2022, SB 1020 revised the State policy to provide that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 90 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035; 95 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040; 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end -use customers by December 31, 2045; and, 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2035.

California ISO
The California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) is a non -profit Independent System Operator serving California. The California ISO manages the flow of electricity across high -voltage, long-distance power lines, operates a competitive wholesale energy market, and oversees transmission planning by and to its member utilities.

State of California Energy Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transfor mation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistan ce to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code) The Code California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) was created as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) by the California Building Standards Commission in 1978 to establish statewide building energy efficiency standards to reduce California’s energy use. In general, Title 24 energy code is designed to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in newly constructed and existing buildings. The CEC updates the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards conserve nonrenewable resources, such as natural gas, and ensure renewable resources are extended as far as possible to reduce the need for constructing new power plants.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December 2022, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and non-residential, which describe requirements for documentation and certificates that the building meets the standards. These provisions include mandatory requirements for efficiency and design of the following types of systems, equipment, and appliances: air conditioning systems; heat pumps; water chillers; gas- and oil -fired boilers; cooling equipment ; water heaters and equipment ; pool and spa heaters and

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-5
equipment; gas-fired equipment including furnaces and stoves/ovens; windows and exterior doors; joints and other building structure openings (envelope); insulation and cool roofs; lighting control devices; and solar PV systems.

The standards include additional mandatory requirements for space conditioning (cooling and heating), water heating, indoor and outdoor lighting systems, as well as equipment in non- residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. Mandatory requirements for low-rise residential buildings cover indoor and outdoor lighting, fireplaces, space cooling and heating equipment (including ducts and fans), and insulation of the structure, foundation, and water piping. The standards require solar PV systems for new homes. In addition to the mandatory requirements, the standards call for further energy efficiency that can be provided through a choice between performance and prescriptive compliance approaches.

Separate sections apply to low-rise residential and to non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. In buildings designed for mixed use (e.g., commercial and residential), each section must meet the standards applicable to that type of occupancy.

The performance approach set forth under these standards provides for the calculation of an energy budget for each building and allows flexibility in building systems and features to meet the budget. The energy budget addresses space -conditioning (cooling and heating), lighting, and water heating.

Compliance with the budget is determined using a CEC-approved computer software energy model. The alternative prescriptive standards require demonstrating compliance with specific minimum efficiency for components of the building such as building envelope insulation R -values, fenestration (areas, U-factor and solar heat gain coefficients of windows and doors) and heating and cooling, water heating and lighting system design requirements. These requirements vary depending on the building’s location in the State’s 16 climate zones.

California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building t opics. The CEC approved the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code on September 30, 2022, and the code went into effect on January 1, 2023. 2008 California Energy Action Plan
The 2008 Energy Action Plan Update provides a status update to the 2005 Energy Action Plan II, which is the State of California’s principal energy planning and policy document (CPUC and CEC, 2008). The plan continues the goals of the original Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated implementation plan for State energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound. First -priority actions to ad dress California’s increasing energy demands are energy efficiency, demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods in order to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure), and the use of renewable sources of power. If these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy and capacity needs, the plan supports clean and efficient fossil -fired generation.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-6
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F
CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused by a project. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the California State Legislature adopted AB 1575, which created the CEC. The CEC’s statutory mission is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and dire ct State responses to energy emergencies, and promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused by a project.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 was adopted in 1998 which requires that an EIR describe feasible mitigation measures which would minimize the inefficient and unnecessary use of energy .

Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created CEQA Guidelines Appendix F – Energy Conservation.

Pursuant to Appendix F, an EIR must include a “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects…”
2 However, because lead agencies have not consistently included such analysis in their EIRs, California's Natural Resources Agency amended Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines in 2009 “to ensure that lead agencies comply with the substantive directive in § 21100(b)(3).” CEQA Guidelines Appendix F lists environmental impacts and mitigation measures that an EIR may include. What is required is a “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Potential impacts that may be discussed include:
 A project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of a project including construction, operation, maintenance, or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.  The effects of a project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
 The effects of a project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
 The degree to which a project complies with existing energy standards.  The effects of a project on energy resources.
 A project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F assists EIR preparers in determining whether a p roject will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy.

Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 350, and Senate Bill 100 In April 2015 , then Gov ernor Jerry Brown i ssued Executive Order B -30-15, which established a GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) advanced these goals through two measures. First, the law increases the renewable power goal from 33 percent renewables by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Second, the law requires the CEC to establish annual targets to double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030. The law also requires the California Public Utilities

2 California Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2025. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix F Energy Conservation.

Retrieved from: https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2025combined.pdf .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-7
Commission ( CPUC) to direct electric utilities to establish annual efficiency targets and implement demand-reduction measures to achieve this goal. In 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, then Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The law requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develo p a framework that implements and tracks the progress toward said goal. CARB will also be required to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal (State of California, 2018, p.2). Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Chapter 2 Managing Our Land Supply Element identifies goals and policies for conservation techniques to reduce energy use and minimize depletion of energy resources. The Managing Our Land Supply Element describes the conservation goals and policies that the City of Rialto has identified for implementation to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community. The following includes General Plan goals and policies that have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project.

Goal 2-31 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2-31.1 Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Policy 2-31.2 Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy-efficient design elements, as appropriate.

Policy 2-31.3 Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment.

Goal 2-32 Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-32.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-8
in 2010. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a frame work to guide future land use and development decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to energy.

City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan 3
The City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. Goals include:
 Prevent truck routes from disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities;  Create a clean air checklist for new development of sensitive land uses;  Increase use of low-emission and electric vehicles where feasible;  Adopt building and maintenance standards that reflect the regional best practices in reducing urban heat island effect.

4.5.3 Existing Conditions
Existing Electricity and Natural Gas Supplies
Electricity
Electricity as a utility is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on- site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 W, the energy required to keep the bulb on for 1 hour would be 100 Wh. If ten 100 W bulbs were on for 1 hour, the energy required would be 1,000 Wh or 1 kilowatt -hour (kWh). On a utility scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is one billion watt-hours.

Electrical services are provided to the area by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electricity to approximately 15 million people, 180 incorporated cities, 15 counties, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses throughout its 50,000-square-mile service area. 4 SCE provides electrical services to the
City of Rialto (City) through State -regulated public utility contracts. SCE produces and purchases their energy from a mix of conventional and renewable generating sources. Table 4.5 -1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE shows the SCE electric power mix in 2022 compared to the statewide

3 City of Rialto. 2021. Climate Adaptation Plan . Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2248/Final -Rialto-Climate- Adaptation-Plan. Accessed August 9, 2024.
4 SCE. 2020. By the Numbers: Who We Serve . Retrieved from: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are. Accessed August 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-9
2022 power mix. In 2022, electricity use attributable to the County of San Bernardino was approximately 16,630 GWh from non-residential and residential sectors.5 Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2022) Energy Resources 2022 SCE Power Mix 2022 CA Power Mix
Eligible Renewable: 33.2%: 35.8%:

Biomass and Biowaste 0.1% 2.1%
Geothermal 5.7% 4.7%
Eligible Hydroelectric 0.5% 1.1%
Solar 17.0% 17.0%
Wind 9.8% 10.8%
Coal 0.0% 2.1%
Large Hydroelectric 3.4% 9.2%
Natural Gas 24.7% 36.4%
Nuclear 8.3% 9.2%
Other 0.1% 0.1%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 30.3% 7.1%
Total 100% 100%
1 Unspecified power is electricity that has been purchased through open market transactions and is not traceable to a specific generation source.

Source: SCE. 2022. 2022 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison . Retrieved from: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom - files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf . Accessed August 9, 2024.

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for the project area, services approximately 21 million people in a 20,000 -square-mile service territory. 6 SoCalGas has four storage
fields: Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey, as well as a combined storage capacity of approximately 134 billion cubic feet. According to the CEC, natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service area was approximately 5,027 million therms in 2022.7
SoCalGas projects that total demand for natural gas will decline at an annual rate of 0.7 percent from 2024 to 2040.
8 The decline in demand is driven by increased energy efficiency and updated fuel substitutions assumptions. Factors that contribute to the downward trend include Title 20 and Title 24 Code and Standards and renewable energy goals that impact gas-fired electricity.

Energy Consumption
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy consumption in California was 6,882 trillion BTU in 2022
9 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available),

5 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Electricity Consumption by County . Retrieved from:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx . Accessed August 9, 2024. 6 Southern California Gas Company. ND . Natural Gas Transmission. Retrieved from: Electricity Consumption . Accessed August 12, 2024. 7 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Gas Consumption by Entity, Southern California Gas . Retrieved from:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx . Accessed August 24, 2024. 8 California Gas and Electric Utilities . 2024. 2024 California Gas Report. Retrieved from: https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2024 - 08/2024-California -Gas-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2024. 9 US Energy Information Administration (2024). California Energy Consumption Estimates . Retrieved from:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA . Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-10
which equates to an average of approximately 176 million BTU per capita. Of California’s total energy use, the breakdown by sector is approximately 43 percent transportation, 22 percent industrial, 18 percent residential, and 17 percent commercial. Electri city and natural gas in California are generally used by stationary sources such as residences, commercial sites, and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum use is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2023, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 13,584,697,639 gallons of gasoline. 10 The County’s electricity
consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5 -2: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022. As indicated in the table, the County’s energy consumption has steadily increased between 2012 and 2022.

Table 4.5-2: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year
Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2012 14,308
2013 14,315
2014 14,680
2015 14,685
2016 14,902
2017 15,237
2018 15,326
2019 15,259
2020 15,910
2021 16,169
2022 16,630
Source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. Workbook: California Electricity Consumption . Accessed August 20, 2024.

The County’s natural gas consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-3: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012 -2022. As shown in the table, the County’s natural gas consumption steadily increased from 2012 to 2022.

10 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). (2024). Motor Vehicle Fuel, Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Retrieved from:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes- and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed on August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-11
Table 4.5-3: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year
Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2012 489
2013 511
2014 469
2015 485
2016 494
2017 493
2018 500
2019 547
2020 527
2021 561
2022 562
Source: California Energy Commission . Natural Gas Consumption by County. Natural Gas Consumption . Accessed August 20, 2024.

The County’s automotive fuel consumption from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.5-4: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012 -2022. As shown in Table 4.5 -4, the County’s on- road automotive fuel consumption steadily increased from 2012 to 2019, decreased in 2020, and increased again in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption has generally increased since 2012.

Table 4.5-4: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 Year
On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption
2012 823,824,155 221,468,396
2013 823,575,913 231,100,540
2014 833,908,390 233,757,358
2015 862,282,542 236,687,334
2016 886,951,688 251,535,041
2017 894,270,493 263,723,118
2018 894,127,745 259,783,109
2019 894,821,914 261,139,639
2020 763,765,305 265,477,739
2021 869,262,611 272,787,528
2022 867,249,837 276,240,473
Source: California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021.

4.5.4 Methodology
This section analyzes energy use on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project, including electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development, as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of the Project’s electricity and natural gas use is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of CalEEMod are included in Appendix B to this EIR. Modeling related to Project energy use was based primarily on the default settings in CalEEMod. The amount of

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-12
operational fuel use was estimated using CalEEMod outputs for the Project and CARB Emissions Factor (EMFAC) 2021 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.

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

4.5.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for energy resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy resources if it would:
 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.  Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.5-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Construction
The energy associated with Project construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for dust control, diesel fuel from on -road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off -road construction diesel equipment, as well as gasoline fuel from on-road worker commute trips. Because construction activities typically do not require natural gas, it is not included. The methodology for each category is discussed below. This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B: Air Quality , Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data . Energy consumption associated with the Project is summarized in Table 4.5-5: Energy Use During Construction.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-13
Table 4.5-5: Energy Use During Construction
Project Source
Total Construction
Energy4
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Construction
Electricity Use: GWh
Water Use1 0.0080 16,630 0.00005%
Diesel Use: Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips2 37,397
281,399,849

0.013%
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 60,373 0.021%
Construction Diesel Total 97,770 0.035%
Gasoline: Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 35,998 828,612,797 0.004%

1. Construction water use based on acres disturbed per day per construction sequencing and estimated water use per acre.

2. On-Road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet -average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 in San Bernardino County for construction year 2025.

3. Construction fuel use was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.

4. Total Construction Energy is the combined energy usage over approximately 15 months of construction.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for data assumptions used in this analysis and energy calculations.

Electricity
Water for Construction Dust Control . Electricity use associated with water use for construction dust control is calculated based on total water use and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and treatment of water. The total number of gallons of water used is calculated based on acreage disturbed during grading and site preparation, as well as the daily watering rate per acre disturbed.  The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 4.2 of Appendix A of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.  The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from the Air and Waste Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual (1992).

The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. As summarized in Table 4.5-5, the total electricity demand associated with water use for construction dust control would be approximately 0.0080 GWh over the duration of construction.

Petroleum Fuel
On-Road Diesel Construction Trips. The diesel fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon (mpg). VMT for the entire construction period is calculated based on the number of trips multiplied by the trip lengths for each phase shown in CalEEMod. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. In summary, the total diesel fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 37,397 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project (see Table 4.5-5).

Off-Road Diesel Construction Equipment. Similarly, the construction diesel fuel associated with the off- road construction equipment is calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The total diesel fuel associated with off -road construction equipment is approximately 60,373 gallons for the duration of buildout of the Project (see Table 4.5-5).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-14
On-Road Gasoline Construction Trips. The gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in mpg using the same methodology as the construction on-road trip diesel fuel calculation discussed above. The total gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 35,998 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project (see Table 4.5-5).

Construction Energy Use Analysis
The Project would have construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). In total, construction of the Project would use approximately 0.0080 GWh of electricity, 35,998 gallons of gasoline, and 97,770 gallons of diesel. In 2022, San Bernardino County used 16,630 GWh of electricity. Project construction electricity use would represent less than 0.0001 percent of the current electricity use in San Bernardino County.

In 2025 (the year Project construction is anticipated to commence), San Bernardino County is anticipated to use approximately 828,612,797 gallons of gasoline and approximately 281,399,849 gallons of diesel fuel. During construction, gasoline fuel consumption would constitute 0.004 percent of average annual gasoline usage i n the County and diesel fuel consumption would constitute 0.0 35 percent of average annual diesel used in the County. Based on the Project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to annual County use, the Project would not substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources.

New capacity or additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be required.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. 11 As such, it is expected that existing and
planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s construction demand.

SCE’s total energy sales are projected to be 103,561 GWh of electricity in 2025.12 Therefore, the Project’s construction-related annual electricity consumption of 0.0080 GWh would represent less than 0.0001 percent of SCE’s projected annual sales. Thus, it is anticipated that SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

Some energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such as from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, construction is subject to and w ould comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy- duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, ene rgy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the

11 BP Global, Statistical Review of World Energy , 2021. 12 California Energy Commission, CED 2023 Baseline Forecast – SCE High Demand Case, January 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-15
Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices. Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materia ls composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non- recycled materials. The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the costs of business.

As addressed, the Project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by less than one percent. It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and Appendix F criteria require a project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction fuel demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Additionally, use of construction fuel would be temporary and would cease once the Project is fully developed. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

There are no unusual characteristics that necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel use associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential energy resource impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operations
The energy consumption associated with Project operations would occur from building energy (electricity and natural gas) use, water use, and transportation-related fuel use. The Project is anticipated to be operational in 2026. The Project ’s annual energy use during operations is shown in Table 4.5-6:

Annual Energy Use During Operations. The methodology for each category is discussed below.

Petroleum Fuel
The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT calculated for the analyses in Section 4.2: Air Quality , Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and average fuel efficiency is calculated from the EMFAC model. The EMFAC fuel efficiency data incorporates the Pavley Clean Car Standards and the Advanced Clean Cars Program. 13 As summarized in Table 4.5-6, the Project’s total unmitigated gasoline and diesel fuel would be approximately 187,870 gallons per year and 728,982 gallons per year, respectively (each less than 1% of Countywide consumption). The Project’s air quality analysis includes Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-3 and MM AQ-4, which would also serve to

13 The CARB EMFAC 2017 Technical Documentation from March 2018 notes that emissions are estimated with all current controls active, except Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS). The reason for excluding LCFS is that most of the emissions benefits due to the LCFS come f rom the production cycle (upstream emissions) of the fuel rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe). As a result, LCFS is assumed to not h ave a significant impact on CO 2 emissions from EMFAC’s tailpipe emission estimates.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-16
reduce fuel consumption. MM AQ-3 requires landscaping equipment to be 100 percent electric. MM AQ- 4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. It should be noted that energy consumption values shown in Table 4.5-6 conservatively do not include all reductions from MM AQ-4 since the majority of the TDM program is not quantifiable in CalEEMod. However, TDM measures such as carpool/ vanpool/rideshare use were able to be quantified in CalEEMod; therefore, there was a reduction in operational gasoline consumption. With implementation of MM AQ-3 and MM AQ-4, the total mitigated gasoline consumption would be approximately 180,492 gallons per year.

Table 4.5-6: Annual Energy Use During Operations
Project Source
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
San Bernardino
County Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage
of
Countywide
Consumption
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
San Bernardino
County Annual
Energy
Consumption
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Unmitigated Mitigated
Electricity Use
Area1,3 0.946 GWh
16,630 GWh

0.0057% 0.0000 GWh
16,630 GWh

0.0000%
Water1 1.061 GWh 0.0064% 0.958 GWh 0.0058%
Total Electricity 2.007 GWh 0.0121% 0.958 GWh 0.0058%
Natural Gas Use
Area1,3 126,662
therms
562,123,065
therms 0.0225% 0 therms 562,123,065
therms 0.0000%
Diesel Use
Mobile2 728,982 gallons 281,589,289
gallons 0.2589% 728,982 gallons 281,589,289
gallons 0.2589%
Gasoline Use
Mobile2 187,870 gallons 811,280,390
gallons 0.0232% 180,492 gallons 811,280,390
gallons 0.0222%
Notes:
1 The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on project -specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults. 2 Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet -average fuel consumption (in gallons per mile) from EMFAC2021 for operational year 2026.
3 Mitigated energy consumption includes implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM ) AQ-2 that requires all -electric appliances instead of natural gas and no connections to natural gas utility lines, MM AQ-3 that requires all -electric landscape equipment, MM AQ-4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit, MM AQ-5 requires outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emissions or alternatively fueled, MM GHG -1 requires renewable energy to offset 100 percent of the expected building load ener gy consumption, MM GHG-2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, and MM GHG-4 requires implementation of a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan (refer to Section 4.2: Air Quality and Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas).

Source: Refer to energy calculations in Appendix B.

Electricity
The electricity use during Project operations is based on CalEEMod defaults. The Project’s total unmitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 2.007 GWh of electricity onsite per year (see Table 4.5-6). The electricity associated with operational water use is estimated based on the annual water use and the energy intensity factor is the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. Project area water use is based on the CalEEMod default rates. The Project would use approximately 156.5 million gallons of water annually, which would require approximately 1.061 GWh per year for conveyance and treatment. Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions includes MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG-4 which would also reduce electricity consumption. MM GHG-1 requires renewable

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-17
energy to offset 100 percent of the expected building load energy consumption, MM GHG -2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, and MM GHG-4 requires implementation of a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the total mitigated electricity consumption would be approximately 0.958 GWh per year.

Natural Gas
The methodology used to calculate the natural gas use associated with the Project is based on CalEEMod default rates. The Project’s total unmitigated natural gas consumption would be approximately 126,662 therms per year (see Table 4.5-6). Section 4.2: Air Quality includes MM AQ-2, which requires the Project to use all-electric appliances and end uses instead of natural gas. MM AQ-2 also requires that the Project not include natural gas utility lines or connections. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project’s total mitigated natural gas consumption would be approximately 0 therms on the site per year (see Table 4.5-6).

Operational Energy Use Analysis
Project operations would annually use approximately 0.958 GWh of electricity, 0 therms of natural gas, 180,492 gallons of gasoline, and 728,982 gallons of diesel with incorporation of MM AQ -2 through MM AQ-5, MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG-4.

Californians used 287,826 GWh of electricity in 2022, of which San Bernardino County used 16,630 GWh.

The Project’s operational electricity use would represent less than 0.001 percent of electricity used in the State and 0.0058 percent of the energy use in San Bernardino County. The Project’s mitigated electricity consumption estimated above includes reductions associated with MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-5, MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG-4. Regarding natural gas, Californians used 11,711 million therms of natural gas and 562 million therms of natural gas in San Bernardino County in 2022. The Project’s unmitigated operational natural gas use would represent less than 0.001 percent of natural gas used in the State, and less than 0.1 percent of natural gas use in San Bernardino County. However, MM AQ-2 would require the Project to use all -electric appliances instead of natural gas and would prohibit connection to natural gas utility lines; therefore, the Project would not consume natural gas. Even without the application of mitigation, the Project’s electricity and natural gas use would not be potentially significant due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption.

In 2026, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 13,429,720,378 gallons of gasoline and approximately 3,179,723,204 gallons of diesel fuel.14 San Bernardino County annual gasoline fuel use in 2025 is anticipated to be 811,280,390 gallons and diesel fuel is anticipated to be 281,589,289 gallons. The expected Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.000013 percent of current gasoline use and 0.000229 percent of current diesel use in the State. Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.0222 percent of gasoline use and 0.2589 percent of diesel use in the County.

Based on the California Energy Demand 2023 Baseline Forecast (February 2022),15 SCE’s total energy sales in 2026 will be 96,356 GWh of electricity. As such, the project-related net annual electricity consumption of 0.958 GWh would represent approximately 0.00001 percent of SCE’s projected sales in 2026. SCE would review the Project’s estimated electricity consumption in order to ensure that the estimated power requirement would be part of the total load growth forecast for their service area and accounted for in

14 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021.
15 California Energy Commission, CED 2023 Baseline Forecast – LSE and BA Tables High Demand Case , January 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-18
the planned growth of the power system. Based on these factors , SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s electricity demand.

Based on the 2023 California Gas Report, 16 the California Energy and Electric Utilities estimates natural gas consumption within SoCalGas’ planning area will be approximately 2,458 million cubic feet per day in 2022.1 As previously mentioned, MM AQ-2 would require the Project to use all-electric appliances instead of natural gas and would prohibit connection to natural gas utility lines. Therefore, the Project would not impact SoCalGas’ projected consumption and supplies for the area as the Project would not consume natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States currently has over 80 years of natural gas reserves based on 2018 consumption.17 Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption.18 As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s demand.

None of the unmitigated Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use.

Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Therefore, unmitigated energy consumption impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

It is noted that MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, and MM AQ-5 in Section 4.2: Air Quality and MM GHG-1, MM GHG- 2, and MM GHG-4 in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions were assumed in CalEEMod to reduce air quality and GHG emission impacts. Implementation of these mitigation measures would subsequently reduce operational energy consumption, although energy impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Energy Efficiency Measures
As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy use and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings. These standards are incorporated within the California Building Code and are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. For example, requirements for energy -efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, and green b uilding materials are expected to save additional electricity and natural gas. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by.

Regarding water energy conservation, the Project would incorporate drought -tolerant landscaping throughout portions of the site. Water-efficient irrigation controls would also be used in landscape areas.

Comprehensive water conservation strategies would be developed to each respective land use as part of the Project plan development. Buildings would incorporate water -efficient fixtures and appliances to comply with Title 24. It should also be noted that SCE is subject to California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard ( RPS) Program . The RPS requires investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase total procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030. SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by

16 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2024 California Gas Report , 2024. 17 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Frequently Asked Questions, How Much Natural Gas Does the United States Have, and How Long Will It Last? Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8 . Accessed August 9, 2024. 18 BP Global, Statistical Review of World Energy , 2021.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-19
December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human ti mescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.

As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy use and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings. These standards are incorporated within the California Building Code and are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use.

None of the Project energy uses would exceed one percent of the corresponding uses within the County.

Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. All Project buildings would comply with energy and fuel efficiency laws and regulations; therefore, the Project would not be wasteful or inefficient. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As discussed under Threshold 4.5 -1, the energy conservation policies and plans relevant to the Project include the California Title 24 energy standards and the CALGreen Building Code. The Project would be required to comply with these existing energy standards. Compliance with S tate and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the Project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. SCAG’s 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal, adopted in April 2024, integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The document establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light- duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the Connect SoCal; refer to Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy consumption impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the Project would result in the use of energy, but not in a wasteful manner, as discussed under Threshold 4.5-1. The use of energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand; refer to Table 4.5-5 and Table 4.5-6. As discussed above, the project-related construction electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.00005 percent of county-generated electricity. Therefore, the Project’s construction electricity consumption would be negligible relative to SCE’s generated electricity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

During operations, the project-related net annual electricity consumption would represent approximately

0.001 percent of SCE’s projected sales in 2026. SCE would review the Project’s estimated electricity consumption in order to ensure that the estimated power requirement w ould be part of the total load growth forecast for their service area and accounted for in the planned growth of the power system. The Project would not use natural gas and, therefore, would not impact SoCalGas’s projected consumption and supplies for the service area. It should be noted that the planning projections of SCE and SoCalGas Threshold 4.5-2: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-20
consider planned development for their service areas and are in and of themselves providing for cumulative growth. Therefore, it is likely that the cumulative growth associated with the related projects is already accounted for in the planning of future supplies to cover projected demand.

Furthermore, transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 year s of worldwide consumption. 19 As such, it is
expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s construction and operational demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required. Additionally, the Project wo uld be subject to compliance with all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.

The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, State, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy use.

Potential land use impacts are site -specific and require evaluation on a case -by-case basis. As noted above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

4.5.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
Although not required to reduce energy impacts to less than significant, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, and MM AQ-5 in Section 4.2: Air Quality and MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG-4 in Section 4.7:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions are applicable to the Project and would serve to further reduce energy consumption.

4.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential energy impacts would be less than significant.

4.5.10 References
BP Global. 2022. Statistical Review of World Energy, 2022. Retrieved from:
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy- economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf.

California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Motor Vehicle Fuel, Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Retrieved from: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed August 12, 2024.

19 BP Global, Statistical Review of World Energy , 2021.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

City of Rialto 4.5-21
California Energy Commission. 2022. Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Ibid., CED 2023 Baseline Forecast – SCE High Demand Case, January 2024.

Ibid., CED 2023 Baseline Forecast – LSE and BA Tables High Demand Case, January 2024.

Ibid., Electricity Consumption by County. Retrieved from: Electricity Consumption. Accessed August 20, 2024.

Ibid., Natural Gas Consumption by County. Retrieved from: Natural Gas Consumption. Accessed August 20, 2024.

Ibid. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation. Accessed August 20, 2024.

California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, 2011.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2024. 2024 California Gas Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas _Report_2022.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2024.

City of Rialto, Rialto Climate Adaption Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1761/Rialto-Climate-Adaptation-Draft-Plan-July- 2021. Accessed August 8, 2024.

SCE. 2020. By the Numbers: Who We Serve. Retrieved from: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we- are. Accessed August 9, 2024.

Ibid. 2022. 2022 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. Retrieved from:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom-
files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2024.

Southern California Gas Company. (ND). Natural Gas Transmission. Retrieved from:
https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-transmission.

Accessed August 12, 2024.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2024. California Energy Consumption Estimates. Retrieved from:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Ibid. 2021. Frequently Asked Questions, How Much Natural Gas Does the United States Have, and How Long Will It Last? Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8.

Accessed August 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-1

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR describes the project site ’s existing setting as it relates to geology and soils; identifies applicable regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts on geology and soils; and identifies measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The analysis in this section is in part based on information from the Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Testing, prepared for the Project by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. on June 26, 2023, and included as Appendix F1: Geotechnical Investigation and Appendix F2: Infiltration Testing Report to this EIR. In addition, paleontological records search results, prepared by the Western Science Center on May 13, 2024, were relied upon as well and are included as Appendix F3: Paleontological Resources Memorandum to this EIR.

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124) established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Program) which is coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The purpose of the program is to establish measures for earthquake hazards reduction and promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction measures by federal, state, and local governments; national standards and model code organizations; architects and engineers; building owners; and others with a role in planning and constructing buildings, structures, and lifelines through (1) grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance; (2) development of standards, guidelines, and voluntary consensus codes for earthquake hazards reduction for buildings, structures, and lifelines; and (3) development and maintenance of a repository of information, including technical data, on seismic risk and hazards reduction. The program is intended to improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines through interdisciplinary research that involves engineering, natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions sciences.

Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 2022-0057
-D
WQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided they:
 D
evelop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off -site into receiving waters;
 E
liminate or reduce non
-s
tormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-2
 Perform inspections of all BMPs.

The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the construction site discharges directly to a water body list ed on the 303(d) list for sediment. The SWPPP would also include an Erosion Control Plan that would identify specific measures to control on -site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading.

The Erosion Control Plan is included with a project’s grading plan and would be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources
The Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources outlines methods for assessing potential impacts to fossils and mitigating impacts from development. Impact mitigation includes pre-project survey and salvage, monitoring and screen washing during excavation to salvage fossils, conservation and inventory, and final reports and specimen curation.

Measures for adequate protection or salvage of significant paleontological resources are applied to areas determined to contain rock units that have either a high or undetermined potential for containing significant fossils. Specific mitigation measures ge nerally need not be developed for areas of low paleontological potential. Developers (public and private) and contractors should be made aware, however, that if there is not an on -site monitor it will be necessary to contact a qualified professional paleontologist if fossils are unearthed in the course of excavation. This contingency should be planned for in advance. In order to save time and project delays, in the advance planning phases of a project , the developer should contact a qualified professional paleontologist and arrange for the salvage of any unanticipated fossils. The paleontologist will then salvage the fossils and assess the necessity for further mitigation measures, if applicable. Decisi ons regarding the intensity of the paleontological resou rce impact mitigation program will be made by the project paleontologist on the basis of the significance of the paleontological resources, and their biostratigraphic, biochronologic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, and taxonomic attributes, not on the ability of a project proponent to fund the paleontological resource impact mitigation program.

All phases of mitigation must be supervised by a qualified professional paleontologist who maintains the necessary paleontological collecting permits and repository agreements. All field teams are to be supervised by a paleontologist qualified to deal with the significant resources that might be encountered.

The lead agency must assure compliance with the measures developed to mitigate impacts of excavation.

To assure compliance at the start of a project, a statement that confirms a site’s paleontological potential, confirms the repository agreement with an established public institution, and describes the program for impact mitigation, must be deposited with the lead agency and contractor(s) before any ground disturbance begins. In many cases, it will be necessary to conduct a salvage program prior to grading to prevent damage to known paleontological resources and to avoid delays to construction schedules. The impact mitigation program must include preparation, identification, cataloging, and curation of any salvaged specimens. All field notes, photographs, stratigraphic sections, and other data associated with the recovery of the specimens must be deposited with the institution receiving the specimens. Since it is not professionally acceptable to salvage specimens without preparation and curation of specimens and associated data, costs for this phase of the program must be included in the project budget. The mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-3
program must be reviewed and accepted by the lead agency. If a mitigation program is initiated early during the course of project planning, construction delays due to paleontological salvage activities can be minimized or even completely avoided.

State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2621–2630, regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act categorizes faults as active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well defined” by detailed site-specific geologic explorations to determine whether building setbacks should be established.

California Building Code
The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) is based on the 2021 International Building Code (IBC). The purpose of the CBC is to establish uniform standards for the construction and maintenance of buildings, electrical systems, plumbing systems, mechanical systems, and fire and life safety systems. The CBC is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, which is a part of the California Building Standards Code and establishes minimum requirements for a building’s structural strength and stability to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare and are updated every three years. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.

California Health and Safety Code
Section 19100 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code establishes the State’s regulations for earthquake protection. This section of the code requires structural designs to be capable of resisting likely stresses produced by phenomena such as strong winds and earthquakes.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, PRC Sections 2690–2699, directs the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS) to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land -use planning and perm itting processes. The Seismic Hazards Mapping A ct requires that site -specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
2020 California Penal Code Part 1 - Of Crimes and Punishments Title 14 – Malicious Mischief Section 622½ states “Every person, not the owner thereof, who willfully injures, disfigures, defaces, or destroys any object or thing of archeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private lands or within any public park or place, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-4
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Requirements for paleontological resource management are included in PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which state:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

These statutes prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the S tate or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, local agencies are required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. P RC Section 5097.5 also establishes the removal of paleont ological resources as a misdemeanor and requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (State, county, city, and district) lands.

California Public Resource Code Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code Division 5 – Parks and Monuments Chapter 1.7 – Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites Section 5097.5 states:

A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Chapter 5 Safety and Noise Element notes that Rialto emphasizes a proactive approach to planning which involves mitigating hazards present in the environment that may adversely affect property and threaten lives. Rialto recognizes the importance of providing a safe living environment for its residents. The City identifies policies to help minimize the effects of hazards. The following list includes General Plan goals and policies that have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoidin g or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project.

Goal 5-5 Minimize impacts to public health, safety, and welfare as a result of seismic and geologic hazards.

Policy 5–5.1 Require geotechnical investigations by certified engineering geologist or other qualified professionals for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and collapsible or expansive soils. Particular attention should be paid to areas within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-5
Policy 5–5.2 Require all construction to be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC), and to be consistent with the Municipal Code as it provides for earthquake resistant design, excavation, and grading.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and develo pment decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to geology and soils.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 15: Building and Construction. Title 15 of the Rialto Municipal Code identifies the City’s building and construction requirements and permitting process, including provisions related to seismic safety, soil erosion, excavation, and grading.

4.6.3 Existing Conditions
Project Setting
The approximately 40-acre project site is mostly vacant and contains scattered, small bushes, weeds and grass and remains of a munitions bunker on the southwestern corner; see Figure 3 -2: Project Vicinity Map. The site is relatively flat an d generally slopes from the northwest to southeast with elevations ranging from 1,612 to 1,649 above mean sea level (msl). The project site is vacant and undeveloped except for the northern and southern portions which appear to have been graded.

Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located within the Rialto -Colton Subbasin near the northwestern boundary of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consists of a series of topographical features moving northwesterly that abuts the Transverse Ranges Province. Wi thin the Transverse Ranges Province are the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north of the project site (Appendix G1). According to the USGS, the project site is within an area deno ted as having young deposits of alluvial fans from the late Holocene epoch, containing unconsolidated to slightly consolidated fine and coarse-grained sands and pebble-boulder gravel.1 Site Geologic Setting
Geologic Materials. The project site consists of undocumented fills overlying natural soils. The existing fill materials are generally medium dense to very dense and consist of silty sands, gravelly sands, and occasional loose silty sands. The project site’s natural soils consist predominately of dense to very dense gravelly sands and sandy gravels, and occasional medium dense to very dense sands and silty sands with

1 USGS. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California. Retrieved from:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1217/of2006- 1217_map/of2006- 1217_geol_map.pdf . Accessed on March 28, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-6
favorable consolidation/collapse characteristics along with occasional cobbles. Scattered boulders were also encountered on the project site.

Groundwater. Borings reaching down to a maximum depth of 25 feet below ground surface did not encounter groundwater. The depth to historically high ground water levels in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 279 feet below the ground surface recorded in 1993 (Appendix F1). According to the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project, groundwater in 2022 has been recorded at a depth of 460 feet below ground surface in the Project vicinity and is anticipated to be in excess of 400 feet below ground surface at the project site (Appendix G1).

Corrosive Soils. The project site soils are considered not corrosive to ferrous metals.

Seismically Induced Settlement. The project site is not located in a Seismic Hazards Zone for liquefaction nor earthquake induced landslide zones. Further, on-site natural soils are dense and not inclined to having potential for seismic induced settlement.

Faulting and Seismicity
There are no known active or potentially active faults within the project site, including Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. However, there are numerous active faults located in the regional area . Active and potentially active faults proximate to the project site are identified on Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity. Major faults delineated as Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones are approximately 1.4, 2.5, and 4.8 miles from the project site, and include the San Jacinto fault zone, San Andreas fault zone, and Cucamonga fault zone. The closest fault, the San Jacinto fault is located approximately 1.4 miles east of the p roject site. This San Jacinto fault is part of the larger Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault system and is considered to be a blind thrust fault. Blind thrust faults are fault areas that do not intersect the ground surface and therefore are not classified as active or potentially active in the same manner as faults that are present at the earth’s surface. Blind thrust faults are “buried” under the uppermost layers of rock in the crust.

Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Approximate Distance
from Project Site (miles) Direction From Site
Probable Moment
Magnitudes (MW)
San Jacinto 1.4 East 6.5-7.5
San Andreas 4.8 North/Northeast 6.8-8.0
Cucamonga 2.5 Northwest 6.0-7.0
Source: California Department of Conservation, 20 24; California Institute of Technology Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2013 .

Surface Fault Rupture. Fault rupture is the surface displacement that occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault rupture and displacement almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness; however, not all earth quakes result in surface rupture (i.e., earthquakes that occur on blind thrusts do not result in surface fault rupture. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep). In addition to damage caused by ground shaking from an earthquake, fault rupture is also damaging to buildings and other structures due to the differential ground surface displacement and deformation that occurs from the fault offset.

This leads to damage or collapse of structures across this zone. Fault rupture displacements in large earthquakes can range from several feet to greater than 15 feet. Surface fault rupture would not occur at the project site due to no known active or potentially active faults that cross the project site.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-7
Ground Shaking. An earthquake is classified by the amount of energy released, which traditionally has been quantified using the Richter scale (M L). However, seismologists most commonly use the Moment Magnitude (MW) scale because it provides a more accurate measurement for major and great earthquake sizes For earthquakes of less than MW 7.0, the Moment and Richter Magnitude scales are nearly identical.

For earthquake magnitudes greater than MW 7.0, readings on the Moment Magnitude scale are slightly greater than a corresponding Richter Magnitude.

The intensity of seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between a site and the earthquake epicenter, the magnitude, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding a site. Earthquakes occurring on faults closest to a project site would most likely generate the largest ground motion. However, there are no known active or potentially active faults that cross the project site.

Liquefaction. Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low plasticity. The liquefaction process typically occurs at depths less than 50 feet below the ground surface, although liquefaction can occur at deeper interv als, given the right conditions. The most susceptible zone occurs at depths shallower than 30 feet below the ground surface.

For liquefaction to occur, there must be proper soil type, soil saturation, and cyclic accelerations of sufficient magnitude to progressively increase the water pressures within the soil mass. Non-cohesive soil shear strength is developed by the point-to-point contact of soil grains. As the water pressures increase in the void spaces surrounding the soil grains, soil particles become supported more by water than point- to-point contact. When water pressures increase sufficiently, soil grains lose the strength to hold to each other and the soils begin to liquefy.

Liquefaction can lead to several types of ground failure, depending on slope conditions and the geological and hydrological settings. The four most common types of ground failure are lateral spreads, flow failures, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength.

The site is not located in a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the County of San Bernardino.
2 As noted above, borings conducted on-site reached a maximum depth of 25 feet below ground surface and did not encounter groundwater (Appendix F1). Further, according to the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project, groundwater in 2022 has been recorded at a depth of 460 feet below ground surface in the Project vicinity and is anticipated to be in excess of 400 feet below ground surface at the project site (Appendix G1). Therefore the project site’s soils are not susceptible to liquefaction and the potential for liquefaction at the site is low.

Landslides. Landslides are gravity -driven movements of earth materials that may include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope are the nature of underlying soil or bedrock, the slope geometry (height and steepness), and rainfall. The presence of historic landslide deposits is a good indicator of future landslides. Landslides are commonly triggered by unusually high rainfall and the resulting soil saturation, by earthquakes, or a

2 County of San Bernardino. 2020. HZ -2 Liquefaction and Landslides. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. Accessed Ju ly 15, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-8
combination of these conditions. The project site is not located in a zone identified by the County of San Bernardino as being susceptible to landslides.3
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading generally is a phenomenon where blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied substrate of large areal extent. For lateral spreading to occur, a sloping site with an open face within or at some distance from the site typically exists and there is a potential for liquefaction to occur near the base of the open face. Since the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site is low, the potential for lateral spreading is also low.

Soil Expansion. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content.

In general, expansive soils shrink and harden when dried and swell and soften when wetted. Such changes can cause distress to building foundations and structures, slabs on grade, pavements, and other surface improvements. Expansive soils contain minerals such as clays, which are capable of absorbing water. The project site’s natural soils consist predominately of silty sands and gravelly sands with no appreciable clay content. Although not tested, these soils are considered to have a very low expansion potential.

Subsidence. The project site is located within a widespread area of r ecorded subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal/pumping (historical and current) across California. 4 Subsidence is a potential
hazard in areas where there are significant thicknesses of alluvial soils and where groundwater withdrawal is anticipated. As noted above, the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project, estimates groundwater to be in excess of 400 feet below ground surface at the project site (Appendix G1).

Soils encountered at the boring and trench locations indicate that the project site is underlain by artificial fill and alluvium (Appendix F1). The artificial fill soils were encountered at ground surface and extended to depths of 2 to 4 feet below site grades and generally consisted of medium dense to very dense silty sands and gravelly sands, and occasional loose silty sands. Alluvium soils were also encountered at ground surface and beneath the artificial fill soils extending to the maximum depth explored at 25 feet below site grades. Alluvi um generally consists of dense to very dense gravelly sands and sandy gravels, and occasional medium dense to very dense sands and silty sands. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded the potential for subsidence to effect the site is considered low (Appendix F1).

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the Earth and its past ecological settings. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area.

The City of Rialto General Plan EIR identifies surface exposures of several sedimentary units. Of these units, mapped surface Pleistocene deposits are identified to have high paleontological sensitivity as other units across the region have been reported to yield significant fossils of extinct animals from the Ice Age. 5 According to the Rialto General Plan Draft EIR Exhibit 4.6.2, the project site contains young alluvial fan deposits, which have low paleontological sensitivity. Further, additional alluvial subsurface Holocene sand and gravel deposits may be encountered as indicated in the paleontological records search. While

3 Ibid.
4 USGS. 2024. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california -subsidence- areas.html. Accessed July 15, 2024.
5 City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan EIR . pg. 114. Accessed 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-9
Holocene soils are not paleontologically sensitive, underlying older soils that are highly sensitive such as soils from the earliest parts of the Holocene and late Pleistocene era may be present.

4.6.4 Methodology
The technical analyses supporting the geotechnical impact conclusions in the following section and the paleontological impact analysis used data provided in Appendix F1, Appendix F2, and Appendix F3. Data from these reports was supplemented through literature review and application of policies and guidelines of the General Plan for geology, soils, and paleontological resources.

The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning geology and soils. In addition to project design features, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are re commended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

4.6.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for geology and soils, and paleontological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to geology and soils, or paleontological resources if it would:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction.  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

As addressed in Section 5.1: Effects Found Not to be Significant , the City has determined that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the following thresholds for the reasons stated below, and that no further analysis was required in the EIR:
 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? There are no known active or potentially active faults at the project site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the CGS. The closest known fault to the site is the San Jacinto fault, which is mapped about 1.4 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-10
directly, or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site has an average elevation of approximately 1,620 feet above mean sea level. Due to the area’s relatively flat topography, landslides are not anticipated. The project site is not located in a zone identified as being susceptible to landslides by the County of San Bernardino.6 Therefore, given landslides are not anticipated due to the project site’s location and topography, Project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and no loss, injury, or death involving landslides would occur.
 Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Project would connect to the City’s existing sewer system and would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the Project would have no impact concerning soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Section 4.17: Utilities of this EIR addresses wastewater service and facilities.

4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.6-1: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

While there are no known active or potentially active faults or Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones at the project site, there are numerous faults in the region. Rupture of any of these faults or of an unknown fault in the region could cause seismic ground shaking.

State laws and local ordinances require that, prior to construction, potential seismic hazards be identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices. Project construction would be required to conform to CBC and California Health and Safety Code seismic design requirements (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction). The building and safety standards established by these codes have been developed to address structural integrity during a seismic event. To further reduce potential impacts associated with seismic activity, the Project would implement Standard Condition (SC) GEO-1, which would require the Project A pplicant to provide a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation for review and approval to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department. The City would review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations and code requirements. The project site is not

6 County of San Bernardino. 2020. HZ -2 Liquefaction & Landslides. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. Accessed July 14, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-11
traversed by an active fault . With the implementation of SC GEO -1 and considering the Project would comply with applicable seismic design requirements , impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Threshold 4.6-2: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The project site is not located in a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the County of San Bernardino. As noted above, according to the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project, in 2022 groundwater was recorded at a depth of 460 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the project site and is anticipated to be in excess of 400 feet below ground surface at the project site (Appendix G1). Thus, groundwater is considered too deep to induce liquefaction on the project site near surface soils. In addition, the project site is unde rlain by dense and very dense coarsely granular alluvial fan deposits, which are soils less susceptible to liquefaction.7 Therefore, liquefaction potential is considered low due to soil composition and deep groundwater depth.

As previously addressed, State laws and local ordinances require that, prior to construction, potential seismic hazards be identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices. Project constructio n would be required to conform to CBC and California Health and Safety Code seismic design requirements (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction). The building and safety standards established by these codes have been developed to address structural integrity during a seismic event. To further reduce potential impacts associated with seismic activity, the Project would implement SC GEO-1, which would require the Project Applicant to provide a site-specific, design- level geotechnical investigation for review and approval to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department. T he potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.6-3: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Soil erosion occurs when surface materials are worn away from the earth’s surface due to land disturbance and/or natural factors such as wind and precipitation. The potential for soil erosion is determined by characteristics including soil texture and content, surface roughness, vegetation cover, and slope grade and length. Wind erosion typically occurs when fine -grained non-cohesive soils are exposed to high - velocity winds, while water erosion tends to occur when loose soils on moderate to steep slopes are exposed to high-intensity storm events.

On-site surface soils consist predominately of artificial fill with silt sands and gravelly sands, and occasional loose silty sands in addition to natural alluvial soils consisting of dense gravelly sands and sandy gravels with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. These materials have a relatively low to moderate potential

7 As identified by boring samples in Appendix F 2.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-12
for water erosion depending on drainage patterns. The Project would also require cuts and fills of surface soils to remove existing undocumented artificial fill thereby reducing the potential for such erosion by removing loose soils. During grading and construction, topsoil would be exposed resulting in potential wind and water erosion. However, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting process which would minimize soil erosion . Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality identifies the NPDES compliance requirements for the Project. The NPDES permit would require the Project to prepare and implement a SWPPP and erosion control plan that includes construction erosion-controlling BMPs.

Typical SWPPP erosion BMPs include, but are not limited to, stabilization of construction entrances, straw wattles on embankments, and sediment filters on existing inlets. These BMPs would protect exposed slope areas, control surface water flows over exposed soils, and implement a sediment monitoring plan.8 Therefore, given that compliance with applicable S tate and f ederal regulations (i.e. , the NPDES Construction General Permit) would minimize soil erosion and topsoil loss , Project construction soil erosion and topsoil loss would be relatively low and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Following site development, the project site would be primarily impervious surfaces. Upon completion of construction, the project site would be substantially covered with pavement, buildings, and landscaping that would reduce the potential for wind and water erosion during operations. Pervious areas would be landscaped to prevent soil erosion; the remainder of the project site would be impervious and therefore not subject to soil erosion. Accordingly, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. As a result, impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.6-4: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Landslides. As noted above, the project site is not subject to landslides due to location and topography.

In addition, the project site is not located in a zone identified as being susceptible to landslides by the County of San Bernardino. 9 Therefore, given no landslides would occur due to project site and area location and topography, there would be no impact as a result of landslides and no mitigation is required.

Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading is the finite, horizontal movement of material associated with pore pressure build- up or liquefaction. This process can occur in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake in areas susceptible to liquefaction. To occur, lateral sp reading requires the existence of a continuous and laterally unconstrained liquefiable zone. Given the very low probability of liquefaction, impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Subsidence. Soil subsidence is characterized by sinking or descending soils that occur as the result of a heavy load being placed on underlying sediments and may be triggered by seismic events. Seismically - induced settlement depends on the relative subsurface soil density. Settlements from collapsible soils can be relatively large and damaging to improvements. Site soils are mainly dense with occasional loose soil

8 Rialto, California Municipal Code Section 17.40.010 (Ord. 1234 (part), 1995: Ord. 684 Section 23, 1975). 9 County of San Bernardino. 2020. HZ -2 Liquefaction and Landslides. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. Accessed August 28, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-13
deposits. Project construction would remove unsuitable soils based the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations per SC GEO-1. Further, Project implementation would not involve groundwater, gas, oil, geothermal energy extraction and therefore would not cause subsidence . Therefore, given that subsidence would not affect the project site due to compliance with SC GEO-1 and existing groundwater depth, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Liquefaction. Liquefaction potential is considerably low due to existing soil composition and groundwater depths. The Geotechnical Investigation makes preliminary recommendations concerning design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The City Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the CBC, and the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendation, including those concerning subsidence. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., CBC), and the Geotechnical Investigation ’s recommendations (SC GEO-1), the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable and potentially result in subsidence. Therefore, given that subsidence and liquefaction would not affect the project site due to existing soil characteristics and deep groundwater depth, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.6-5: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Soils that expand and contract in volume (“shrink-swell” pattern) are considered to be expansive and may cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials.

Fine-grain clay sediments are most likely to exhibit shrink-swell patterns in response to changing moisture levels. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, project site soils include alluvium, artificial fill, and cobbles, which do not include any substantive amount of clay (Appendix F1). Therefore, given that soil expansion is unlikely due to the site’s existing soil composition, impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.6-6: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with the incorporation of MM-GEO 1.

A paleontological records search conducted by Western Science Center was prepared for the Project on May 13, 2024, which indicates that no known fossil localities have been recorded at the project site; see Appendix F3. The project site contains surface artificial fill underlain by Holocene-aged younger alluvium.

These Holocene alluvial deposits are considered too young to potentially yield paleontological resources.

Therefore, the project site’s underlying soils have low paleontological sensitivity. As such, it is considered unlikely that unknown paleontological resources would be unearthed during Project implementation.

However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-14
In the event previously unknown paleontological resources are unearthed during Project construction, significant impacts could occur. MM GEO-1 requires the retention of a qualified paleontologist to monitor the site on an as -needed basis. W ith the implementation of MM GEO -1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Geology and Soils. Southern California is a seismically active region with a range of geological and soil conditions. These conditions can vary widely within a limited geographical area due to factors, including differences in landforms and proximity to fault zones, among others. Therefore, while geotechnical impacts may be associated with the cumulative development, by the impacts’ very nature (i.e., landslides and expansive and compressible soils), the constraints are typically site-specific and there is a low, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a larger cumulative area, such as citywide development. Additionally, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts on a given project site are site-specific. For example, development within the site or surrounding area would not alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground - shaking, seismic intensity, or soil expansion); therefore, the Project would not affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event on an adjacent site is experienced. However, Project development and future development in the area may expose more persons to seismic hazards.

In accordance with the thresholds of significance, impacts associated with seismic events and hazards would be considered significant if the effects of an earthquake on a property could not be mitigated by an engineered solution. The significance criteria do not require elimination of structural damage potential from seismic hazards. Instead, the criteria require an evaluation of whether the seismic conditions on a site can be overcome through engineering design solutions that would reduce the substantial r isk of exposing people or structures to loss, injury, or death to less than significant.

The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or landslide, liquefaction, or preliminary fault rupture study area. In addition, the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable codes and in accordance with the Mitigation Program set forth in this EIR, which are designed to reduce the exposure of people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death related to geological conditions or seismic events.

Accordingly, the Project’s contribution to any cumulative impact related to the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, ground shaking, or ground failure, as well as unstable geologic units or expansive soil, would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Similar to the Project, future projects would be required to follow City of Rialto Building standards, SCAQMD’s requirements for dust control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations pertaining to surface water runoff and water quality (which would require BMPs) for construction projects greater and smaller than one acre of disturbance, would prevent significant cumulative impacts related to erosion and other geological impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to any cumulative impact related to soil erosion would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Paleontology. Cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources are typically site-specific. The analysis herein determined that the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts related

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-15
to the destruction of a previously unknown unique paleontological resource given that the project site may contain soils conducive for such resources. MM GEO-1 would address this potential as it requires the retention of a qualified paleontologist for monitoring and therefore would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in incremental effects to paleontology that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Therefore, with inclusion of the above referenced mitigation measure, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

4.6.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC GEO-1: The Applicant shall submit to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review and approval, a site -specific design -level geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements
10 and:
a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted methodologies;
b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults; and
c) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related improvements.

Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigation in the site -specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the site -specific investigations, provide any additional necessary measur es to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all applicable recommendations from the investigation in the structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements.

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

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

10 Rialto, CA Municipal Code Section 11.12.070 (Ord. 1234 (part), 1995: Ord. 649 §1 (part), 1973: 1965 Code Title XIII, Ch. 11, §7). Accessed September 5, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-16
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City of Rialto Community Development Director, demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to respond on an as -needed basis to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries. A paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S./M.A. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques, and who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the area.

In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, all earth disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set f orth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologis t, City staff and the Project Applicant determine that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for reducing the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to t he City for review and approval and the Project Applicant shall implement the approval plan.

4.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section, potential impacts related to geology and soils, and paleontological resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

4.6.10 References
City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan EIR. pg. 114. Accessed July 15, 2024.

City of Rialto, California Municipal Code Section 17.40.010 (Ord. 1234 (part), 1995: Ord. 684 Section 23, 1975). Accessed July 15, 2024.

County of San Bernardino. 2020. HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b190

5. Accessed June 24, 2024.

Hazards Management Consulting, Inc. July 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . Included as Appendix G1 to this EIR.

Southern California Geotechnical. June 2023. Proposed Industrial Building Geotechnical Investigation SWC West Lowell Street and North Locust Avenue. Included as Appendix F1 to this EIR.

Southern California Geotechnical. June 2023. Infiltration Testing Report. Included as Appendix F2 to this EIR.

Western Science Center. May 2024. Paleontological Record Search for Locust Gateway Development Project. Included as Appendix F3 to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils

City of Rialto 4.6-17
USGS. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1217/of2006-1217_map/of2006-1217_geol_map.pdf.

Accessed July 25, 2024.

USGS. 2024. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. Accessed August 4, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-1

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR discusses potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts associated with development and implementation of the Project. A quantified estimate of GHG emissions that would result from the Project, and an analysis of the significance of the impact of these GHGs were analyzed. In the case where impacts were found to be potentially significant, mitigation is proposed to reduce their significance. The current conditions were observed as the baseline for the analysis along with relevant federal, State, and local air pollutant regulations. GHG emissions modeling for the proposed Project is included in Appendix G: GHG Emissions Modeling Data of this EIR.

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
 Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.  Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium - and heavy -duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
 Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO
2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. It is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-2
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA , and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017– 2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO 2 in model
year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017 – 2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 miles per gallon [mpg]), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S.

EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy -duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program applies to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019). The SAFE Rule (Part One) revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two, which sets CO 2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021 -2026. The current U.S. EPA administration repealed SAFE Rule Part One, effective January 28, 2022, and is reconsidering Part Two.

As of April 1, 2022, the CAFE standards require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026. The new CAFE standards for model year 2024-2026

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-3
will reduce fuel use by more than 200 billion gallons through 2050, as compared to continuing under the old standards.1
State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long -term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013.

In the State, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act o f 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.

Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would requir e a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business- as-usual”).2 The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector - specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.3 Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan are:
 Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026, available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press -releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026. 2 CARB defines business -as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission -generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 –2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 3 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency s ecretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global wa rming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-4
 Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.  Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
 Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
 Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy -duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).  Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gas es with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
 The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.  CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years . The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing zero emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.

In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons of CO
2e (MMTCO2e) to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business -as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarized the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identified the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. By 2016, California had reduced GHG emissions below 1990 levels, achieving AB 32’s 2020 goal four years ahead of schedule.

In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-5
provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan. 4 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support cl imate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.

Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential (GWP); providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of ne w regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed- Use projects.
5 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not
address other land uses (e.g., industrial) as contemplated by the Project.6 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.7 As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every

4 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Retrieved from:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf . Accessed August 2024. 5 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality , Appendix D: Local Actions , Page 21, November 2022. 6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-6
new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2 035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
 Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero -emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.  Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

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

On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew its requests for CAA waivers from the U.S. EPA needed to support four adopted vehicle emissions regulations: (1) the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations; 2) the In- Use Locomotive Regulations; 3) part of the Commercial Harbor Craft and Ocean -Going Vessels At -Berth Regulations; and 4) part of the Transport Refrigeration Unit Engine Standards Regulations. The implementation of these regulations is currently unknown.

Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifie d the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40% below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorized CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provide d a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO 2e emissions and 75 percent
fewer smog-forming emissions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-7
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated wit h electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents Califo rnia’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.

The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO 2 per megawatt-hour.

SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1 -2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 (2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, then - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -14-08, which established a R enewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S -21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implement ed the goals of Executive Order B -30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40% by 2024 and 25% by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganize d the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.

AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regul atory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants (TA Cs) and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40% below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-8
achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into l aw in October 2021, AB 1346 require d CARB to adopt cost -effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off -road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill required CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced by at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO 2 removal solutions and carbon capture,
utilization, and storage technologies.

SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.

SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injection of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.

AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires state agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies. They are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S -3-05. Executive Order S -3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-9
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
 By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
 By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target.

Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandated that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission (CEC), CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life- cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying, and e xploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S -14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S -14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21- 09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S -21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S -21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO 2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on
the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B -55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-10
recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

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

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations . The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20, Sections 1601 -1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty -three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost -effective measures, to promote the use of energy - and water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically t o allow consideration and incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumpt ion and decreases GHG emissions. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption across California. For example, the 2022 Title 24 standards require efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric -ready requirements for new ho mes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code . The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen). The 2022 CALGreen standards continue to

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-11
improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.

Regional and Local Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Rule 2305 was adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. Rule 2305 would also reduce GHG emissions. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate a warehouse’s Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install on-site energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The SCAQMD formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. This working group was formed to assi st SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The Working Group has proposed a tiered approach to evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency, wherein projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions.

With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening thresh old.

The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial
projects and a 3,000 MTCO 2e threshold was proposed for non- industrial projects but has not been adopted. During Working Group Meeting #7 it was explained that this threshold was derived using a 90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. During Meeting #8, the Working Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). The Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year
threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-12
(electricity, water use, etc.). The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Tier 4 consists of three options. Under the Tier 4 first option, SCAQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO 2e per
service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement off -site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.

Tier 3 Screening Thresholds
When the tiered approach is applied to a proposed project and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, a project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead a gency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because the SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would adopt a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a final threshold.

However, no statewide threshold was ever adopted and the interim threshold remains in effect.

For projects for which SCAQMD is not the lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted. However, the SCAQMD Working Group recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects. SCAQMD determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).8
Southern California Association of Governments
On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS] or Connect SoCal. The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non- profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholder s within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long -range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region s trives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.

8 SCAQMD, “Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” December 5, 2008, Attachment E: “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold,” October 2008, p age 3-2.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-13
Rialto General Plan
General Plan Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply, identifies goals related to greenhouse gas emissions in the City. The following includes General Plan goals and policies that have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project.9 Goal 2-31 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2.31.1 Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Policy 2-31.2 Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy -efficient design elements, as appropriate.

Policy 2-31.3 Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment.

Goal 2-32 Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-32.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

Goal 2-35 Achieve waste recycling levels that meet or exceed State mandates. Achieve maximum waste recycling in all sectors of the community: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and construction.

Policy 2-35.2 Utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in Rialto that is disposed of in landfills.

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

Policy 2-36.2 Require that new development projects incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

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

Goal 2-39 Mitigate against climate change.

Policy 2-39.1 Consult with State agencies, SCAG, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to implement AB32 and SB375 by utilizing incentives to facilitate infill and transit-oriented development.

Policy 2-39.3 Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

9 City of Rialto. 2010, as amended . The City of Rialto General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023- Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Accessed August 13, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-14
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in this area.

City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan 10
The City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. Goals include:
 Prevent truck routes from disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities;  Create a clean air checklist for new development of sensitive land uses;  Increase use of low-emission and electric vehicles where feasible;  Adopt building and maintenance standards that reflect the regional best practices in reducing urban heat island effect.

4.7.3 Existing Conditions
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperat ure than the sun, it emits lower -frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human -caused emissions of G HGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one d ay), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to

10 City of Rialto. 2021. Climate Adaptation Plan . Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2248/Final -Rialto-Climate- Adaptation-Plan. Accessed August 13, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-15
several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO
2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human- caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human -caused CO 2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere.11 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO 2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human -related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N 2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N 2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N 2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off -gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human- related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH 4 include
wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, fresh water bodies, non -wetland soils, and wildfires.

The atmospheric lifetime of CH 4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100 -year Global Warming Pote ntial of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC -23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in

11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-16
Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF 6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100 -year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC -123 to 1,800 for HCFC -142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacturing for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.

Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview -greenhouse-gases), 2018; U.S.

EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 -2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources , April 2010.

4.7.4 Methodology
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the Project includes the natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including world -w ide GHG emissions from
human activities which almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximately 27 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO 2/year to nearly 49 GtCO 2/year.12 As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG emissions cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.

The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off- road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project’s construction is anticipated to occur over a duration of approximately 15 months, beginning in 2025.

The Project’s operational GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic including passenger automobiles and trucks, off -road equipment, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, water supply and wastewa ter treatment, and solid waste. These emissions categories are discussed further in Appendix B.

4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for GHG impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to GHG if it would:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2014.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-17
 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” a project’s GHG emissions.13 GHG Thresholds
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e industrial threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. During the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group Meeting #15, the SCAQMD noted that it was considering extending the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by all lead agencies. This W orking Group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. However, the SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present GHG thresholds for land use projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency to the governing board. During Meeting #8, the Working Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). Additionally, the SCAQMD GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group has specified that a warehouse is considered to be an industr ial project. 14 Further, the
Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions (electricity, water use, etc.).

Although the screening threshold for industrial projects is 10,000 MTCO 2e per year, this analysis conservatively uses 3,000 MTCO2e per year as the Project GHG threshold.

4.7.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.7-1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Emissions would be reduced but would remain significant and unavoidable with the incorporation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4.

Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total

13 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8 , 2009.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-18
GHG emissions generated during the construction of the Project are shown in Table 4.7-2: Construction- Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
Construction Year 1 480
Construction Year 2 835
Total Construction Emissions 1,315
30-Year Amortized Construction Emissions 44
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.

As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,315 MTCO2e throughout the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period and then added to the operational emissions. 15 The Project’s amortized construction emissions would be 44 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

It is also noted that in response to the increase in warehouse development in California, the State of California Department of Justice issued a memorandum in March 2021, entitled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Memorandum). The Memorandum encourages warehouse projects to implement certain best practices, one of which is that construction equipment not in use for more than three minutes be turned off.

Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project-generated vehicular traffic including passenger automobiles and trucks, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off -site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 4.7 -3 shows that the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 11,596 MTCO2e annually from operations with amortized construction. Therefore, project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. It should be noted that the majority of the unmitigated GHG emissions (82%) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards, and neither the Project Applicant nor the City has control over these standards.

15 The amortization period of 30 years is based on the standard assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-19
Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Area and Indirect Sources
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 44 44
Area Source1 14 0
Energy – Electricity2 229 5
Energy – Natural Gas3 674 0
Off-road – Yard Trucks4 111 35
Off-Road – Forklifts4 354 112
Emergency Backup Generator 8 8
Waste5 196 49
Water and Wastewater6 467 421
Mobile Sources
Trucks 8,029 8,029
Passenger Cars7 1,469 1,469
Total 11,596 10,172
Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes

1. Mitigation Measure ( MM) AQ-3 requires 100 percent electric landscaping equipment, which would reduce area source emissions.

2. MM GHG-1 requires renewable energy to offset energy emissions and MM GHG -2 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards.

3. MM AQ-2 requires the Project to use all -electric appliances, and end uses instead of natural gas, as well as prohibits installation of natural gas utility lines or connections (refer to Section 4.2 : Air Quality).

4. MM AQ-5 requires outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emissions or alternatively fueled (refer to Section 4.2 : Air Quality).

5. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills.

6. MM GHG-4 requires to implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan.

7. MM AQ- 4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit (refer to Section 4.2: Air Quality). However, emission reductions associated with MM AQ-4 were conservatively not included in this table.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.

Section 4.2: Air Quality discusses numerous mitigation measures (MM) that would also reduce GHG emissions. For example, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ -5 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires the Project to use all-electric appliances, and end uses instead of natural gas, as well as prohibits installation of natural gas utility lines or connections. MM AQ-3 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. MM AQ-4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-5 requires outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emissions or alternatively fueled.

Further, the Project would implement MMs GHG -1 through GHG -4. MM GHG -1 requires renewable energy to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. MM GHG -4 requires the Project to implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan.

Table 4.7-3 shows that implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions to 10,172 MTCO2e. As previously noted, the majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are generated by mobile emissions. The TDM program required by MM AQ-4 would reduce GHG emissions from commuting.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-20
Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City to address emissions resulting from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s jurisdictional limits. As with all land use projects, the Project’s mobile and transportation related GHG emissions are a function of two parameters: emissions control technology and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

CARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State.

Regarding the first parameter, California addresses emissions control technology through a variety of legislation and regulatory schemes, including the Sta te’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order S-01-07) (LCFS), a regulatory program designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. The regulatory standards are expressed in terms of the “carbon intensity” of gasoline and diesel fuel and their substitutes. Different types of fuels are evaluated to determine their “life cycle em issions” which include the emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using the fuels. Each fuel is then given a carbon intensity score and compared against a declining carbon intensity benchmark for each year. Providers of transportation fuels must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they supply for use in California meets these declining benchmarks for each annual compliance period.

In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the LCFS, which strengthened the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 to ensure they are in -line with California’s 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32. CARB is also implementing additional transportation sector regulations such as Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Advanced Clean Fleets. 16 This ensures that the transportation
sector is meeting its obligations to achieve California’s GHG reduction targets. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations through vehicle manufacturer compliance. The State is also implementing le gislation and regulations to address the second parameter affecting transportation related GHG emissions by controlling for VMT. Examples of this include SB 375, which links land use and transportation funding and provides one incentive for regions to achieve reductions in VMT, and SB 743, which discourages VMT increases for passenger car trips above a region-specific benchmark.

Additional mitigation to further reduce the Project’s non- mobile emissions would be speculative. The Project’s mitigation measures address non- mobile emissions to the extent possible, by designing the warehouse building to provide environmental design features, incorporat ing energy and water conservation measures, and providing electrical, heating, ventilation, lighting, and power systems that meet or exceed CALGreen Standards. The State is addressing the remaining energy-related GHG emissions through SB 100 and SB 1020, which require 100 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2045. Additionally, SB 905 requires the State to use carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies and AB 1757 requires nature-based sequestration in natural working lands.

It should be noted that the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 which would directly reduce emissions or to otherwise facilitate emissions reductions. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby. Although Rule 2305

16 On January 13, 2025, California withdrew its request for federal approval of the Advanced Clean Fleets and is evaluating next steps. CARB will not enforce portions of the regulation requiring federal authorization, such as those affecting high- priority and drayage fleets.

However, State and local government fleet requirements remain unchanged. (Source: California Air Resources Board, ACF Waiver Update, Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets. Accessed February 2025.)

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-21
focuses on air quality pollutant emissions, the rule would facilitate cleaner vehicles and supporting infrastructure that would also result in GHG benefits.

Warehouse owners and operators are required to earn WAIRE Points each year. WAIRE points are a menu- based system earned by emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, Near-Zero Emissions and/or Zero-Emissions on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options. Conservatively, this analysis and the GHG emissions results presented in Table 4.7-3 do not take credit for these potential reductions.

Compliance with Rule 2305 would likely reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.

As shown in Table 4.7-3, mitigated GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. Therefore, p roject-related GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan Consistency
The Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high-efficiency lighting, high-efficiency heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning [HVAC] systems, thermal insulation, double-glazed windows, water-conserving plumbing fixtures), these standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three -year cycle. The most recent 2022 standards went into effect January 1, 2023.

Further, the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project would also comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction and operation and would not interfere with the State’s AB 32 goals.

Consistency with SCAG RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal)
On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Threshold 4.7-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with the incorporation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-22
Bernardino, and Ventura. Under SB 375, SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals to reduce GHG emissions in the region by eight percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.17 Implementation of the RTP/SCS would add 181,200 new miles of transit revenue service, 4,000 new miles of bike lanes and 869 new miles to the Regional Express Lane Network. Strategic investments in infrastructure and transportation would improve access to employment centers and stimulat e regional economic growth and opportunity in historically underserved areas. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies to implement transportation projects in a coordinated manner while qualifying for federal and S tate funding. Connect SoCal also supports local jurisdictions in making informed land use planning and housing development decisions.

The RTP/SCS plans account for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS are also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissi ons reduction goals and FCAA requirements, increased housing production, improved equity and resilience, the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased transportation safety, support for the region’s vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore p roject comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the project would inhibit the post -2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with the Connect SoCal goals is provided in Table 4.7- 4: Connect SoCal Consistency.

Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 4.7 -4, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent by the year 2035 or the post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

17 California Air Resources Board, SB 375 Regional Targets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/sb- 375-regional-targets, accessed August 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-23
Table 4.7-4: Connect SoCal Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network.

Support investments that are well-maintained
and operated, coordinated, resilient and result
in improved safety, improved air quality and
minimized greenhouse gas emissions
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable.

Ensure that reliable, accessible, affordable, and
appealing travel options are readily available,
while striving to enhance equity in the offerings
in high-need communities
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable.

Support planning for people of all ages, abilities,
and backgrounds
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable.

Communities: Develop, connect, and sustain communities that are livable and thriving Create human-centered communities in urban,
suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility
options and reduce travel distances
Consistent. The project site is located in an urban area in proximity to existing community services. Additionally, the site is located near existing transit routes (i.e., OmniTrans route along Locust Avenue) and access to Interstate 210 (I-210).

Produce and preserve diverse housing types in
an effort to improve affordability, accessibility,
and opportunities for all households
N/A. The Project does not propose residential uses.

Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow Develop communities that are resilient and can
mitigate, adapt to, and respond to chronic and
acute stresses and disruptions, such as climate
change
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2: Air Quality, the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional or localized thresholds. Based on the Friant Ranch decision, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) would not violate any air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in no criteria pollutant health impacts.

Additionally, the Project’s Health Risk Assessment determined potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact 4.7-1 in this section of the EIR, the Project would require all feasible mitigation to reduce GHG emissions. In addition to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, discussed further in Section 4.2: Air
Quality, the Project would implement MM GHG-1 through
MM GHG-4. MM GHG-1 requires the renewable energy to
offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. MM GHG-4 requires to
implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan.

Therefore, the Project would not result in health impacts and would implement all feasible mitigation to reduce GHG
emissions.

Integrate the region’s development pattern and
transportation network to improve air quality,
Consistent. While the Project is not a transportation
improvement Project, the project site is located in a
developed area and would reduce truck trip lengths, which

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-24
Table 4.7-4: Connect SoCal Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable
more sustainable use of energy and water
would reduce GHG and air quality emissions. Additionally, the reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development are encouraged through the development of alternative
transportation methods, green design techniques for
buildings, and other energy-reducing techniques such as compliance with the provisions of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Conserve the region’s resources Consistent. The project site is vacant and is not designated for agricultural uses, natural resources, or conservation.

Therefore, Project development would not result in a loss of the region’s resources.

Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient, and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
Improve access to jobs and educational
resources
Consistent. The Project proposes a warehouse development within an urban area with residential, retail, and institutional land uses. The Project could provide approximately 557 jobs18, which would improve access to jobs opportunities.

Advance a resilient and efficient goods
movement system that supports the economic
vitality of the region, attainment of clean air and
quality of life for our communities
Consistent. The Project includes a warehouse use that would support goods movement. As summarized above, the Project would result in less than significant air quality and health risk impacts.

N/A = Not Applicable
Sources:

1. SCAG, Connect SoCal (2024 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), 2024 .

Consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan
As previously noted, the 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022 Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero -emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets 19 regulation to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-

18 Based on employee generation factor of 1 per 1,195 sf of warehouse use provided by Natelson Company, Inc’s Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG (2001).
19 On January 13, 2025, California withdrew its request for federal approval of the Advanced Clean Fleets and is evaluating next steps. CARB will not enforce portions of the regulation requiring federal authorization, such as those affecting high- priority and drayage fleets.

However, State and local government fleet requirements remain unchanged. Source: California Air Resources Board, ACF Waiver Update, Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/advanced -clean-fleets. Accessed February 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-25
Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In- use Off- Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap -and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 9 05 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.

As indicated in Table 4.7-3, approximately 93 percent of the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are from mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emission standards. However, these emissions would decline in the future due to Statewide measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the following:

CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation : Adopted in June 2020, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.
 Executive Order N-79-20: Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off -road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero -emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy -duty vehicles will be zero - emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.”  CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy : CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks.  CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan : The Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.

This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.  CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement: CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories.

While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to improve system efficiency, nor conflict with the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would also not convert any Natural and Working Lands and/or decrease the urban forest carbon stock in the State, which are areas of emphasis in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

In conclusion, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 and MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 (refer to Section 4.2: Air Quality).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-26

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes ( about one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.

It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cu mulative impacts; there are no non- cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. As discussed above, the Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO
2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 and MM AQ -2 through MM AQ -5 ( refer to Section 4.2 : Air Quality ). As such, the Project cumulatively contribute to a significant and unavoidable GHG impact.

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

Please refer to LOR AQ -2 and LOR AQ -3 in Section 4.2: Air Quality , which requires diesel -powered construction equipment to be turned off when not in use and the installation of water efficient irrigation systems and devices, respectively.

LOR GHG-1 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.

LOR GHG-2 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

LOR GHG-3 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping, according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 12.50 of the City’s Municipal Code).

LOR GHG-4 Design buildings to be water -efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

LOR GHG-5 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-27
LOR GHG-6 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

LOR GHG-7 To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Mitigation Measures
MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 and the following measures are applicable to the Project.

MM GHG-1 On-Site Renewable Electricity Generation. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the building tenant, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that the Project has either: 1) installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on the site, or 2) otherwise acquired energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, such that either option will provide 100 percent of the expected building load whic h is anticipated to be approximately 1.42 kilowatt hours per year [kWh/year] per square foot). Alternatively, the Project may achieve 100 percent of the building’s expected energy load through a combination of on -site renewable energy generation and renewable energy purchase.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). Should SCE limit the facility size, the amounts above shall be limited to the amount of SCE’s approval. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-2 CALGreen Tier 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Rialto Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed 2022 CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-3 Solid Waste Diversion. Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Project operator shall designate a solid waste management coordinator and implement a waste management plan to recycle and/or salvage nonhazardous debris to achieve a minimum 75 percent diversion from landfills. The City of Rialto Community Development Department, Planning Division shall confirm that sales or lease agreements includes contractual language that obligates tenants, operators, or future owners to comply with the solid waste management plan. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-4 Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan. The Project Applicant or designee shall implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan that includes the following minimum requirements:

Indoor Conservation Features and Operations:
• Install low-flow Fixtures: Install low-flow toilets at 1.28 gallons per flush, faucets at

1.2 gallons per minute, showerheads at 1.8 gallons per minute, kitchen faucets at 1.8

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-28
gallons per minute. In common areas, install faucets at 0.5 gallon per minute and urinals at max of 0.25 gallon per minute/flush. (These fixtures use less water while maintaining efficient performance.)
• Install dual-flush toilets: These toilets offer two flush options: one for liquid waste less than 1 gallon per minute and another for solid waste at 1.28 gallons per minute. (This allows the appropriate use of water for flushing needs.) • Use water-efficient appliances: The Project Applicant or designee shall install energy- efficient and water-saving appliances with the ENERGY STAR label only. • Good housekeeping and regular maintenance: The Project Applicant or designee shall regularly check and maintain plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and appliances to ensure they are functioning efficiently and not wasting water.

Outdoor Conservation Features and Operations:
• Install only “Smart Irrigation Systems” for community landscaping : The Project Applicant or designee shall use smart sprinkler systems that adjust watering schedules based on weather conditions, soil moisture, and plant needs to avoid over or wasteful watering. The Project A pplicant or designee shall also incorporate seasonal specific controls to ensure watering occurs during the most efficient times of day.
• Adjustable Water Pressure Regulator: The Project Applicant or designee shall install pressure regulators to maintain optimal water pressure, preventing overuse and leaks.
• Drought-tolerant landscaping: The Project Applicant or designee shall include native and drought-tolerant vegetation that requires less water to thrive and is known to survive in the City of Rialto. The Project Applicant or designee shall replace drought- tolerant landscaping if it dies through enforceable Project CC&Rs and/or tenant lease agreements.

4.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Project implementation would result in significant unavoidable GHG emissions. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

4.7.10 References
CalEEMod version 2022.1.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) . 2008. CEQA and Climate Change White Paper.

California Air Resources Board. November 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

Ibid. November 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Ibid., SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-29
California Energy Commission. 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.

Ibid., 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

City of Rialto. 2010. 2010 City of Rialto General Plan.

Ibid. 2021. Climate Adaptation Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2248/Final-Rialto-Climate-Adaptation-Plan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

Ibid. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Ibid. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ibid. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ibid. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026. Retrieved from: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces- new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026.

National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. 2024 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Ibid. 2020. 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. June 2014. High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results.

Ibid. 2009. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8.

Ibid. 2009. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13.

Ibid. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.

Ibid. Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, December 5, 2008, Attachment E: Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.

U.S. EPA. 2021. Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Rialto 4.7-30
Ibid. 2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016.

Ibid. 2010. Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources.

Ibid. 2018. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.

U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2. 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf.

Ibid., Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, September 27, 2019. Retrieved from:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-1

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR describes the potential hazards (other than geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards) associated with the project site, infrastructure, activities, and materials that could impact human health and the environment. The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II ESA prepared by Hazard Management Consulting, Inc. dated July 2023 , which are included respectively as Appendix G1 and Appendix G2 of this EIR.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is a United States federal law that aims to reduce the impact of disasters on communities and promote preparedness. It focuses on several key areas, including hazard mitigation planning, grants for mitigation projects, and the establishment of a National Mitigation Framework. The act encourages local communities to develop and implement hazard mitigation plans to identify and reduce risks. It also provides funding for projects that aim to mitigate the effects of disasters, such as flood control measures or building ret rofits. Additionally, the act establishes the National Mitigation Framework, which serves as a guide for federal agencies and stakeholders to coordinate and collaborate on mitigation efforts.

Federal Emergency Management Act
The Federal Emergency Management Act establishes and outlines the responsibilities and authorities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The act aims to coordinate and support the nation's preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation effor ts for all types of disasters, including natural disasters and emergencies caused by terrorism. FEMA is tasked with providing assistance and resources to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as to individuals and communities affected by disasters. The act also authorizes FEMA to administer various programs, such as the National Flood Insurance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program, which provide funding and support for disaster preparedness and mitigation initiatives. Additionally, the act establishes the National Incident Management Assistance Teams to assist with coordination during large-scale incidents and authorizes the president to declare a major disaster or emergency, enabling the release of federal resources and assistance to affected areas.

Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA ) for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA and its regulations, which established construction standards for US T installations installed after December 22, 1988, as well as

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-2
standards for upgrading existing USTs and associated piping. Since 1998, all non-conforming tanks were required to be either upgraded or closed.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] , Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and the National Priorities List
The U.S. EPA also maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation (CERCLIS) and Liability Information System list. This list contains sites that are either proposed to be or on the National Priorities List (NPL), as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The NPL is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund.

There are no NPL sites on the project site.

Emergency Planning and Community Right -to-Know Act
The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right -To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to both State and local agencies. EPCRA requires the U.S. EPA to maintain and publish a digital database list of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported by certain industry groups and federal facilities. This database, known as the Toxic Release Inventory, gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their chemical management.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) receives authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended and codified (49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.). The DOT is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport of hazardous materials and establishes regulations for safe handling procedures (i.e., packaging, marking, labeling and routing).

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration was delegated the responsibility to prepare the hazardous material regulations, which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 100-180. Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the HMTA, specifies requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials. It required that every

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-3
employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous material requirements. under the HMTA, the Secretary of Transportation “may authorize any officer employee, or agent to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of persons to the extent such records and properties related to (1) the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, testing, or distribution of packages or containers for use by any “persons” in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce; or (2) the transportation or shipment by any “person” of hazardous materials in commerce.”
Clean Water Act/ Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. ) was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.”
Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided that they:
 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from movi ng off -site into receiving waters;
 Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
 Perform inspections of all Best Management Practices (BMPs).

NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety.

Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers with a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. To establish standards for workplace health and safety, OSHA also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as the research institution for OSHA. The Administration is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the administration of OSHA and enforces standards in all states. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-4
OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard applies to five groups of employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances (including hazardous waste) and who are en gaged in clean -up operations; corrective actions; voluntary clean -up operations; operations involving hazardous wastes treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and emergency response operations.

State Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 35000 et seq.

Title 17, Section 35000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) specifically addresses lead-based paint activities. This regulation sets standards and requirements for individuals and firms engaged in various lead -based paint activities, including inspection, risk assessment, abatement, and clearance testing.

The regulation outlines the qualifications and certification requirements for individuals conducting lead- based paint activities. It also establishes procedures for conducting inspections and risk assessments to identify lead hazards in buildings. Additionally, it provides guidelines for the safe and effective removal or containment of lead-based paint during abatement activities.

The regulation also specifies the requirements for clearance testing, which is conducted after lead-based paint abatement to ensure that the area is free from lead hazards. It outlines the sampling and analysis methods to be used during clearance testing and the acceptable clearance levels for different surfaces.

Furthermore, Title 17, Section 35000 et seq. of the CCR includes provisions related to record keeping, notification requirements, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the regulations.

California Environmental Protection Agency
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has jurisdiction over hazardous materials and wastes at the State level. DTSC is the department of CalEPA responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California but not by the U.S. EPA are called “non -RCRA hazardous wastes .” Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

DTSC directive enforcement is handled at the local level, in this case the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The RWQCB also has the authority to implement regulations regarding the management of soil and groundwater investigation.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-5
CalFire Strategic Fire Plan 2024
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) uses this plan to direct and guide its fire management activities for the State Responsibility Area throughout California. CalFire’s mission is to serve and safeguard the people and protect the property and resources of California. CalFire responds to emergencies such as fires of all types, vehicle accidents, floods, earthquakes, hazardous material spills, and others within the State Responsibility Area. CalFire provides direction for fire prev ention using fire resource assessments, a variety of available data, mapping and other tools. The plan emphasizes “pre - fire” management, which is a process to assess alternatives to protect assets from unacceptable risk of wildland fire damage and focus on those actions that can be taken in advance of a wildland fire to potentially reduce the severity of the fire and ensure safety. Pre- fire management activities include prescribed burning, fuel breaks, forest health treatments and removal of hazardous vegetation.

CalFire has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. It ranks fire threats based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate).

The rankings include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat.

California Fire Code
CCR, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Title 24, Part 9. The CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution.

The CFC, Chapter 9 of Title 24 of the CCR, was created by the California Building Standards Commission based on the International Fire code and is updated every three years. The overall purpose of the CFC is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. Chapter 49 of the CFC contains minimum standards for development in the wildland–urban interface and fire hazard areas. The CFC also provides regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development and enforcement of fire safety standards.

California Water Code
The California Water Code is a collection of laws and regulations that govern the management and use of water resources within the State of California. It covers various aspects related to water rights, water quality, water supply, water conservation, and water infrastructure. The code outlines the responsibilities of state agencies, local governments, and water districts in managing and protecting California's water resources. Additionally, it addresses issues such as groundwater management, water pollutio n control, flood control, and water infrastructure development. The California Water Code plays a crucial role in ensuring the sustainable and efficient use of water in California.

Emergency Management Mutual Aid System
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid System (EMMAS) is a collaborative framework that enables jurisdictions and agencies to request and provide assistance during emergencies. It facilitates the sharing of resources, such as personnel, equipment, and experti se, to enhance the overall effectiveness of emergency response and recovery efforts. EMMAS operates through mutual aid agreements, promoting

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-6
interoperability, coordination, and a seamless integration of resources from different jurisdictions. Its main goal is to ensure a coordinated and efficient response to emergencies that surpass the capabilities of a single jurisdiction.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facil ities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Businesses must submit this information to the County DEH. The Environmental Health Division verifies the information and provides it to agencies responsible for protection of public heal th and safety and the environment. Business Plans are required to include emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
 Immediate notification to the administering agency and to the appropriate local emergency rescue personnel.
 Procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment.
 Evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site.

Business Plans are also required to include training for all new employees, and annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.

Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The act is implemented by regulations contained in CCR Title 26, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; treatm ent standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act a nd Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65, requires businesses to provide warnings to individuals about potential exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 mandates that businesses notify consumers if their products or environments contain any of the listed chemicals above certain threshold levels. The goal of Proposition 65 is to inform individuals about potential risks and allow them to mak e informed decisions regarding their exposure to these chemicals.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-7
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs ( “Tiered Permitting ”); Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community-Right-To-Know”); California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); UST Program; and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.

The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA. The project site is in San Bernardino County. (The CUPA designated for San Bernardino County is the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department.) Department of Toxic Substance Control
The DTSC is a department of CalEPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transpo rtation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC -listed hazardous waste facilities and sites; Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells; sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater; and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous wastes and/or materials.

California Office of Emergency Services
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California Office of Emergency Services is responsible for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory agencies. The infor mation must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.

These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 – Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program ( §§ 25500 to 25520) and Article 2 – Hazardous Materials Management (§§ 25531 to 25543.3). CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4 – Hazardous Material Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-8
Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans. These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in accordance with Section 2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in accordance with Section 2731; and (3) training program information in accordance with Section 2732. Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State. Each business shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance, 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR §§ 337-340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident - prevention programs, a nd hazardous substance exposure warnings. In addition, Cal/OSHA regulates medical and/or infectious waste.

Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Map
To evaluate the presence of oil or gas wells on-site and in the immediate site vicinity, maps available online at the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) were reviewed. No abandoned/plugged oil/gas wells are located on the project site.

License to Transport Hazardous Materials – California Vehicle Code, Section 32000.5 et seq In California, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code states that any hazardous material being moved from one location to another must use the route with the least travel time. This, in practice, means major roads and highways, although secondary roads are permitted to be used for local delivery. These policies are enforced by both the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Tanner Act
The Tanner Act (AB 2948) was adopted in 1986 and governs the preparation of hazardous waste management plans and sites the location of hazardous waste facilities in the State of California. The Tanner Act also requires that each county adopts a Hazardous Waste Management Plan which needs to include provisions that define the planning process for waste management, the permit process for new or expanded facilities, and the appeal process to the State available for certain local decisions.

California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program The California Accidental Release and Prevention (CalARP) program was implemented in 1997, and its purpose is to prevent accidental release of substances that can cause harm to the public and environment and minimize damage if releases do occur. CalARP req uires facilities that handle, manufacture, use, or store any regulated substances above threshold quantities to submit a Risk Management Plan and proactively prevent and prepare for accidental releases. The Cal EPA oversees the implementation of

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-9
CalARP at the State level while CUPAs and/or participating agencies implement CalARP program at the local level.

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

The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:

Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM
10 emissions from any transportation, handling,
construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM 10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads are paved as soon as feasible, watered regularly, or chemically stabilized. c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down following the workday to remove soil from pavement.

Rule 1166 – This rule sets requirements to control the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from excavating, grading, handling and treating VOC-contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental spillage, or other deposition.

Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) – This rule sets requirements for limiting asbestos emissions building demolition and renovation activities.

Rialto General Plan
The Rialto General Plan (General Plan) Chapter 5, Safety and Noise Element identifies goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials. The following list includes General Plan goals and policies that

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-10
have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project.

Goal 5-1 Continue to build the City’s fire protection and prevention programs and requirements to minimize fire hazards.

Policy 5-1.3 Require that all site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations, such as California Fire Safe Regulations.

Goal 5-2 Create a more flood- safe community through development standards and infrastructure improvements.

Policy 5-2.4 Require the implementation of adequate erosion control measures for development projects to minimize sedimentation damage to drainage facilities.

Policy 5-2.6 Design new developments with water retention devices and permeable surfaces to minimize flooding of the surface drainage system by peak flows. Consult with water agencies and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to consider the potential for larger -scale capture via diversion to large -scale spreading grounds or other options on a site-by-site basis.

Goal 5-5 Minimize impacts to public health, safety, and welfare as a result of seismic and geologic hazards.

Policy 5-5.2 Require all construction to be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC), and to be consistent with the Municipal Code as it provides for earthquake resistant design, excavation, and grading.

Goal 5-8 Ensure that first responders and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) have adequate capacity to respond to hazard events.

Policy 5-8.7 Require that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, pursuant to the City standard of cover and fire department strategic plan.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and develo pment decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to hazards that would currently be applicable to hazards because of the closure of the airport.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-11
City of Rialto Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS) Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) The City of Rialto (City) provides fire and emergency response services to residents and businesses in the City. The City has adopted the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS) Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) to address the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The objective of the MHFP is to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency.

City of Rialto Fire Code
The California Fire Code sets forth requirements including those for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The City adopted the California Fire Code with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, codified under Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter

15.28. 4.8.3 Existing Conditions
Current Use
The project site is primarily vacant, with the exception of remnants of a World War II-era bunker structure and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site and an underground transformer on the northwestern portion of the project site along Lowell Street. The project site is located within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and zoned General Manufacturing (I-GM). There are no on-site operations.

Current Use of Adjacent Properties
The surrounding area is comprised primarily of industrial, warehouse, manufacturing and office uses with single-family residences east of Locust Avenue and the Mid- Valley Landfill to the west . Table 4.8 -1:

Adjacent Properties, lists the land uses adjacent to the project site.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-12
Table 4.8-1: Adjacent Properties
Direction Relative to the
Project Site Description
North Industrial land uses including concrete supplier, construction equipment service provider, pipe manufacturer, corporate office, recycling plant, and warehouse to the north of Lowell Street.

South Industrial land uses including concrete mixing operation facility, warehouse, and truck container storage yards.

East Industrial land uses including water damage restoration service provider, steel distributor and fabricator, storage yards, warehouses west of Locust Avenue.

An undeveloped parcel and industrial land uses including towing service, warehouse, steel distributor, and a concrete contractor east of Locust Avenue.

West Industrial land uses including a concrete supplier, Robertson's Ready Mix materials yards, and Mid-Valley Landfill west of Lake Padden Lane.

Source: See Section 3.0: Project Description, Table 3-1: On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning.

Historical Use of Site
According to the Phase I ESA the project site was developed in the 1940s by the U.S. Army with rail spurs and a bunker for the storage and transportation of ammunition at the southern portion of the site. The project site was primarily used for weapons and ammunition storage until the 1960s when military operations within the project site ended. Since the 1960s, the site has been generally vacant; however, portions of the project site have been used for storage by various adjacent land uses. Off -site land uses have included other facilities involved in the manufacture of pyrotechnic products.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I ESA was prepared by Hazard Management Consulting, Inc. in July 2023. This investigation included a site walk, review of regulatory databases, aerial photographs, City directories, Sanborn Maps, and topographic maps and review of records from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, SCAQMD, and City of Rialto (see Appendix G1).

The Phase I ESA found that the project site is located within the 160-acre area and the former bunker area of the larger Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF) Superfund site (formerly known as the B.F. Goodrich site). These areas were used for approximately 60 years by several facilities including the U.S. Army , defense contractors, fireworks manufacturers, and other facilities that used perchlorate salts and chlorinated solvents. These facilities have resulted in the release of perchlorates and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to soil and groundwater, resulting in an approximately seven mile long groundwater plume that extends beneath the project site and to the southeast. It should be noted there has been no data obtained to suggest the site has contributed to any of these underlying conditions.

Database Review
The Phase I ESA database review considered the potential and likelihood of contamination from adjoining and nearby sites.

Goodrich Corporation: located on a 160 -acre area around Locust Avenue, Rialto, CA (adjacent to the project site to the north). This facility was plotted at the project site in the Environmental Data Report (EDR) Radius research; however, the records were for the former BF Goodrich facility, which is part of the

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-13
RFF Superfund. As noted above, the site is located within the boundaries of the RFF Superfund site. From about 1957 to 1962, B.F. Goodrich Corporation conducted research, development, testing, and production of solid-fuel rocket propellant containing ammonium perchlorate and used solvents in the manufacturing process. Since the 1960s, the 160-acre area has been used by a number of companies that manufactured or sold pyrotechnics, including Pyrotronics, Pyro Spectaculars, and American Promotional Events. In 2002, the SWRCB began actively working with Potentially Responsible Parties and property owners to investigate soil and groundwater contamination at the B.F. Goodrich site and in surrounding areas. In September 2009, the U.S. EPA added the B.F. Goodrich si te to the Superfund National Priorities List.

Between 2003 and 2013, numerous investigations have been conducted to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination. The studies have included the collection and analysis of soil samples, the collection and analysis of soil gas samples, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and/or the collection and analysis of groundwater samples. The studies were overseen by the SWRCB, the U.S.

EPA, and the DTSC. A second groundwater remedy was constructed between 2015 and 2021 to remove perchlorate from extracted groundwater; pipelines and pumps to convey the treated water from the treatment plant to the City of Rialto's water distribution system f or use as drinking water supply; and a groundwater monitoring program. In January 2022, the U.S. EPA proposed a third groundwater cleanup remedy to address contaminated groundwater in the "mid -basin" area which has moved past downgradient of 160-acre area. Eleven multi-level groundwater monitoring wells were installed; testing is ongoing.

Rocket, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF) Site is located at 3196 Locust Avenue, directly adjacent to the north of the project site. This 160-acre area was formerly occupied by B.F. Goodrich, the U.S. Army, and other facilities. The project site is listed in the EDR radius search, SWRCB GeoTracker database for sites requiring cleanup, and DTSC Envirostor database for hazardous waste sites for perchlorate salts in their manufacturing processes; refer to the discussion of the Goodrich Company above for additional background information. Perchlorate releases from these facilities have impacted the regional groundwater basin known as the Easte rn Plume. Some of the facilities have also been identified as a source of VOC releases that have affected soil and groundwater. Given that groundwater is found at depths greater than 400 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the vicinity of the project site, it is very unlikely that the VOC releases pose a potential vapor intrusion condition. As previously noted, the site is located within the boundaries of the RFF Superfund site and there has been no data obtained to suggest the site has contributed to these underlying conditions. The U.S. EPA and DTC have not required any investigations on the site itself.

Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is located at 2390 Alder Avenue approximately 96 feet south of the project site. The landfill totals 497 acres with approximately 222 acres used for waste disposal activities. The operations at this landfill resulted in perchlorate and VOC releases, including trichloroethylene (TCE), that have impacted groundwater. The resulting plume is referred to as the Western Plume which is separated from the Eastern Plume by a "low concentration trough .” This facility is not considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) due to the location in relation to the site as well as the depth and direction of groundwater.

General Environmental Concerns
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site. No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-14
Aboveground and Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs).

Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) are used to store many kinds of products and substances that may be dangerous to humans and the environment such as petroleum fuel or pesticides. Given the lack of maintenance or abando nment, ASTs and USTs may release stored substances into the ground and affect both soil and underlying groundwater. No evidence of current or former ASTs or USTs was observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance.

Surface Releases. Surficial release involves the release of any substance onto the ground surface. These could occur from oil spills or leaking ASTs and can be identified visually by stained surfaces or soil testing.

Surficial release was identified along Lowell Street during a previous soil investigation effort in 2009, and a soil remediation effort removed diesel-contaminated soil at the project site’s northern center portion by Lowell Street. All contaminated soils were removed and properly disposed. No project site spills, stains, or other indications of surficial releases were observed during the May 30, 2023, site reconnaissance.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM). Asbestos is a mineral fiber that was most commonly used prior to 1980 in various building construction materials (e.g., floor tiles, roofing materials, thermal system insulation, mastics) for insulation, strength, and fire-retardant purposes. Such materials may have been used in construction well into the 1980s and 1990s and, because of the possible storage of surplus materials/supplies, could still be used at present day construction sites. Some non-friable modern building materials, such as roofing felt, vinyl asbestos floor tile, ceiling tiles, and transited building materials still contain asbestos. Asbestos has also been used in manufactured items such as automobile brakes, heat- resistant fabrics, gaskets, and coatin gs. When repair, remodeling, or demolition activities damage or disturb ACM, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs. The bunker and structure identified at the southern portion of the project site contained tar-like roofing compound which was suspected to contain ACM.

Lead Based Paint (LBP). Historically, lead was used as a pigment and drying agent in oil -based paint. In 1978, the federal government banned the consumer use of lead-containing paint. 1 As noted above, the
project site contains an ammunitions bunker and brick and mortar structure which were constructed in the 1940s. Since these were built before 1978, these buildings may contain LBP on both interior and exterior architectural surfaces. Additionally, LBP may have been used in commercial/industrial buildings subsequent to 1978, as well as in residential structures (paint purchased prior to 1978 but stored and used in subsequent years).

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Examples of PCB-containing equipment include transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.

No potential PCB-containing equipment was
observed on the project site during the site 2023 reconnaissance.

Radon. Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert, gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of radium (Ra) atoms. The U .S. EPA has prepared a map to assist national, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. Review of the U.S. EPA Map of Radon Zones indicated that the project site is located within Zone 2. Zone 2 has a moderate potential for radon levels between 2.0 and 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Based upon the radon

1 EPA. 2024. Protect Your Family from Sources of Lead. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect -your-family-sources- lead#:~:text=In%201978%2C%20the%20federal%20government,is%20usually%20not%20a%20problem . Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-15
zone classification, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern for the project site.

Therefore, radon sampling was not conducted as part of Phase I or Phase II ESA.

Recommendations
Phase I ESA identified a Historical Recognized Environmental Concern (HREC) associated with a soil remediation effort in 2009 for the removal of hydrocarbons . HRECs are previously identified RECs that have been properly addressed and therefore no longer a concern. Additionally, the following RECs were identified in the Phase I ESA:
 The pro ject site’s location within the 160 -acre area and the f ormer bunker a rea of the RFF Superfund Site
 Historical use of the site for the storage of munitions and one remaining bunker  Unknown suspected uses of the site by adjoining pyrotechnic facilities In response to the identified RECs, a Phase II ESA that includes the collection of soil vapor samples was recommended.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
The Phase II ESA was prepared by Hazard Management Consulting in July 2023. The purpose of the assessment was to collect soil and soil gas samples and assess whether concentrations of chemicals of potential concern warrant further action. The assessment included an unexploded ordnance (UXO) review, a geophysical survey, soil sampling and soil vapor sampling and evaluated whether significant releases of hazardous substances have occurred at the project site including VOCs, organochlorine pesticides, and percolate.

Unexploded Ordnances (UXOs) are explosives that are used but fail to function as intended (explode) while discarded military munitions (DMMs) are munitions that are abandoned or improperly disposed.

The UXO review included evaluation of historical records, databases and aerial photographs from the ESA and concluded that:
 Explosive risks from fireworks or their components has been deemed as “Very Low” for the 40 - acre project site.
 Explosive risks from military munitions has been deemed as “Very Low” for the 40 -acre project site.

Due to the historical use of the project site and neighboring properties, a subsurface evaluation was prepared and included as part of the Phase II ESA. The subsurface evaluation included a focused survey to identify the potential for metals including UXOs to be present in the drill areas by using electromagnetic induction, magnetometry, ground penetrating radar, and utility locators with line tracing capabilities.

Specifically, the high -resolution, high -sensitivity metal -detecting instruments are designed for the detection and characterization of UXOs. No pipes, conduits, utilities, or significant substructures were detected within a five-foot radius of any of the proposed boreholes and proposed infiltration points, and within a 10-foot radius of the proposed trench locations. The geophysical survey found small, isolated, and nondescript metallic anomalies on the project site.

Although no UXOs or DMMs were found during the survey, it is important to note that the focused survey was limited to portions of site due to significant shrubs and thick vegetation, as well as physical

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-16
obstructions (bunker, K -rails). Removal of all ground vegetation and physical obstructions would be required to complete a full survey of the project site. Therefore, a potential for UXOs and DMMs to exist on the project site remains and it was recommended that future development include the use of a UXO consultant when removing surficial features and during grading.

The soil sampling investigation activities were generally collected across the entire property including in areas with known RECs and did not identify any residual sources of chemical constituents. Project site soil samples did not identify a significant soil VOC, perchlorate, or pesticide concentration, and therefore determined the project site would not be a contributor to the Eastern Plume based on concentrations below regulatory screening levels. Soil vapor testing indicated that benzene, a type of VOC, was detected above regulatory screening levels. However, benzene detections were generally low at 33 micrograms/m3 and indicated that residual benzene source likely does not exist at the project site. Further, the levels of benzene observed in the soil vapor are commonly observed at commercial and industrial properties. The soil and soil vapor results do not provide evidence that a release of hazardous substances has occurred at the Site that would result in contamination of the underlying groundwater. The Phase II ESA concluded that the items previously identified as RECs (see Phase I discussion above) have been revised to “ de minimis”2 (of minimal environmental concern) conditions because they were not found to be a contributor to the plume that is the basis for the Superfund site designation.

As noted above, the Phase II ESA did recommend that a UXO specialist be available during removal of the remaining surficial features and soil disturbance out of an abundance of caution.

4.8.4 Methodology
In determining whether Project implementation would result in impacts concerning hazards or hazardous materials, this analysis considers the recommendations of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as described below. The evaluation was based on a review of regulations and a determination of the applicability of the regulations within the Project area. The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA (Appendix G1 and Appendix G2), analysis of aerial and ground -level photographs, and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents.

The determination that the proposed Project will or will not result in a significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials considers the type of development proposed and whether or not past or current uses on the s ite have the potential to pose a risk to the proposed Project . Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

4.8.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for hazards and hazardous materials impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials if it would:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

2 Per ASTM 1527-21, de minimis conditions are not considered RECs .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-17
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.  Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

As addressed in S e c t i o n 5 . 1 : E f f e c t s F o u n d N o t t o b e S i g n i f i c a n t, the City has determined that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the following thresholds for the reasons stated below, and that no further analysis was required in the EIR:
 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? There are no public airports or public use airports located within two miles of the project site. The closest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, which is approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. The Rialto Municipal Airport Final Comprehensive Plan (January 1991) is no longer applicable as the airport closed in 2014. The project site is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in an airport -related safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur and this threshold is not further addressed in the EIR.
 Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as set forth in Public Resources Code Sections 4201-4204 and Government Code Sections 51175-51189. FHSZs are categorized fire protection within a Federal Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, a State Responsibility Area (SRA) under the jurisdiction of CAL FIRE, or within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a local agency. CAL FIRE is responsible for fire protection within SRAs. CAL FIRE defines a n SRA as land that is not federally owned, not incorporated, does not exceed a housing density of three units per acre, contains wildland vegetation as opposed to agriculture or ornamentals, and has watershed value and/or has range/forage value (this effect ively eliminates most desert lands). Where local fire protection agencies, such as the Rialto Fire Department, are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The project site and its adjacent areas are classified as a Non -VHFHSZ (non-very high FHSZ). Therefore, no impact would occur and this threshold is not further addressed in this EIR section. Fire protection and associated resources are discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-18

4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.8-1: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with the incorporation of HAZ MM-1.

Construction
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the ammunitions bunker and brick and mortar structure, which were constructed in the 1940s. Given the age of these structures, ACMs and LBP could be present. Demolition of structures could expose construction personnel to such materials unless proper precautions are taken to minimize exposure. The potential for release of ACMs and LBP during demolition would be considered a significant impact. Because exposure to such materials can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, regulations and guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos have been developed for demolition activities. Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1403, MM HAZ -1 requires a pre -demolition survey to be conducted, and, if identified, ACMs and LBP would be removed and disposed of by qualified contractors in accordance with State regulations.

Project construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on and off of the project site which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents. However, hazardous materials would not be present in such a quantity or used in a manner that would pose a significant hazard to the public. Use and storage of these potentially hazardous materials would be temporary and would cease upon completion of project construction . Further, should a spill or other hazardous materials incident occur, construction staff would stop work and contact a qualified contractor that is well-versed in handling such a situation. All construction activities would be performed in compliance with the California OSHA Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations. Therefore, due to the temporary nature of construction activities, with the implementation of MM HAZ-1 and compliance with applicable State and federal regulations, potential Project construction activities would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Operations
The proposed Project would include a speculative warehouse. While the future tenants of the building are not currently known, the Project is not anticipated to involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous material . The proposed Project would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substances which would include cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Project operations would not create a significant impact through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials since the facilities are required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and regional regulations which are intended to avoid impacts to the public and environment. These regulations of the U.S . EPA, the State Department of Health Services, and the SCAQMD ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators and transporters provide operational safety and measures to reduce threats to public health and safety. Therefore, given the insignificant amount of regularly transported hazardous materials and compliance with applicable State and fe deral regulations, Project operations would not create a significant impact through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-19
The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can result in hazards to people and the environment, due to the potential for accidental release. Such hazards are typically associated with certain types of land uses, such as chemical manufa cturing facilities, industrial processes, waste disposal, and hazardous material storage and distribution facilities. At full buildout, the Project would include one warehouse building and associated infrastructure improvements. This land use is not expect ed to use significant quantities of hazardous materials or to generate significant quantities of hazardous materials requiring transport. The routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances; such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, which address safe handling procedures and emergency response procedures in the event of an accidental release. Therefore, following compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, Project operations would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials . Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Threshold 4.8-2: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with incorporation of MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-4.

Construction
The Phase I ESA identified three RECs at the project site: the project site's location within the "160 Acre Area" and "Former Bunker Area" and off- site releases resulting in the Fireworks, Rockets, and Flares Superfund; the historical use of the site for munitions storage; and the unknown suspected use of the site by historic adjacent pyrotechnic facilities. See Section 4.8.3, Existing Conditions for additional information on identified RECs. The Phase II ESA included an unexploded ordnance (UXO) review, geophysical survey, soil sampling and soil vapor sampling and evaluated whether significant releases of hazardous substances have occurred at the project site including VOCs, organochlorine pesticides, and percolate.

As discussed above, a subsurface evaluation as part of the Phase II ESA included a focused survey, which did not identify the presence of UXOs or DMMs. However, because the survey could not evaluate the entire project site due to physical limitations, there is still a potential of on -site UXOs and DMMs.

Therefore, the proposed Project would implement MM HAZ-2 which would involve a munitions monitor during grading to properly handle and dispose of any encountered UXOs and DMMs. Further, MM HAZ-3 would require the preparation of and compliance with a soil management plan. With implementation of MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3, accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials from project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Soil sampling and soil vapor sampling indicated that benzene was detected at generally low levels at 33 micrograms/m
3 and indicated that a residual benzene source likely does not exist at the project site.

Further, the levels of benzene observed in the soil vapor are commonly observed at commercial and industrial properties. Therefore, benzene in soil vapor does not pose a significant human health risk to indoor air via the vapor intrusion pathway. The Phase II ESA concluded that the soil and soil vapor results do not suggest that the release of hazardous substances has occurred at the project site that would result

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-20
in contamination to the underlying groundwater. Although benzene was identified at low levels, to ensure impacts would be less than significant the Project would implement MM HAZ-4 which outlines compliance with Rule 1166 for previously unidentified soil contamination protocol during Project construction. With the implementation of MM HAZ-4, accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials from project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The project site was not determined to be a contributor to the plume that is the basis for the RFF Superfund site designation. Based on these results, the items previously identified as RECs (see Phase I discussion above) have been revised to “ de minimis”
3 (of minimal environmental concern) conditions
because they do not present a threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, with the implementation of MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-4, Project construction impacts concerning accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operations
The proposed Project would involve typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with warehouse uses such as fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, cleaners, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for landscaping. However, the types and quantities of materials used and stored on site would not be of a significant quantity to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Additionally, any routine use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Hazardous materials/chemicals such as fuels, cleaners, paints, solvents and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, Project operations would not result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. Operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.8-3: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Level of Significance: No Impact

The nearest schools to the project site are Wilmer Amina Carter High School (2630 Linden Avenue) located approximately 0.3-mile southeast of the project site and Kucera Middle School (2140 Buena Vista Drive), located approximately 0.6-mile north of the p roject site. Therefore, there are no schools within one - quarter mile of the project site. The Project is not anticipated to generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled would be limited to fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, cleaners, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. The Project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal , State and regional regulations regarding handling, transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

3 Per ASTM 1527-21, de minimis conditions are not considered RECs.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-21
Threshold 4.8-4: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact with incorporation of MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-4

California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC to compile a list of hazardous waste facilities that are subject to corrective action.4 As previously addressed, the project site is located in the southern portion of the "160 -Acre Area" and the "Former Bunker Area" of the RFF Superfund site, which was identified as a REC in the Phase I ESA prepared for the Project. Therefore, a Phase II ESA was conducted which included an unexploded ordnance (UXO) review, geophysical survey, soil sampling and soil vapor sampling and evaluated whether significant releases of hazardous substances have occurred at the project site including VOCs, organochlorine pesticides, and perc olate. As previously discussed under Threshold

4.8-2, the Phase II ESA identified the potential presence of on -site UXOs and DMMs . Therefore, the proposed Project would implement MM HAZ-2 which would require a munitions monitor and MM HAZ-3 which would require a soil management plan. Additionally, the Phase II ESA concluded that the soil and soil vapor results do not suggest that release of hazardous substances has occurred at the project site that would result in contamination to the underlying groundwater. Although benzene was identified at low levels and would not pose a human health risk, the Project would implement MM HAZ-4 which outlines compliance with Rule 1166 for previously unidentified soil contamination protocol during Project construction. Overall, the Phase II ESA determined that the project site would not be a contributor to the plume that is the basis for the RFF Superfund site designation as conditions do not present a threat to human health or environment. Therefore, although the project site is located within the RFF Superfund site, based on the Phase II ESA findings and compliance with MM HAZ -2 through MM HAZ -4, Project implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Threshold 4.8-5: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The City has adopted the City of Rialto SEMS/NIMS Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP),5 which provides comprehensive policy and guidance for emergency and response operations to natural and manmade hazards. Emergency access to the project site and adjacent streets (i.e., Lowell Street and Locust Avenue) would be maintained during Project construction in compliance with Municipal Code Section

11.04.090(B), which requires all streets to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles during Project construction per Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction “Green Book” Section 600 et.al. Project operations would also maintain adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or

4 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List).

Retrieved from https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs -cortese-list/. Accessed August 12, 2024. 5 City of Rialto. ND. SEMS/NIMS Multi-hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). SECTION I. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-22
an emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. The EIR evaluates potential environmental concerns in connection with the project site and surrounding area. The database reviews the findings of various governmental database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons within a search radius of up to one mile from the site and serves as the basis for defining the cumulative impacts study area.

Although some of the cumulative projects and other future projects associated with community buildout also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are typically site -specific excluding the RFF S uperfund. Concerning the RFF Superfund, the Project would not disturb the underlying affected groundwater plume as the Project is not anticipated to excavate to a depth of 400 feet below ground surface and, therefore, would not modify or expose the existing Eastern Plume.

Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes. Cumulative development projects would be required to assess potential hazardous materials impacts on the development site prior to grading. The Project and other cumulative projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used and generated as described previously. Projects must adhere to applicable regulations for the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and implement mitigation in compliance with federal, State, and local regulations to protect against site contamination by hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. Additionally, site -specific investigations would be conducted at sites where contam inated soils or groundwater could occur to minimize the exposure of workers and the public to hazardous substances.

Upon compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials, and implementation of MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-3, and MM HAZ-4, the potential risks associated with hazardous wastes would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The incremental effects of the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific. Therefore, the Project would not result in incremental effects to hazards with respect to hazardous materials that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Therefore, with inclusion of the above referenced mitigation measures, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impact to or from hazards or hazardous materials.

4.8.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Asbestos Survey and Lead-Based Paint Survey. Prior to approval of a demolition permit by the City of Rialto, an asbestos survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be conducted

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-23
pursuant to applicable local, State, and federal laws. All asbestos- containing building materials shall be removed prior to structure demolition. Abatement or paint stabilization techniques shall be applied prior to demolition. Such measures shall include removal and stabilization of loose, flaki ng or peeling paint. Measures shall be taken to ensure that paint chips are not generated in the demolition process. All work shall be performed by an abatement contractor who is certified by the California OSHA Division of Occupational Safety and Health ( Cal/OSHA) with properly trained and registered workers. All abatement techniques shall be in accordance with Cal -OSHA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA) protocol and also in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules. All removed asbestos-containing building materials and lead -based paint shall be properly disposed of at a landfill certified to accept said materials, and waste shall be transported under the waste manifest by a certified waste transportation company. Once all of these materials have been removed, structure demolition may commence.

MM HAZ-2 Munitions Monitor. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit proof to the City of Rialto Director of Community Development of the retainment of a munitions expert. A munitions expert must be an individual that is qualified to perform appropriate tasks per DDESB TP-18 standards. The munitions expert shall be onsite to monitor grading activities for unexploded ordinances (UXOs) and discarded military munitions (DMMs) and provide daily safety briefings before the start of const ruction. If UXOs are encountered during this process, the munitions expert shall have the authority to halt all or a portion of construction activities and contact the City of Rialto Police department at (909) 820- 2550 to report and determine proper UXO ha ndling and disposal. The munitions expert shall have the authority to halt all or a portion of construction activities at their discretion until such time that an encountered UXO is deemed properly disposed.

MM HAZ-3 Soil Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan (or equivalent document) to be implemented for construction of the Proposed Project. The objective of the Soil Management Plan is to provide guidance for the proper handling, onsite management, and disposal of impacted soil that might be encountered during construction activities. The plan would include practices that are consistent with the California Title 8, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) regulations, as well as appropriate remediation standards that are protective of the planned use. Appropriately trained professionals would be on site during preparation, grading, and related earthwork activities to monitor soil conditions encountered. The Soil Management Plan would provide guidelines for the following:
 Identifying impacted soil
 Assessing impacted soil
 Soil excavation
 Impacted soil storage
 Verification sampling
 Impacted soil characterization and disposal
The plan shall outline how Project construction crews would identify, handle, and dispose of potentially contaminated soil; identify the qualifications of the appropriately trained professionals that would monitor soil conditions and conduct soil sampling during

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Rialto 4.8-24
construction; coordinate laboratory testing; and oversee disposal. The Soil Management Plan shall also include requirements for documenting and reporting incidents of encountered contaminants, such as documenting locations of occurrence, sampling results, and reporting actions taken to dispose of contaminated materials. In the event that potentially contaminated soils were encountered within the footprint of construction, soils would be tested and stockpiled. The appropriate Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) would determine whether further assessment is warranted. The Soil Management Plan shall be submitted to the city and CUPA 45 days prior to the start of construction for review and approval.

MM-HAZ 4 Contaminated Soil Treatment. If previously unidentified soil contamination is observed by sight or odor or indicated by testing by a qualified professional using a portable volatile organic compound analyzer during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented, as contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1166, to make the area suitable for grading activities to resume. In the event contamination is found, the Applicant shall notify the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as applicable. The contaminated soil shal l be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ (in-place), or otherwise managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulation.

4.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to a level considered less than significant after implementation of the specified mitigation set forth in this section.

4.8.10 References
CalGEM. 2024. WellStar. Retrieved from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/.

Accessed August 12, 2024.

California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. Final Draft Supplemental Guidance:

Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion. Retrieved from: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2023/02/VI_SupGuid_Screening-Evaluating.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2024.

California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Retrieved from: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.

Accessed August 12, 2024.

City of Rialto. ND. SEMS/NIMS Multi-hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/943/Emergency-Operations-Plan-PDF. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Hazards Management Consulting, Inc. July 2023 . Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ; see Appendix G1.

Hazards Management Consulting, Inc. July 2023 . Phase I I Environmental Site Assessment ; see Appendix G2.

U.S. EPA. 2024. CA Cleanup Activities. Retrieved from: https://cumulis.epa.gov. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-1

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies and analyzes the hydrologic resources available to the proposed Project while assessing the potential impact the Project could have on those resources. The pre -development conditions of the water and drainage systems surrounding the project site were used as a baseline with which to compare potential impacts associated with the Project and will inform the degree of impact that the proposed Project could have on those existing hydrologic systems. Federal, State, regional, and local regulations will provide further context regarding the area’s hydrologic resources. Impacts in this section are assessed regarding their effects on water quality, groundwater availability, and other hydrological conditions of the area. The analysis also considers the proposed Project’s potential effects in flood, tsunami, and seiche zones.

The Preliminary Drainage Report and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) are summarized in this section and included in their entirety as Appendix H1: Preliminary Drainage Report and Appendix H2: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan of this EIR.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important applicable sections of the CWA are as follows:
 Section 301 prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person, except as in compliance with Sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of the CWA. Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
 Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to “waters of the United States” to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) provides certification that the proposed action would comply with applicable standards.  Section 402 establishes the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the RWQ CB and is discussed later in this section.
 Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000, et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-2
Act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the State. Waste discharge requirements (WDR) resulting from the report are issued by the RWQCB, as discussed below. In practice, these requirements are typically integrated within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) carries out its water quality protection authority through the adoption of specific Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans).

These plans establish water quality standards for bodies of water. California water quality standards are composed of three parts: the designation of beneficial uses of water, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and implementation programs designed to achieve and maintain compliance with the water quality objectives.

Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided they:
 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off -site into receiving waters;
 Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
 Perform inspections of all BMPs.

The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the construction site discharges directly to a water body list ed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Increased compliance tasks under the adopted 2009 Construction General Permit include project risk evaluation, effluent monitoring, receiving water monitoring, electronic data submission of the SWPPP and all other permit registration documents, and a Rain Event Action Plan, which must be designed to protect all exposed portions of a project site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event. The SWPPP would also include an Erosion Control Plan that would identify specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014)
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) must be formed for all high and medium priority basins in the State of California. GSAs must be responsible for groundwater management and development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan or “Alternatives” in its place. It is a long -term statewide framework to help conserve groundwater resources.

California Toxics Rule
In 2000, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) promulgated the California Toxics Rule, which establishes water quality criteria for certain toxic substances to be applied to waters in the State.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-3
CalEPA promulgated this rule based on CalEPA’s determination that the numeric criteria of specific concentrations of regulated substances are necessary for the State to protect human health and the environment. The California Toxics Rule establishes acute (i.e., short-term) and chronic (i.e., long-term) standards for bodies of water, such as inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries, that are designated by the RWQCB as having beneficial uses protective of aquatic life or human health.

Regional and Local Regulations
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ( Santa Ana RWQCB) regulates State water quality standards in the City of Rialto (City). Beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface water and groundwater resources in the Project area are established in the water quality control plans of each RWQCB and mandated by the State Porter-Cologne Act and CWA. The RWQCB also implements the CCWA Section 303(d) total maximum daily load (TMDL) process, which consists of identifying candidate water bodies where water quality is impaired by the presence of pollutants. The TMDL process is implemented to determine the assimilative capacity of the water body for the pollutants of concern and to establish equitable allocation of the allowable pollutant loading within the watershed. CWA Section 401 requires an applicant pursuing a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant to obtain a water quality certification (or waiver) from the applicable RWQCB.

The RWQCB primarily implements basin plan policies through issuing waste discharge requirements for waste discharges to land and water. The RWQCB is also responsible for administering the NPDES permit program, which is designed to manage and monitor point and non- point source pollution. NPDES stormwater permits for general construction activity are required for projects that disturb more than one acre of land. Municipal NPDES stormwater permits are required for urban areas with populations greater than 100,000. In addition, projects that involve the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are required to comply with the Caltrans statewide NPDES permit and associated Stormwater Management Plan (SEMP). Caltrans implements the SEMP in coordination with the RWQCB. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan The City’s Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP) was prepared for cities located within the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, and other applicable laws and regulations.

This document updates and merges the 2015 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2015 IRWMP) and the 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2015 RUWM P) into a single comprehensive document for guiding water resource management for the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed, the first of its kind in California.

Rialto General Plan
During project review, approval and permitting, the City requires new development projects to address the quality and quantity of storm water runoff through the incorporation of permanent (post-construction) BMPs into the Project’s design. The City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan )1 Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply Element, Chapter 3 , Investing in Our Future: Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Infrastructure, and Chapter 5, The Safety and Noise Element includes

1 City of Rialto. City of Rialto General Plan. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023- Land-Use- Element?bidId=. Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-4
policies related to storm water runoff and water quality. The following General Plan goals and policies have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project:

Goal 2-18 Provide high-quality and environmentally sustainable landscaping.

Policy 2-18.3 Require the use of drought-tolerant, native landscaping and smart irrigation systems for new development to lower overall water usage.

Goal 2-24 Minimize the visual impact of parking lots.

Policy 2-24.3 Require use of drainage improvements designed, with native vegetation where possible, to retain or detain water runoff and minimize pollutants into drainage system.

Goal 2-29 Protect and enhance Rialto’s surface waters and groundwater basins.

Policy 2-29.3 Design sidewalks, roads, and driveways to minimize impervious surfaces; provide flood control channels with permeable bottoms to help restore groundwater aquifers.

Policy 2–29.5 Apply methodologies and assign responsibility to protect the quality of groundwater from pollution by landfills and industrial uses.

Goal 2-30 Conserve water resources.

Policy 2-30.1 Require new development to use features, equipment, technology, landscaping, and other methods to reduce water consumption.

Goal 2-31 Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2-31.1 Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Goal 3-8 Promote affordable and quality water service capable of adequately meeting normal and emergency water demands to all areas in Rialto.

Policy 3-8.10 Support water conservation through requirements for landscaping with drought - tolerant plants and efficient irrigation for all new development and City projects.

Goal 5-2 Create a more flood- safe community through development standards and infrastructure improvements.

Policy 5-2.4 Require the implementation of adequate erosion control measures for development projects to minimize sedimentation damage to drainage facilities.

Policy 5-2.6 Design new developments with water retention devices and permeable surfaces to minimize flooding of the surface drainage system by peak flows. Consult with water agencies and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to consider the potential for la rger-scale capture via diversion to large -scale spreading grounds or other options on a site-by-site basis.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-5
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and develo pment decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to hydrology and water quality but does a Drainage Plan for the Specific Plan area. This Drainage Plan is no longer applicable and has been superseded by requirements identified in the Municipal Code and requirements for site-specific studies for drainage and water quality.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 12 – Public Utilities, Division 3. Stormwater, Chapter 12.60 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Section 12.60.020 - Purpose and objectives.2 The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the quality of watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands within the city in a manner consistent with the federal Clean Water Act, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the municipal NPDES permit. This chapter is also intended to confirm and consolidate the city's legal authority necessary to control discharges to and from those portions of the municipal separate storm sewer system over which it has jurisdiction as required by the municipal NPDES permit, and thereby fully and timely comply with the terms of the municipal NPDES permit. This chapter is also intended to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the city by prescribing reasonable regulations to control effectively non-stormwater discharges containing pollutants into the city's municipal separate storm sewer system to the maximum extent practicable and to achieve the following specific objectives:

A. Control discharges from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater; B. Reduce the discharge of pollutants in all storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable;
C. Protect and enhance the water quality of local, State and federal watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and
D. Establish penalties for violations of the provisions of this chapter.

Section 12.60.070 - Protection of the municipal separate storm sewer system. No person shall construct, modify or cause to be constructed or modified any structure, facility or appurtenant items which may alter the normal functioning of the city's MS4, including any actions which may alter the capacity, fall or structural integrity of a storm drain, channel or related structures without prior written approval of the city engineer.

2 City of Rialto . City of Rialto Municipal Code . Retrieved from https://library.municode.com/ca/rialto/codes/code_of_ordinances . Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-6
Section 17.40.010 - Grading and erosion control required. Every map approved pursuant to this title shall be conditioned on compliance with city requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, including, but not limited to, all areas shown on the map as designated remainder on the subdivision or parcel map.

4.9.3 Existing Conditions
Regional Hydrology
The United States is divided into successively smaller hydrological areas, or units, which are then nested within each other. These regions are labeled from largest to smallest as regions (HUC 2) , subregions (HUC 4), basins (HUC 6), subbasins (HUC 8), watersheds (HUC 10), and sub watersheds (HUC 12) .

Hydrological unit boundaries of each designation are delineated based on surface features of their geographic locations. The proposed Project would be located within the Santa Ana watershed, HUC 18070203.
3 The Santa Ana subbasin is the largest watershed in Southern California. The subbasin is home to over six million people and covers an approximately 2,700-square mile area of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties. The Santa Ana watershed drains into the Santa Ana River, which flows 100 miles from the crest of San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, near Huntington Beach.4 Site Hydrology
The project site is relatively flat. The overall topography of the project site vicinity slopes downward to the south and southeast at gradients of 1.5 to 2.5 percent (Appendix H1). The project site currently drains in two directions. The northeast portion of the site drains from the northeast to the southeast direction, eventually exiting onto North Locust Avenue where runoff is conveyed by curb and gutter . The second area generally drains from the northwest to the southeast , eventually discharging towards an existing two-foot channel between the project site and an adjacent warehouse. The project site is part of a larger drainage area tributary to the San Bernadino County Flood Control District Cactus Basin System. The Cactus Basin System is a network of five detention basins that are located between Cactus Avenue and Ayala Drive. Runoff from the project site eventually flows into Cactus Basin number three. The project site does not collect any offsite flows from adjacent properties.5 A hydrologic analysis done for the Project determined precipitation values from estimates published in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 14. 6 For the City, the 100-year, 1-hour storm
precipitation depth equaled 1.81 inches. The 100-year 6-hour and 100-year 24-hour depths equaled 4.82 inches and 9.20 inches, respectively.7

3 United States Geological Survey. 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Pages 14 and

19. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.
4 United States Geological Survey. 2016. California Water Science Center – Santa Ana Basin, National Water Quality Assessment Program:

Study Unit Description. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/complaints/docs/investigation/40_usgs_santa_ana_ b asin_national_water_quality_assessment_program.pdf . Accessed February 6, 2025. 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc . 2025. Preliminary Drainage Report, Available as Appendix H1 to this EIR. 6 NOAA. Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: California. Retrieved from:
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca . Accessed February 6, 2025. 7 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc . 2025. Preliminary Drainage Report, Available a s Appendix H1 to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-7
Groundwater
The City of Rialto is located within the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, which consists of nine subbasins, four of which are in the City. According to the IRUWMP, the majority water supply source for the City is groundwater from five local groundwater basins: Chino, Bunker Hill, Lytle Creek, North Riverside, and Rialto-Colton (Appendix L). The project site is located within the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Subbasin. The principal recharge areas are Lytle Creek, the southeastern portion of Reche Canyo n, and the south-central portion of the Santa Ana River. Smaller amounts of recharge are achieved through percolation of precipitation, underflow, irrigation, and septic returns.

The Rialto -Colton Subbasin is under a “cooperative recharge program” implemented by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to help replenish high quality groundwater, using State Water Project water and local runoff.8 Three mechanisms govern groundwater extractions in the Rialto-Colton Subbasin: the Rialto Basin Decree, the Rialto Basin Settlement Agreement, and the Western Judgement.

The Rialto Basin Decree provides the rights of the stipulated parties to pump out of the Rialto Basin, which is a smaller area than the Rialto -Colton Subbasin. The Settlement Agreement regulates the water extraction rights on the remaining area of the Rialto-Colton Subbasin outside of the Rialto Basin Decree, referred to as “No-Man’s Land.” It also resulted in the formation of the Rialto Basin Groundwater Council, which is responsible for implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The Western Judgement and the Rialto Basin Decree both regulate water levels and pumping rights out of the basin.

The basin has three index wells that provide mean groundwater level elevations and allow the stipulated parties to impose restrictions on yearly extractions based on thresholds determined for the average standing water levels. These three apparatuses are in place to prevent overdraft of the Subbasin through regulating pumping rights and ident ifying principal areas of recharge to ensure its existence as a continuous resource for the City.

Per the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the proposed Project , groundwater was not encountered during explorations drilled to a maximum depth of 25 feet below ground level. 9 The depth
to historically high ground water levels in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 279 feet below the ground surface recorded in 1993 ( Appendix F1). According to the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project, groundwater in 2022 has been recorded at a depth of 460 feet below ground surface in the Project vicinity and is anticipated to be in excess of 400 feet below ground surface at the project site (Appendix G1).

Flood Hazard
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06071C7920H shows that the project site is not within a FEMA-mapped special flood hazard area.10 The project site is classified as Zone X, an area noted as having a minimal flood hazard. In addition, there are no dams, reservoirs, or large bodies of water near the project site. The Lytle Creek Floodway is approximately 2.3 miles east of

8 San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District, 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan.

Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1601/2020- Upper-Santa-Ana-River-Watershed-Integrated-Regional- Urban-Water-Management-Plan. Accessed February 6, 2025. 9 Southern California Geotechnical. June 26, 2023. Geotechnical Investigation. Available as Appendix F1 to this EIR. 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address . Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home . Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-8
the project site and is classified with two primary zones: Zone X, having a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard and Zone A, Special Flood Hazard Area Without Base Flood Elevation.11 Water Quality
The number of pollutants in the surface runoff is determined by the quantity of a material in the environment and its characteristics. In an urban environment, the quantity of certain pollutants in the stormwater systems is generally associated with the intensity of the land use. Potential stormwater pollutants of concern for the project site include pathogens, various nutrients, sediment, metals, oil and grease, trash and debris, pesticides or herbicides, and organic compounds.12

4.9.4 Methodology
A hydrologic analysis was prepared for the Project to assess potential impacts that the development may have on water quality and resources. The analysis was done for both the existing and proposed conditions to serve as a point of comparison.

Runoff calculations were prepared using the Modified Rational Method and the methodology described in Section D of the San Bernadino County Hydrology Manual (August 1986). 13 The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) in Appendix H2 was prepared to comply with the requirements of the City, County Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a PWQMP. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

4.9.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for hydrology and water quality impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.  Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;

11 Ibid.
12 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Available as Appendix H2 to this EIR. 13 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Preliminary Drainage Report. Available as Appendix H1 to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-9
iii Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv Impede or redirect flood flows.
 In flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation

Construction
Project construction activities may include grading and earthmoving activities that could require the use of water for dust mitigation. Water and other liquids, such as fuels, lubricants, or waste can result in water runoff that can move downstream and affect City water quality.

Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 12.60- Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and the State Water Control Board (SWRCB) require a General Construction Storm Water Permit (NPDES Permit), as the project site exceeds the one-acre disturbance limit. Furthermore, the Project must comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. The Project would disturb approximately 40 acres; therefore, the Project would be subject to the Construction General Permit.

To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the Applicant is required to file Permit Registration Documents with the State Water Board, which include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and other compliance-related documents. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a n SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion -control and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion -control BMPs prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The types of required BMPs are relative to the amount of soil disturbed, the types of pollutants used or stored at the project site and proximity to water bodies.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to compliance with Municipal Code 12.60.240 through 250, which requires compliance with the General Construction Storm Water Permit and im plementation of BMPs to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent possible. Following compliance with NPDES and Municipal Code requirements, which include implementation of BMPs, the Project’s construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operations
Operators of construction sites one -acre or larger would require compliance with SWPPP, the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.60.250 and the NPDES General Construction Permit. The NPDES Permit would be applicable to the Project because it would disturb approximately 40 acres. The Project’s operator would Threshold 4.9-1: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-10
also be required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.60.260.

The Project proposes a network of underground piping that conveys runoff to three on-site underground infiltration basins. The proposed basins serve as both a water quality BMP as well as an underground storage facility to detain and mitigate the peak flow rate. Catch basins located throughout the project site would capture storm flows, and route flows toward underground storm basins for treatment and infiltration. The largest underground storage facility would be located underneath the truck trailer parking lot. Overflow would be routed from the underground basin to a concrete flume that would discharge to the southeast corner of the site on Locust Avenue.

Hydrodynamic separators are included in each underground basin for the pretreatment of larger sediments and pollutants. The underground basins would treat the remaining pollutants of concern through infiltration into and through the subsurface soil. Further, the retention depth of the underground storage provides storage for flow attenuation in the 100-year storm event. For storm events greater than the 100-year peak storm, the proposed 2.5-foot channel located southeast of the site would serve as a drainage point and be used as an overflow method if the existing stormwater infrastructure exceeded its water capacity . The proposed storm water facilities would require routine maintenance to operate efficiently. Facilities would be inspected prior to the rainy season and after each runoff producing storm event. Sediment and debris would be removed from the pre -treatment system to maintain its effectiveness. The underground basins would be routinely inspected and sediment buildup would be removed to maintain efficient operation of the basins. Therefore, the Project’s stormwater infrastructure was designed to capture and treat storm water flows and would not impact water quality standards.

Landscaped areas are also provided throughout the site on areas that are not paved or built over to reduce excess irrigation or stormwater runoff and propose surface filtration.

As included in Standard Condition (SC) HYD-1, compliance with the Construction General Permit, including preparation of a SWPPP containing site-specific BMPs, would reduce the effects of Project construction on water quality. SC HYD -2 requires the Project to produce a WQMP and identify BMPs to incorporate within the Project to control storm water and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction.

SC HYD-3 discusses the preparation of an Erosion Control Plan that identifies specific measure to control on-site and off-site erosion compliant with the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with SC HYD-1 through SC HYD-3, in addition to the implementation of the storm water drainage system, would ensure Project operational activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The project site is located within the Rialto-Colton water basin. The main recharge areas are Lytle Creek, Reche Canyon, and the Santa Ana River. Smaller amounts of recharge are achieved through percolation of precipitation, underflow, irrigation, and septic returns. The City uses groundwater from five underground basins as one of the main water supply sources, including the Rialto-Colton Subbasin.

Threshold 4.9-2: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-11
The Project does not propose the use of wells or other groundwater extraction activities. As discussed in the Groundwater section of the Environmental Setting, there are multiple agencies and mechanisms in place that regulate the water levels of the Rialto -Colton Subbasin, and restrictions on what entities can extract water from it. Therefore, although the Project would potentially use water that is extracted from the Subbasin, there is a system in place to prevent the Rialto-Colton Subbasin from being over pumped or not having adequate sources of recharge. Therefore, there is no potential to decrease groundwater supplies. Although the proposed Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on- site, the proposed Project would construct an underground filtration basin system which would detain, infiltrate and treat water prior to discharging into the public storm drai n system. Larger sediment and debris are removed using hydrodynamic separators in a pre-treatment unit. Remaining pollutants of concern will be treated using infiltration into the soil below. The pre -treatment and filtration minimize pollutants from entering groundwater. According to the Urban Water Management Plan, small amounts of water percolate downwards into the soil as large sources of recharge are creeks and rivers. Due to the small size of the project site in comparison to the 40 -square-mile Rialto-Colton groundwater basin and drainage design features provided through the PWQMP, the proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

The project site is undeveloped and vacant. Therefore, development would alter the site’s existing drainage pattern through the increase of new impervious surfaces. There is currently no stream or river traversing the project site. The Project would include the installation of underground basins to capture and treat on-site stormwater runoff. The series of basins would detain, infiltrate, and treat water within the site. Storm water runoff that discharges to Locust Avenue is only in an emergency overflow event .

Emergency overflow condition means a situation where the storm event would exceed the 100 -year design.

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.40.010, the Project must prepare a n erosion control plan to identify specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion throughout the duration of construction.

Furthermore, the Project must ensure compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water - and windborne erosion. As required and outlined in SC HYD-1 and SC HYD -2, the Project must obtain a Construction General Permit which would require the preparation of a SWPPP that includes erosion control and sediment control BMPs and the preparation of a SW QMP identifying BMPs to control stormwater and non- stormwater pollutants. Additionally, SC HYD -3 discusses the preparation of an Erosion Control Plan that identifies specific measure to control on-site and off-site erosion compliant with the City’s Municipal Code. As such, these standard conditions would ensure potential impacts associated with Project implementation related to erosion or siltation would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Threshold 4.9-3i: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-12

Project implementation would construct a new warehouse and introduce impervious surfaces, which could increase surface runoff on the site compared to existing conditions. These proposed changes may impact infiltration rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of stormwater runoff.

Revised: The Project’s on-site storm drain system is designed to capture all stormwater runoff through a series of inlets that convey that water to underground pipes, leading to three on-site underground basins for infiltration and detention. Project outflows would only be released to Locust Avenue in an emergency overflow condition. The proposed underground basins are sized for the design capture volume (DCV) required to retain, detain, or slowly release flood volumes associated with the 100-year and 3-, 6-, and 24-hour storm events. During high storm events, overflows would be routed from the underground basins to a concrete flume that would discharge to the southeast corner of the site on Locust Avenue . If the captured flows exceed the above ground basin capacity, an emergency spillway concrete flume would direct flows toward the public right-of-way on Locust Avenue.

The project site is divided into three drainage management areas (DMAs). Generally, DMA 1 totals 22.87 acres and covers the northern portion of the site, truck docking area, and south side of the site. DMA 2 totals 7.36 acres and covers the western portion of the warehouse. DMA 3 totals 9.53 acres and covers the truck trailer storage parking lot, see Table 4-2 in Appendix H1. DMA 1 contains the underground basin within the truck dock area. DMA 2 contains the underground basin located within the private drive west of the warehouse building. DMA 3 would contain the underground basin at the truck trailer storage parking lot. The Project would detain the 100-year peak volume by underground storage. As a result, all DMAs have been designed to capture 100-year storm event flows. The stormwater infrastructure system designed for the Project is depicted in the Preliminary Drainage Report (Appendix H1, Proposed Drainage Exhibit).

As noted above, the stormwater runoff from the project site would be captured and directed to ward stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage facilities. The Project would adhere to SC HYD-2 which requires BMPs that would ensure that construction and operational activities would Threshold 4.9-3ii: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Impact 4.9-3iii: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Impact 4.9-3iv: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-13
not result in substantial amounts of pollutant runoff, evidenced by the creation of a drainage plan that incorporates filtration, retention, and detention. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

According to FEMA FIRM, the project site is in panel 06071C7920H (effective August 27, 2008). No part of the project site is within a FEMA -mapped special flood hazard area and the project site is classified as Zone X; an area noted as having minimal flood hazard. Thus, the project site is not expected to be inundated by flood flows during the lifetime of the Project and Project implementation would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

According to FEMA FIRM, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. The Pacific Ocean is over 45 miles southwest of the project site; as a result, the site will not be impacted by a tsunami. There are no large bodies of water near the project site . Therefore, the proposed Project is not within a zone with risk of seiche or tsunami. Further, as outlined in SC HYD-1 and SC HYD-2, the Storm Water Quality Management Plan ( SWQMP) and SWPPP for the proposed Project would limit pollution rates from stormwater conveyance. Overall, the Project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and following compliance with standard conditions outlined in SC HYD-1 and SC HYD-2, would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As discussed under T hreshold 4.9-1, the P roject would comply with water quality standards and provisions. In 2014, the State adopted the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the sustainable management of water basins.

The project site is located within the Rialto-Colton Subbasin which is adjudicated under the Western-San Bernadino Judgement. Adjudicated basins are exempt from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act because they operate under a separate management plan. The Rialto-Colton Subbasin operates under the San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District, an entity that regulates groundwater extraction and recharge. The Project does not include activities related to groundwater extraction, and water supplied to the project site during construction and operations is regulated under a sustainable groundwater management plan created by the Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Council. Three different apparatuses exist to ensure that overdraft does not occur ; a further analysis of the projected water consumption relative to available water supply sources for the project site is discussed in Section 4.17 : Utilities and Service Systems. The water demand of projected development i s discussed in the IRUWMP such that water consumption for the project site would be accounted for in the plan. Additionally, the Project does not include any activities related to groundwater extraction. Therefore, no component of the Project would be in opposition to the management plan for the Rialto -Colton Subbasin. Further, pursuant to Impact 4.9-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Impact 4.9-5: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-14
Municipal Code Section 12.60.260 and outlined in SC HYD-2, the Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWQMP that identifies BMPs related to storm water quality . As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts
Water Quality
Similar to the proposed Project, cumulative projects in the City would be required to comply with water quality control measures within the NPDES General Construction Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP, WQMP, and BMPs that help reduce impacts of pollutants on water quality. The NPDES Permit is mandated by the State and specific guidelines are established by the Santa Ana RWQCB to reduce effects of local projects. Compliance with all relevant local, regional, and state water quality control guidelines listed above would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate impacts related to the water quality and thus would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on water quality . Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water quality would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Drainage Alteration
The Project and other cumulative projects considered in the cumulative analysis would not create a significant cumulative impact when added together. Projects must comply with State and local regulations concerning stormwater runoff and treatment . These regulations ensure that significant cumulative impacts would not occur.

As noted above, the Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, therefore potentially altering drainage patterns and increasing stormwater runoff. However, the Project would include installation of a drainage network, consisting of three underground basins to detain, retain, and filtrate stormwater runoff. The stormwater system is designed to capture the 100-year flood event and would treat flows through infiltration. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate runoff significant enough that it would create a significant cumulative impact concerning drainage, erosion, siltation, flooding, or pollutant release due to inundation when combined with runoff from other projects.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to drainage would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Groundwater Basin: Groundwater Supply and Groundwater Management Plans The cumulative projects within the Santa Ana Watershed would be required to comply with the State and regional water board requirements for protection of groundwater resources. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable decrease in groundw ater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater supplies or recharge. Project activities would not extract groundwater during construction or operations. Furthermore, the Project’s water demand has already been accounted for in the General Plan’s land use designation that estimated the proposed water usage of future development within the City. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate impacts related to the groundwater basin and thus would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on the groundwater basin. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the groundwater basin would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-15

4.9.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC HYD-1: The Applicant or his/her designees shall obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). The Applicant or his/her designees shall provide a copy of this permit to the City Publ ic Works Department prior to the issuance of the first grading permit.

SC HYD-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non -stormwater pollutants during and after construction. To ensure compliance, a legal and fiduciary enforcement mechanism in the form of a Storm Water Quality Management Plan Agreement shall be executed with the City of Rialto. This agreement shall additionally be reco rded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Bernardino. The SWQMP shall specify BMPs specific to the project site, which shall be integrated into the stormwater conveyance plan. The plan shall identify specific strategies, including the following.
 Site design features, including maximizing open space, preservation of natural drainages, and minimization of impervious surfaces.
 Source control features, including leveraging public outreach and education, use of appropriate landscaping, and covering trash storage areas.  Treatment controls, including the use of underground chambers.

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

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Compliance with the standard conditions set forth in this section would reduce potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.9.10 References
City of Rialto. Rialto General Plan Update. Retrieved from: 2023 City of Rialto Focused General Plan Update | Rialto, CA. Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Warehouse Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Rialto 4.9-16
City of Rialto. Code of Ordinances. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rialto/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed February 6, 2025.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address.

Retrieved from: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed February 6, 2025.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Preliminary Drainage Report. Included as Appendix H1 to this EIR.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Included as Appendix H2 to this EIR.

NOAA. Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: California. Retrieved from:
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca. Accessed February 6, 2025.

San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District, 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1601/2020-Upper-Santa-Ana-River-Watershed- Integrated-Regional-Urban-Water-Management-Plan. Accessed February 6, 2025.

United States Geological Survey. 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Pages 14 and 19. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.

United States Geological Survey. California Water Science Center – Santa Ana Basin, National Water Quality. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/complaints/do cs/investigation/40_usgs_santa_ana_basin_national_water_quality_assessment_program.pdf.

Accessed February 2025.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2025. Water Supply Assessment. Included as Appendix L to this EIR.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-1

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the EIR describes the land use conditions for the project site and discusses potential land use impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Project . The pre -development condition of the project site and surrounding area was used as the baseline with which to compare potential impacts associated with the Project.

4.10.1 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California State Planning and Zoning Law
The legal framework in which California cities and counties exercise local planning and land use functions is set forth in the California Planning and Zoning Law Sections 65000 to 66499.58. State law delegate most of the State’s local land use and development decisions to cities and counties and describes laws pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments, including subdivisions and zoning. Each city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan ; there are fundamental requirements that must be met. These requirements include the inclusion of seven mandatory elements described in the Government Code, including a section on land use. Each of the elements must contain text and descriptions setting forth objectives, principles, standards, policies, and plan proposals; diagrams and maps that incorporate data and analysis; and mitigation measures.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, approved by then Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008, is intended to address climate change by promoting sustainable land use and transportation planning by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and promoting more sustainable and efficient transportation systems within California. The bill requires regional agencies to develop and implement a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their regional transportation plans. The purpose of the SCS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), promote compact development, and increase transportation options. SB 375 encourages collaboration between local governments, transportation agencies, and other stakeholders to achieve these goals.

Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the Southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-2
SCAG 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS] or Connect SoCal. The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non -profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long -range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The S CAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.

SCAG Intergovernmental Review Program
SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Program provides informational resources to regionally significant plans, projects, and programs per CEQA Guidelines Section 15206: Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance,1 to facilitate review for these projects’ consistency with SCAG’s adopted regional plans, to be determined by the lead agencies. Informational resources include regional goals and policies, and jurisdictional-level growth forecasts and mitigation measures.

Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The City of Rialto General Plan (General Plan) is the comprehensive planning document governing development in the City, and contains goals, policies, and actions describing the community's vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental protection. The General Plan establishes land use designations for land in the City and policies for the orderly growth and development of the City.

Among other purposes, the General Plan identifies policies necessary to protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the community in which it serves.

The General Plan contains the following chapters related to state-mandated elements required for a General Plan: Managing Our Land Supply; Investing in Our Future; Making the Connections: the Circulation Chapter; Safety and Noise; Housing Element; Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Preservation; and Implementation Plan, which are described below. The General Plan Land Use Plan Map visually represents the physical relationship of all portions of the text, including development densities. The City of Rialto prepared a Focused General Plan Update (2024) to the Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation Element. Additionally, the City prepared a General Plan Environmental Justice Element. These General Plan elements were adopted by the City on December 10, 2024.

Chapter 2: Managing Our Land Supply. The Managing Our Land Supply Chapter combines the elements of Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Conservation. Its purpose is to guide long-term physical changes while providing and conserving community and natural resources. The chapter establis hes the City's preferred land use patterns, guides the visual character of public places and private development, and creates conservation and protection plans for natural resources and open space. Its primary goal is to

1 The Lead Agency shall determine that a proposed project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance if the project me ets various criteria, including “A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared” (CEQA Guidelines § 15206(b)(1)).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-3
direct the use of the City's land resources in an equitable and productive manner to enhance the quality of life for residents and the overall community.

Chapter 3: Investing In Our Future. The Investing In Our Future Chapter discusses the economic development, redevelopment, and infrastructure plans. With the goals and policies set forth in this Chapter, the City aims to address the economic needs of the community, focus on redevelopment of project areas within the City, and maintain reliable public utility infrastructure.

Chapter 4: Making the Connections: Circulation Element. The Circulation Element is a required part of the General Plan and is designed to guide the development of the City's transportation system in line with the land use plan. Its purpose is to ensure that major roadways, transportation routes, and public utilities are coordinated with land use. The Circulation Element considers the increasing demand for travel due to development and the growth of its logistics industry. It aims to create a system of Compl ete Streets that accommodates the needs of all users including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and public transportation users.

Chapter 5: Safety and Noise Chapter. The City takes a proactive approach to planning by addressing hazards that may pose a threat to property and lives. These hazards include seismic and geologic hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, gangs, emergency response, and wind hazards. Although the City cannot prevent these hazards, it aims to minimize their effects through the goals and policies included in this chapter. Additionally, by addressing issues such as crime and hazardous materials use, Rialto can better respond to emergency situations and protect the community.

Chapter 6: Housing Element. The Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan. The City is currently under its sixth cycle Housing Element 2021 – 2029. The Housing Element serves as a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for promoting the development of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all members of the community.

Chapter 7: Our Roots: Cultural and Historic Resources. The City recognizes the significance of its cultural and historical resources in shaping its identity and development. Through the goals and policies provided within this Chapter, the City aims is to provide direction for preserving the City’s cultural and historic resources.

Chapter 8: Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan serves as a guide for City officials, staff, and the public to implement the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. It translates the general terms of the General Plan into specific actions and measures. These measures can be existing processes or new programs that require City action and may be subject to funding availability. The measures are organized by General Plan element and are intended to be used for the Annual Report on the City's p rogress in implementing the General Plan.

Chapter 9: Environmental Justice. Generally, environmental justice is defined as the basic right of people to live, work, go to school, play, and pray in a healthy and clean environment. Those in neighborhoods of lower income are more likely to be at a disadvantage when it comes to equal access to programs and places that make and keep us healthy. The Environmental Justice Element seeks to remedy this imbalance through goal and policies from six key environmental justice issues as outlined in Senate Bill (S B) 1000:
community engagement, pollution exposure, access to public facilities, access to healthy food, safe and sanitary housing, and physical activity. The purpose of this element is to ensure that the City of Rialto is a

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-4
safe and healthy place with opportunities for everyone and to focus on goals that will improve communities and reduce inequities.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and much of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the City’s Rialto Airport Specific Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels in the Airport Specific Plan area that were not removed from the Airport Specific Plan, primarily located northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Airport Specific Plan provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in the Airport Specific Plan area. For projects within the Airport Specific Plan area, policies and standards in the Airport Specific Plan will take precedence over more general policies and standards applied throughout the rest of the City.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Rialto Municipal Code Title 17 . Rialto Municipal Code Title 17 functions as the City’s subdivision regulations pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §§ 66400 through 66499.85). This Title contains requirements pertaining to required dedications and improvements, lot subdivision and merging, and associated fees. All subdivisions and lot merges within the City must comply with provisions within this Title.

Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 . Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 functions as the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which, in coordination with the City’s specific plans, identifies the permitted land uses on all parcels in the City through assigned land use designations and associated land use regulations and development standards. In coordination with the Rialto General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, Title 18 presents guidelines to promote appropriate land use and City design and designed to:
▪ lessen congestion in the streets;
▪ secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers;
▪ promote health and the general welfare;
▪ provide adequate light and air;
▪ prevent the overcrowding of land;
▪ avoid undue concentration of population; and
▪ facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements.

4.10.2 Existing Conditions
Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is approximately 40 acres located at the southwest corner Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. The project site is vacant with the exception of remnants of a World War II -era bunker structure and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site and an underground transformer on the northwestern portion of the project site along Lowell Street. The project site was vacant land until the 1940s when it was developed with rail spurs and bunkers used by the U.S. Army for the storage of weapons

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-5
and ammunition until the 1960s. Since that time, the project site has been generally vacant with areas used for stockpiling and storage activities. Currently, t he majority of the site is covered with chaparral plant communities and non-native grassland.

The project site is located north of State Route 210 (SR-210) in an area of the City comprised primarily of industrial, warehouse, manufacturing and office uses with single -family residences approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue and the Mid -Valley Landfill to the west. Additionally, adjacent to the project site, east of Locust Avenue is an undeveloped parcel, and adjacent to the project site west of Lake Padden Lane is Robertson’s Ready Mix.

General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. The General Industrial designation allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities requiring large areas of land with convenient access for trucks and rail . Permitted uses include manufacturing and processing, warehousing and distribution, chemical or petroleum products processing and refining, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses.2 The maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) for this land use designation is 1.0.

Specific Plan/Zoning. The project site is zoned Rialto Airport Specific Plan and has a Specific Plan land use designation of General Manufacturing (I -GM). Table 8 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan identifies permitted uses within the I -GM zone including manufacturing and processing, warehousing and distribution, chemical or petroleum products processing and refining, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses.3

4.10.3 Methodology
The pre-development conditions of the project site and surrounding area are used as the baseline to compare potential impacts associated with the Project. The analysis of the project site is based on the conditions of the site when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published. The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the level of impacts related to land use and planning. This analysis considers existing regulations, laws and standards that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain, despite compliance with regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impact.

4.10.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for land use and planning were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to land use and planning if it would:
▪ 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.

2 City of Rialto. Rialto General Plan Update. Retrieved from: https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023 -Land-Use- Element?bidId= Accessed September 25, 2024.
3 City of Rialto. 1997. Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Table 8. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/570/Rialto -Airport- Specific-Plan-PDF. Accessed October 23, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-6
As addressed in Section 5.1: Effects Found Not to be Significant , the City has determined that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the following threshold for the reasons stated below, and that no further analysis was required in the EIR:
▪ Would the Project physically divide an established community.

The Project could have a significant environmental impact if it were sufficiently large or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other physical division within an established community. For example, the construction of a hig hway through an existing community could constrain travel from one side of the community to another, as well as the cohesiveness of that community.

The proposed Project would develop a speculative warehouse building with three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane. As described above, the project site would be located in an area with predominantly planned and developed industrial, warehouse, manufacturing, and office uses. The project site is bordered by Lowell Street and industrial, office, and warehouse uses to the north; industrial u ses, Locust Avenue, and an undeveloped parcel and single -family residences to the east; industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing uses to the south; and Lake Padden Lane, industrial and manufact uring uses, and Mid -Valley Landfill to the west. The residential neighborhood is approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue. The site does not currently provide any connection to the residential neighborhood nor does it provide connectivity or accessibility to other surrounding uses. The Project would include roadway and utility improvements along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue adjacent to the project site, including sidewalks, curbs, and utility connections. Project improvements would not include featur es such as a highway, new roadway, or above-ground infrastructure that would preclude or impede movement through the project site such that a permanent disruption in the physical arrangement of the surrounding community or isolation of that community would occur. The Project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning and would be compatible with the existing industrial uses adjacent to the site. As such, neither the residential neighborhood nor other existing or planned communities proximate to the project site would be physically divided by the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.

4.10.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.10-1: 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Connect SoCal Goal Analysis
Project-relevant RTP/SCS policies for land use and planning are addressed below. ▪ Create human-centered communities in urban, suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility options and reduce travel distances.
▪ Improve access to jobs and educational resources.
▪ Advance a resilient and efficient goods movement system that supports the economic vitality of the region, attainment of clean air, and quality of life for our communities.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-7
Consistent with Connect SoCal Goal s, the project site is located near existing transit routes (i.e., OmniTrans route along Locust Avenue) , access to I-210, and truck routes . The location of the Project within a developed area would place an employment center in close proximity to existing residential uses east of Locust Avenue . Locating an employment center near existing residential uses would potentially reduce trip lengths required for existing residents to travel to work, thereby reducing mobile emission s.

Additionally, the Project would include pedestrian access to the project site (i.e., sidewalks) along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue to improve pedestrian mobility and safety . Further, the Project would implement MM AQ-4; refer to Section 4.2: Air Quality , which would require the preparation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce single -occupant auto travel and encourage alternate means of transportation. Project TDM strategies include pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming measures, implementation of a low -stress bicycle network, and implementation of ride-share programs. Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in the development of a warehouse on vacant land and provide additional employment opportunities which would support a healthy community. Therefore, the Project is consistent with applicable goals of the 2024- 2050 RTP/SCS. Connect SoCal is discussed further in Section 4.2 : Air Quality , Section 4.5 : Energy, Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.12: Population and Housing, and Section 4.15:

Transportation, and similarly concludes the Project would not conflict with any other applicable goals of the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS in each respective section of this EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with any Connect SoCal Goal that would result in potentially significant impact. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan goals and policies relevant to the Project are addressed in Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated in the table, the Project would be consistent with applicable Rialto General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with any Rialto General Plan policy that would result in potentially signi ficant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-8
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 2: Managing Our Land Supply
Goal 2-9: Residential areas, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses are protected from the impacts associated with industrial and trucking-related land uses.

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

Consistent. The nearest residential development is approximately 700 feet east of the project site and east of Locust Avenue. Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive land uses. As addressed in Section 4.2: Air Quality, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-5 would minimize health risks to sensitive land uses by requiring the use of low VOC paints, electric appliances including landscaping equipment and cargo handling equipment, and incentives to support ride-share programs. As discussed in Section 4.11: Noise and Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would comply with existing federal, State, and local noise and hazardous material and waste handling regulations and therefore result in less than significant impact to sensitive land uses in the project area. Further, MM HAZ-1 would require the retainment of a munitions expert to monitor grading activities and ensure any unexploded ordnances and discarded military munitions encountered would not result in an adverse impact to nearby sensitive land uses. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

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

Consistent. The development regulations for industrial developments in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area require a front setback of 25 feet and a minimum side and rear setback of zero (0) feet, as well as a 20-foot average minimum width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways. The Project would provide a front setback of approximately 237 feet along Lowell Street, a side setback of 197 feet on the east and 76 feet on the west, and a 110-foot rear setback. In addition, the Project would provide landscaping throughout the project site focused near parking lot areas and driveway entries, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the public roadways, and a total landscaped area of approximately 9.2 percent of the site. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2.9-5: Ensure that industrial land uses minimize conflict with surrounding incompatible uses through building design and truck restrictions.

Consistent. Adjacent land uses are limited to industrial, warehouse, and office uses. Truck access would be from Lowell Street onto Locust Avenue, and from Locust Avenue. Locust Avenue is a designated truck route in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2.9-6: Locate smaller buildings and less intensive uses within an industrial development site closer to adjacent residential uses, rather than large or more intensive uses.

Consistent. The nearest residential uses are approximately 700 feet east of the project site, which is east of Locust Avenue; Locust Avenue is a truck route. The Specific Plan development regulations require a minimum side setback of zero (0) feet. The Project’s secured truck trailer parking lot would be set back from the property boundary along Locust Avenue by approximately 25.75 feet, the warehouse building would be set back from the property boundary adjacent to other industrial uses on the east by approximately 197 feet and from the property boundary on the west by approximately 76 feet. The proposed setbacks greatly exceed the Airport Specific Plan requirement. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-9
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 2.9-7: Require warehousing and industrial uses to incorporate natural landscape materials (trees, shrubs, and hedges) to buffer differing land uses, and provide a transition between adjacent properties.

Consistent. As noted above and shown in Figure 3-10, landscaping would encompass approximately 9.2 percent of the project site and be focused along the perimeter, parking lot areas, and driveway entries. A mix of accent trees are proposed along public roadways, Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. Smaller understory landscaping including groundcover and accent shrubs would be layered beneath the trees.

Landscaping along the public streets would screen truck trailers from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2.9-8: For sites with access to alleyways or other internal circulation routes, locate industrial loading docks away from public- facing streets to reduce trucking-related impacts in sensitive areas.

Consistent. Project loading docks would be located along the east side of the warehouse building. Public views of the loading area would be shielded due to existing development along Locust Avenue, as well as a 14-foot-high decorative screen wall along the northern boundary of the project site facing Lowell Street, along the eastern boundary of the project site facing Locust Avenue, and along the northeastern portion of the project site’s southern boundary facing the existing industrial uses to the south. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-12: Design streetscapes in Rialto to support and enhance the City’s image as a desirable place to live, work, shop, and dine.

Policy 2-12.1: Require the screening of commercial or industrial parking areas, storage yards, stockpiles, and other collections of equipment from the public right-of-way.

Consistent. The Project includes a variety of trees to screen both trailer and employee parking areas fronting Lowell Street and Locust Avenue (see Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-10). Additionally, see consistency with Policy 2.9-8. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2.12-5: Require that projects with perimeter walls (including gated residential communities) provide an interesting streetscape, with pedestrian access to major travel ways.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-12.1. Additionally, the Project would include pedestrian access to the project site (i.e., sidewalks) along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-15: Protect scenic vistas and scenic resources.

Policy 2-15.1: Protect views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Consistent. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest and the San Bernardino Mountains are located approximately 8 miles to the east. Rialto Airport Specific Plan I-GM zone has a maximum building height of 75 feet. The proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 55 feet finished grade. This is below the 75-foot maximum height allowed within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan I-GM zone and is comparable to the height of existing development in the area. As discussed in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, although Project implementation would result in the partial obstruction of designated scenic vistas, these views are currently obstructed by existing urban development. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-15.2: Protect views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Consistent. The La Loma Hills are located approximately 9 miles to the southeast, Jurupa Hills are approximately 8 miles southwest, Box Springs Mountains are approximately 14 miles to the southeast, the City of Moreno Valley is approximately 16 miles to the southeast, and the City of Riverside is approximately 10 miles to the southeast. Rialto Airport Specific Plan I-GM zone has a maximum building height of 75 feet. The proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 55 feet finished grade.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-10
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
This is below the 75-foot maximum height allowed within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan I-GM zone and is comparable to the height of existing development in the area. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

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

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with CCR Title 24 standards which would require all glass used in the building design to have minimal reflectivity to reduce glare to surrounding neighbors.

The proposed building would not use highly reflective materials, such as large expanses of reflective glass. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-17: Improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto.

Policy 2-17.1: Require new development and construction to exhibit a high level of quality architectural design to emphasize community uniqueness, individuality, and historical references.

Consistent. The conceptual design for the Project includes concrete tilt-up panels with architectural treatments, such as panel reveals to provide visual relief of the building facades. As shown in Figure 3-6 through Figure 3-8, the exterior elevations would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2–17.5: Require developers to vary building and parking setbacks along the streetscape to create visual interest.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-9.2.

Policy 2–17.6: Require architectural treatments on all façades facing rights-of-way, public streets, and alleys, including windows, doors, architectural details, and landscape treatment.

Consistent. The proposed warehouse exterior elevations would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing with concrete tilt-up panels with architectural treatments, such as panel reveals to provide visual relief of the building facades. Landscaping would be focused around the site perimeters, parking areas, driveway entrances, and building entrances for aesthetic affect. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-18: Provide high-quality and environmentally sustainable landscaping.

Policy 2-18.1: Require the planting of street trees along public streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for private developments to improve airshed, minimize urban heat island effect, and lessen impacts of high winds.

Consistent. The Project would include approximately 3.7 acres of landscaping throughout the project site. The proposed landscaping would include the planting of various trees along the Project’s frontage on Locust Avenue, Lowell Street, and Lake Padden Lane and within the passenger vehicle parking area.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-18.3: Require the use of drought-tolerant, native landscaping and smart irrigation systems for new development to lower overall water usage.

Consistent. Landscaping would be included throughout the project site to retain runoff. The proposed landscaping would include native plant species. The proposed drainage improvements would include a modular wetland unit to improve water quality of runoff. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-11
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2-23: Promote commercial and/or industrial development that is well designed, people-oriented, environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the needs of the visitor or resident, and functionally efficient for its purpose.

Policy 2–23.1: Require that developments incorporate varied planes and textures and variety in window and door treatments on building façades.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-17.1.

Policy 2-23.2: Encourage architecture that disaggregates massive buildings into smaller parts with greater human scale.

Consistent. The Project would comply by developing the proposed building with facades that would use color variation, glazing, and vertical articulation to allow for variation in mass and scale. The proposed warehouse would be approximately 55 feet in height from finished grade; materials used would include wall panels, concrete, galvalume metal roofing, and a glass curtain wall as well as various colors to reduce the overall sense of perceived mass. As discussed in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, the Project would not result in significant visual impacts. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-23.3: Require that landscaping be incorporated into commercial and industrial projects to define and emphasize entrances, inclusive of those areas along the front of a building facing a parking lot.

Consistent. The Project would provide an average width of 20 feet of landscaping from and along Locust Avenue and Lowell Street, meeting the minimum 20-foot depth requirement on public roadways (see Figure 3-10). Additionally, the Project would include landscape plantings along the site perimeter and parking areas for enhanced landscape screening. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-23.5: Require developments to provide pedestrian and vehicle connections and pathways between parking lots at the rear and front of buildings.

Consistent. The Project proposes a sidewalk along the project site frontage of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street and pedestrian crossings at the driveways. The Project proposed three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane.

Project site circulation for passenger vehicles would include drive aisles along the northern, western, and southern warehouse perimeter providing access to the employee/visitor parking area. All Project driveways would be 40 feet wide to allow for adequate turning movements for trucks and emergency vehicles. Internal to the site, a pedestrian walkway is proposed from the employee/visitor parking lot along Lowell Street, south toward the warehouse building. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-23.6: Require delivery areas to be separated from pedestrian areas.

Consistent. The trailer parking and dock loading areas would be located on the eastern side of the warehouse and would be gated to separate pedestrian and loading areas (see Figure 3-3). Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-23.8: Insist that full architectural treatments and details be provided on all facades visible to the street of development projects.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2-17.1.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-12
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2-24: Minimize the visual impact of parking lots
Policy 2-24.1: Require mature trees and landscaping in off-street parking areas to make them more inviting and aesthetically appealing, and to provide sufficient shading to reduce heat.

Consistent. The Project includes a variety of trees to screen parking areas and provide shade within the project site (see Figure 3-10). Specifically, pursuant to Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18.58.030, 74 trees would be planted throughout the parking areas to reduce heat and provide shade. See Policy 2-23.3 analysis for further detail. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-24.2: Encourage the inclusion of textured paving along pedestrian walkways and under building canopies.

Consistent. The Project would provide textured pedestrian walkways across the proposed driveways (Figure 3-3). Additionally, the internal pedestrian walkway to the warehouse building entrance would be concrete with a medium broom finish. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-24.3: Require use of drainage improvements designed, with native vegetation where possible, to retain or detain water runoff and minimize pollutants into drainage system.

Consistent. As discussed under consistency to Policy 2-18.3, landscaping would be included throughout the project site to retain runoff. The Project proposes a network of underground piping and conveyance to three on-site underground infiltration basins. These basins would serve as a water quality best management practice which would treat storm water runoff on site before release. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-29: Protect and enhance Rialto’s surface waters and groundwater basins.

Policy 2-29.3: Design sidewalks, roads, and driveways to minimize impervious surfaces; provide flood control channels with permeable bottoms to help restore groundwater aquifers.

Consistent. The project site would include approximately 160,491 sf of landscaping (9.2% of the project site). The remainder of the project site would be pervious, which would include pedestrian walkways, driveways, and surface parking. The proposed driveways and sidewalks would be designed in accordance with City code. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2–29.5: Apply methodologies and assign responsibility to protect the quality of groundwater from pollution by landfills and industrial uses.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2-24.3. As discussed in Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, to protect the City’s surface waters and groundwater basins, the Project has prepared a project- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Both the SWPPP and WQMP would include measures to protect water quality during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-30: Conserve water resources.

Policy 2-30.1: Require new development to use features, equipment, technology, landscaping, and other methods to reduce water consumption.

Consistent. Landscaping would be included throughout the project site and would use an automatic irrigation system and appropriate use and grouping of native plants to foster long-term landscape water conservation. The proposed industrial use would require minimal water consumption during operation.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-31: Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects.

Policy 2-31.1: Explore and adopt the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar in both private and public projects.

Consistent. The Project would comply with applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11), which includes requirements for water efficiency, construction waste reduction,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-13
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
recycling, and electrical vehicle facilitation. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-31.2: Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy-efficient design elements, as appropriate.

Consistent. The Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24. The Project would have: (a) sensor- based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and (b) efficient process equipment—improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment. Additionally, the warehouse building would be designed to have 15% of the roof area solar-ready, in accordance with Title 24 standards.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-31.3: Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment.

Consistent. The Project would comply with regulatory requirements to divert at least 50 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-32: Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-32.1: Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-31.2.

Goal 2-32: Balance the provisions of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act with City objectives to minimize negative impacts of mining activities on the Rialto community.

Policy 2-33.4: Establish buffer zones of compatible uses adjacent to mineral extraction areas. Such uses may include industry. Require planting or other visual buffers to screen mining machines, stockpiles, vehicles, and other mining related facilities from visible residential areas.

Consistent. The Project is a compatible use with existing development in the area and is consistent with existing General Industrial land use designation and I-GM zoning. The Project also includes a 14-foot-high decorative screen wall, retaining walls and fencing, and landscape buffers which would provide screening and a visual buffer between the project site and the adjacent concrete mining operations to the south and east. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-35: Achieve waste recycling levels that meet or exceed State mandates. Achieve maximum waste recycling in all sectors of the community: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and construction.

Policy 2-35.2: Utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in Rialto that is disposed of in landfills.

Consistent. The Project would include measures to recycle during construction and operation when feasible. Please also see the response to Policy 2-31.3. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-35.3: Encourage the maximum diversion from landfills of construction and demolition materials through recycling and reuse programs.

Consistent. Please see the response to Policy 2-31.3.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-14
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2-36: Reduce air pollution emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the City.

Policy 2-36.2: Require that new development projects incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

Consistent. The Project would include a sidewalk along the Project frontage on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue to provide pedestrian access to the project site. Bicycle facilities, including short-term bicycle racks would also be provided on the site to facilitate alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle emissions. Additionally, as outlined in Section 4.2: Air Quality, the Project would implement MM AQ-4, which would result in the development of a TDM Plan incorporating feasible trip reduction strategies that would encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed development would be consistent with the General Industrial land use designation for the project site. Additionally, the Project would bring employment opportunities that would contribute to the diversity of uses that serve the needs of the City. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-36.4: Require new development and significant
redevelopment proposals to incorporate sufficient design and operational controls to prevent release of noxious odors beyond the limits of the development site.

Consistent. The project site and surrounding parcels are zoned for industrial uses. The Project does not propose a land use type associated with significant odors, such as farming, chemical plants, landfills, etc.

The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue, which serves as the project boundary for the site. Project operations would not result in a substantial amount of noxious odors beyond the limits of the project site. As discussed in Section 4.2: Air Quality and outlined in LOR AQ-1, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits discharge of air quality nuisances including those associated with odors. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

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

Policy 2–37.2: Support programs and policies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding restrictions on grading operations at construction projects.

Consistent. As outlined in Section 4.2: Air Quality, the Project would implement Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LOR) AQ-1, MM AQ-1, and MM AQ-5, which would require compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, Rule 1113, and Rule 2305 respectively. Rules 402 and 403 include measures to minimize construction dust. Compliance with Rule 1113 would reduce ROG emissions associated with architectural coatings. Rule 2305 would require WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points tracking, which can be earned through emission reduction measures, like zero emission or electric cargo handling equipment, as required by MM AQ-5. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 2-39: Mitigate against climate change.

Policy 2-39.1: Consult with State agencies, SCAG, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to implement AB32 Consistent. As further discussed in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would comply with applicable regulations, including SB 32 and SB 375. The Project would implement mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-15
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
and SB375 by utilizing incentives to facilitate infill and transit- oriented development.
measures and LORs to reduce impacts associated with GHGs in regard to compliance with AB32 and AB375, to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 2-39.3: Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 2-36.2.

Goal 2-40: Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.

Policy 2-40.1: Protect endangered, threatened, rare, and other special status habitat and wildlife species within and along Lytle Creek by working with the United States Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or other established biological resource protection mechanisms within this sensitive area.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-3 require pre- construction surveys, implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan in the event avoidance is not possible, and the removal of habitat that supports nests to occur outside of breeding season. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Chapter 3: Investing in Our Future: Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Infrastructure Goal 3-8: Promote affordable and quality water service capable of adequately meeting normal and emergency water demands to all areas in Rialto.

Policy 3-8.1: Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the water system to handle the increased demands which they are expected to generate.

Consistent. Water service to the project site would be provided by West Valley Water District (WVWD).

The Project would include connections to existing facilities located in the adjacent roadways. The Project would not require the expansion of existing facilities, see Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 3-8.10: Support water conservation through requirements for landscaping with drought-tolerant plants and efficient irrigation for all new development and City projects.

Consistent. The Project would include approximately 3.7 acres of landscaping. The proposed landscaping plans would include the incorporation of drought-tolerant plants. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 3-9: Upgrade and maintain an improved wastewater system with adequate plant efficiency and capacity to protect the health and safety of Rialto residents, businesses, and institutions.

Policy 3-9.1: Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the wastewater disposal system to handle the increased loads which they are expected to generate.

Consistent. Wastewater service would be provided by Rialto Water Services. The Project proposes to connect to existing wastewater facilities located in the roadways. As discussed in Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would result in a minimal increase in wastewater and the existing facilities of the Rialto Water Services would adequately serve the project site. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-16
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 3-10: Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters local and regional landfills.

Policy 3-10.2: Encourage the recycling of construction and demolition materials in an effort to divert these items from entering landfills.

Consistent. Please see the response to Policy 2-31.3.

Chapter 4: Making the Connections: The Circulation Chapter Goal 4-1: Provide transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion associated with regional and local trip increases.

Policy 4-1.17: Require new streets and improvements to connect to established streets.

Consistent. No new streets are required as a part of the Project. Road improvements would be provided along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Locust Avenue is a truck route; truck traffic would not use local residential roadways. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-1.20: Design City streets so that signalized intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. The one exception will be Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.

LOS is not used under CEQA to evaluate traffic impacts.

Policy 4-1.21: Design City streets so that unsignalized intersections operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that increase delay above that level.

LOS is not used under CEQA to evaluate traffic impacts.

Goal 4-2: Protect residential neighborhoods from through traffic impacts.

Policy 4-2.1: Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets for access to the development and its parking.

Consistent. Access to the project site would be provided from Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Locust Avenue is a truck route; truck traffic would not use local residential roadways. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-2.2: Discourage non-local traffic from using neighborhood streets.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 4-2.1. The Project and surrounding area is located on land zoned for industrial uses. Truck traffic would not use neighborhood streets. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 4-8: Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City.

Policy 4-8.5: Require major developments to include bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers.

Consistent. On-site bike racks would be located near the entrances to the office area of the warehouse, which is proposed near the northeast corner of the building. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-17
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 4-9: Promote Walking.

Policy 4-9.1: Install sidewalks where they are missing, and make improvements to existing sidewalks for accessibility purposes. Priority should be given to needed sidewalk improvement near schools and activity centers. Provide wider sidewalks in areas with higher pedestrian volumes.

Consistent. There are no sidewalks adjacent to the project site. The Project proposes a sidewalk along the project site frontage of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street and pedestrian crossings at the driveways.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-9.2: Require sidewalks and parkways on all streets in new development.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 4-9.4.

Policy 4-9.4: Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists — in addition to automobiles — when considering new development projects.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2: Air Quality, the Project would implement MM AQ-4, which would require the preparation of a TDM plan to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage the use of public transit. Further, the Project would provide pedestrian access to the project site with the inclusion of sidewalks along the Project’s frontage on Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. Bike storage would be provided on the project site. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-9.6: Encourage new development to provide pedestrian paths through projects, with outlets to adjacent collectors, secondaries, and arterial roadways.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 4-9.4.

Policy 4-9.7: Require ADA compliance on all new or modified handicap ramps.

Consistent. Handicap ramps located on the site would comply with ADA requirements. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 4-10: Provide a circulation system that supports Rialto’s position as a logistics hub.

Policy 4-10.1: Designate and enforce truck routes for use by commercial trucking as part of the project approval process.

Consistent. Trucks travelling to and from the project site would travel along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue; Locust Avenue is a truck route. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-10.3: Develop appropriate noise mitigation along truck routes to minimize noise impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.

Consistent. The nearest sensitive receptor is residential development located approximately 700 feet east of the project site and east of Locust Avenue. As further discussed in Section 4.12: Noise, due to distance from the nearest sensitive receptor, noise impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 4-10.4: Encourage the development of adequate on-site loading areas to minimize interference of truck loading activities with efficient traffic circulation on adjacent roadways.

Consistent. Rialto Municipal Code Table 18.58.030B identifies that 6 loading spaces are required for industrial uses of 320,000 to 400,000 sf plus 1 additional loading space each 100,000 sf or fraction thereof above 400,000 sf. The Project would have 365 passenger vehicle surface parking stalls, 398 truck trailer parking stalls split between two areas on the site, and 82 dock doors. The Municipal Code requires 9 dock doors; 82 would be provided. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-18
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 5: Safety and Noise
Goal 5–1: Continue to build the City’s fire protection and prevention programs and requirements to minimize fire hazards.

Policy 5–1.3: Require that all site plans, subdivision plans, and building plans be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with appropriate fire regulations, such as California Fire Safe Regulations.

Consistent. As addressed in Section 4.14: Public Services, prior to commencement of construction activities, Project plans would be reviewed by applicable City departments to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, General Plan, and emergency response and fire safety requirements of the Rialto Fire Department and the California Fire Code. The Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 5–2: Create a more flood-safe community through development standards and infrastructure improvements.

Policy 5–2.4: Require the implementation of adequate erosion control measures for development projects to minimize
sedimentation damage to drainage facilities.

Consistent. The Project requires a SWPPP and WQMP, which would include erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize potential impacts associated with erosion, see Section 4.9:

Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 5–2.6: Design new developments with water retention devices and permeable surfaces to minimize flooding of the surface drainage system by peak flows. Consult with water agencies and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to consider the potential for larger-scale capture via diversion to large-scale spreading grounds or other options on a site-by-site basis.

Consistent. As discussed under consistency with Policy 2-18.3, landscaping would be included throughout the project site to retain runoff. The Project proposes a network of underground piping and conveyance to three on-site underground infiltration basins. These basins would serve as a water quality best management practice which would treat storm water runoff on site before release. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 5-5: Minimize impacts to public health, safety, and welfare as a result of seismic and geologic hazards.

Policy 5–5.1: Require geotechnical investigations by certified engineering geologist or other qualified professionals for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and collapsible or expansive soils. Particular attention should be paid to areas within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Consistent. As addressed in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils, the Project would implement Standard Condition (SC) GEO-1, which would require the Project Applicant to provide a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation for review and approval to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department. The City would review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations and code requirements. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 5–5.2: Require all construction to be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC), and to be consistent with the Municipal Code as it provides for earthquake-resistant design, excavation, and grading.

Consistent. State laws and local ordinances require that, prior to construction, potential seismic hazards be identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices. Project construction would be required to conform to California Building Code (CBC) and California Health and Safety Code seismic design requirements (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction), see Section 4.6: Geology and Soils. The building and safety standards established by these codes have been developed to address structural integrity during a seismic event. Please also see the response to Policy 5-5.1. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-19
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal 5–8: Ensure that first responders and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) have adequate capacity to respond to hazard events.

Policy 5–8.7: Require that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, pursuant to the City standard of cover and fire department strategic plan.

Consistent. As addressed in Section 4.14: Public Services, the Project would include 20 fire hydrants located throughout the project site. The fire hydrants would connect to a proposed fire water line loop, which ultimately connects to the water main in Lowell Street. All driveways have been designed to accommodate the required turning radius for fire engines and would not impair emergency fire service access. In accordance with the City’s entitlement process, the Rialto Fire Department would review the plot plan to ensure compliance with the City’s Fire Code. It is expected that the Rialto Fire Department would adequately serve the site and does not require the construction or expansion of existing fire services or facilities. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 5–10: Provide effective, timely and comprehensive policing services that meet the safety needs of Rialto.

Policy 5-10.3: Continue to encourage design concepts that inhibit and discourage criminal behavior such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques.

Consistent. As addressed in Section 4.14: Public Services, prior to commencement of construction activities, Project plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan as well as all applicable regulations associated with site signage, lighting, perimeter control, and other crime safety preventative measures. SC PS-1 requires that all development plans be evaluated by the City of Rialto Police Department to ensure that public safety design measures are incorporated into the Project plans. SC PS-2 requires the Applicant to contract with a security service to provide security during construction and may include additional security measures, such as the installation of temporary fencing. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 5-12: Minimize the impact of point source and ambient noise levels throughout the community.

Policy 5-12.2: Consider noise impacts as part of the development review process, particularly the location of parking,
ingress/egress/loading, and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise-sensitive land uses.

Consistent. The nearest sensitive receptor is residential development located approximately 700 feet east of the project site and east of Locust Avenue. As further discussed in Section 4.12: Noise, due to distance from the nearest sensitive receptor, noise impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 5–12.3: Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals, and other noise sensitive areas in accordance with the Municipal Code and noise standards contained in Exhibit 5-5.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 5-12.2.

Goal 5-13: Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise.

Policy 5-13.3: Require development of truck-intensive uses to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses through appropriate site design.

Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy 5-12.2. No noise impacts have been identified.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-20
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 7: Our Roots: Cultural and Historical Resources Goal 7-1: Preserve Rialto’s significant historical resources as a source of community identity, stability, aesthetic character, and social value.

Policy 7-1.1: Protect the architectural, historical, agricultural, open space, environmental, and archaeological resources in Rialto.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4: Cultural Resources, the Project would have a less than significant impact on unknown archaeological resources with the implementation of mitigation. The Project would implement SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1 which outlines compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 associated with human remains and the procedure and treatment of unknown historic and/or archaeological resources discovered during Project construction activities. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 7-3: Identify, document, and protect significant archaeological resources in Rialto.

Policy 7-3.1: Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all projects in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.

Consistent. As further discussed, in Section 4.4: Cultural Resources, no significant archaeological resources have been recorded on the project site. SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1 are applicable. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 7-3.3: Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 7-1.1.

Policy 7-3.4: Reduce adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources that cannot be protected in place through data recovery excavations.

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 7-1.1.

Chapter 9: Environmental Justice
Goal 9–3: Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City (Circulation Element Goal 4-8) and prioritize implementation in DACs with limited walking and biking infrastructure.

Policy 9–3.5: Require major developments to include bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers (Circulation Element Policy 4-8.5).

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 4-8.5.

Goal 9–4: Increase Safe and Comfortable Walking and Wheelchair Mobility Policy 9-4.1: Require that new development projects incorporate design features that encourage ridesharing, transit use, park and ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation (Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Conservation Element Policy 2-36.2).

Consistent. See consistency with Policy 2-36.2.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-21
Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy 9–4.6: Require ADA compliance on all new or modified handicap ramps (Circulation Element Policy 4-9.7).

Consistent. Handicap ramps located on the site would comply with ADA requirements. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 9–5: Reduce air pollution impacts in DACs.

Policy 9–5.2: Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets for access to the development and its parking (Circulation Element Policy 4-2.1).

Consistent. Access to the project site would be provided from Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Locust Avenue is a truck route; truck traffic would not use local residential roadways. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Policy 9–5.5: Apply conditions of approval to any industrial or warehouse use to minimize the public health impact of that use.

Build on existing City and Regional Agency efforts to create a menu of mitigation options including but not limited to building and parking orientation, vegetation and sound buffers, truck route compliance enforcement, zero emission truck usage, solar panel installation, and air filtration systems.

Consistent. Please refer to Section 4.2: Air Quality which addresses air quality and health risk; Section

4.2: Air Quality and Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions which address air quality, health risk, and emission reduction requirements for the Project. The proposed warehouse would be constructed and operated adjacent to other industrial, warehouse, and office uses. There are no sensitive receptors adjacent and proximate to the project site. Trucks would directly access Locust Avenue or access Locust Avenue from Lowell Street. Locust Avenue is a designated truck route as shown in the General Plan.

Additionally, the warehouse building would be designed to have 15% of the roof area solar-ready, in accordance with Title 24 standards. Therefore, the Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Goal 9–6: Proactively address hazardous waste and water pollution concerns where possible, and aggressively pursue actions that corr ect spills and contamination when it occurs.

Policy 9–6.4: Apply methodologies and assign responsibility to protect the quality of groundwater from pollution by landfills and industrial uses (Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Conservation Element Policy 2-29.5).

Consistent. As addressed in Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project proposes a network of underground piping that conveys runoff to three on-site underground infiltration basins. The basins would serve as both a water quality BMP as well as an underground storage facility to detain and mitigate the peak flow rate. Catch basins throughout the project site would capture storm flows, and route flows toward underground storm basins for treatment and infiltration. Hydrodynamic separators are included in each underground basin for the pretreatment of larger sediments and pollutants. The underground basins would treat the remaining pollutants of concern through infiltration into and through the subsurface soil. The underground basins would be routinely inspected and sediment buildup would be removed to maintain efficient operation of the basins. Therefore, the Project’s storm water infrastructure was designed to capture and treat storm water flows and would not impact water quality standards. Landscaped areas are also provided throughout the site on areas that are not paved or built over to reduce excess irrigation or storm water runoff and propose surface filtration. The Project would comply with this General Plan policy.

Sources: City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/653/General-Plan. Accessed October 23, 2024.

City of Rialto. 2023. Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023-City-of-Rialto-Focused-General-Plan. Accessed October 23, 2024

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-22
Rialto Airport Specific Plan Consistency Analysis
The proposed Project would develop a warehouse use, which is consistent with the allowed uses identified in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan for the I-GM zone. The I-GM zone is identified for industrial use in Table 7 of the Specific Plan; warehousing is a permitted use within the I-GM zone in Table 8 of the Specific Plan.

As shown in Table 4.10-2: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Policy Consistency and Table 4.10-3: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Standards Consistency, the Project would comply with applicable development regulations and design guidelines for industrial development in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area.

Table 4.10-2: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Policy Consistency Standard Consistency Analysis
Section 5.5:

Development
Regulations, Non-
Residential Uses
Consistent. The Project would comply with Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 5.5, which describes the development regulations for industrial developments in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area. The Project would provide a front setback of approximately 237 feet along Lowell Street , more than the required minimum 25 -foot setback identified in Table 9 of the Specific Plan.

Minimum side and rear setback requirements are 0 feet. However, the Project’s secured truck trailer parking lot would be set back from the property boundary along Locust Avenue by approximately25.75 feet, the warehouse building would be setback from the property boundary adjacent to other industrial uses on the east by approximately 197 feet and from the property boundary on the west along Lake Padden Lane by approximately 76 feet, and from the re ar by approximately 110 feet. The dock loading area would be located on the east side of the building, sited behind and below eastern abutting existing uses as viewed from Locust Avenue.

Additionally, the Project would comply with Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 5.5.5, which identifies that front and street side yards should be landscaped and consist predominantly of drought tolerant, low maintenance plant materials. Additionally, the Rialto Airport Specific Plan requires projects designated I-GM to provide a minimum 20- foot average width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways.

The Project proposes landscaping along the project site’s perimeter along Locust Avenue, Lowell Street, and Lake Padden Lane. Along the public roads which include Locust Avenue and Lowell Street, the landscape buffer would be 20 feet wide. In addition, the Project would provide landscaping throughout the project site focused near parking lot areas and driveway entries, for a total landscaped area of approximately 160,491 sf or 9.2 percent of the site.

Further, in compliance with Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 5.5.3, the proposed Project would provide signage in accordance with Rialto Municipal Code Section

18.102.060. Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 5.5.4 also requires that parking be compliant with the Rialto Municipal Code Title 18. Table 4.10-4: Rialto Municipal Code Consistency further analyzes Project consistency with the Rialto Municipal Code.

Therefore, the Project would comply with this Rialto Airport Specific Plan policy.

Section 6.2.5: Design
Guidelines, Industrial
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1 : Aesthetics, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Design Guidelines for industrial uses identified in Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 6.2.5. As discussed further in Table 4.10-4: Rialto Municipal Code Consistency, the Specific Plan requires signage and parking standards to comply with the regulations identified in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would comply with this Rialto Airport Specific Plan policy.

Source: City of Rialto. 1997. Rialto Airport Specific Plan . Table 8. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/570/Rialto - Airport-Specific-Plan-PDF. Accessed October 23, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-23
Table 4.10-3: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Standards Consistency Standard Required per I-GM Zone1 Proposed Project
Automobile Parking 365 stalls2 365 stalls
Loading Docks 9 docks3 82 docks
Maximum Height 75 feet 55 feet
Floor Area Ratio 1.04 0.38
Front Setbacks 25 feet 236.67 feet on Lowell Street
Side Setbacks 0 to 15 feet

25.75 feet on the east5
197 feet on the east6
76 feet on the west
Rear Setbacks 0 to 15 feet 110.33 feet
Note:

1. Standards are derived from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan unless otherwise noted.

2. Per Rialto Municipal Code § 18.58.050.

3. Loading Space Requirements per Rialto Municipal Code Table 18.58.030B.

4. Per Rialto General Plan, page 2 -10.

5. Setback is the distance from the parcel boundary to the secured truck trailer parking lot .

6. Setback is the distance from parcel boundary to the warehouse dock doors.