Exhibit N - Draft Environmental Impact Report — Rialto City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

The proposed Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with the Specific Plan in such a way that would result in potentially significant impacts. The Project is consistent with the zoning for the site.

Therefore, impacts associated with existing Specific Plan zoning policies would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Rialto Municipal Code Consistency Analysis
Rialto Municipal Code Title 17 functions as the City’s provisions under the Subdivision Map Act. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, the Project proposes to create one parcel and five letter lots. Therefore, the Project is subject to Rialto Municipal Code Title 17.

Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 functions as the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the permitted land uses on all parcels in the City through assigned land use designations and associated land use regulations and development standards. The City Zoning Map, and subsequently the Rialto Airport Specific Plan Land Use Plan, identifies the project site as I -GM. As discussed, the Rialto Airport Specific Plan identifies development standards for the I-GM zone. Project consistency with applicable Rialto Municipal Code sections is provided in Table 4.10-4: Rialto Municipal Code Consistency.

The proposed Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with the Rialto Municipal Code in such a way that would result in potentially significant impact. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the above referenced mitigation.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-24
Table 4.10-4: Rialto Municipal Code Consistency
Code Chapter Consistency Analysis
Chapter 17.20: Dedications and
Improvements
Consistent. The Project would comply with Rialto Municipal Code Section 17.20.080, which establishes required improvements for lots subject to Title 17. These improvements include appropriate drainage infrastructure, utilities, streetlights, and sidewalks where needed. As discussed in Section 3.5: Project Characteristics, of this EIR, the Project proposes right -of-way dedications for public sidewalks on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue as well as sewer and water lines to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project would comply with this chapter of the Municipal Code.

Chapter 18.58: Off-street Parking Consistent. Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.030 establishes office, commercial, and industrial parking design standards. These standards require parking areas to be screened and landscaped appropriately. As discussed in Table 4.10 -3, the Project would provide landscape screening between the public right-of-way and parking areas consisting of drought-resistant ground covers, shrubs, and trees.

Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.030(J)(2) requires warehouse uses to provide 1 space for every 500 sf, or 1 space per employee on the largest shift as well as one loading space per 10,000 s f. The Project proposes a n approximately 664,859-sf warehouse. As identified in Table 4.10-3, the Project would meet the required 365 parking stalls and 9 loading stalls.

Section 18.58.030(K)(1) requires a minimum of ten percent of the required gross off -street parking area shall be landscaped .

Approximately 12,142 sf (or approximately 21.2%) of the parking lot area would be landscaped. Therefore, the Project would exceed all minimum requirements and therefore comply with this chapter of the Municipal Code.

Chapter 18.61: Design Guidelines Consistent. The Project would comply with design standards set forth in this Chapter. As discussed in Table 4.10 -1 and shown in Figure 3 -6, Figure 3 -7, and Figure 3 -8, the proposed warehouse would be designed with articulated mass, tilt -up construction, glazing on all sides, and the office portion in the front. As described in Section 3.6. 3: Building Design, Landscaping, and Lighting , proposed colors would include white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing. Therefore, the Project would comply with this chapter of the Municipal Code.

Chapter 18.65: Precise Plan of Design Consistent. A Precise Plan of Design is required for any new industrial development. The Project includes a Precise Plan of Design, which addresses on-site and off -site improvements. T he Project would comply with this chapter of the Municipal Code.

Source: City of Rialto. City of Rialto Municipal Code . Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/ca/rialto/codes/code_of_ordinances .

Accessed October 23, 2024.

Conclusion
As assessed in Tables 4.10-1 through 4.10-4, the proposed Project is consistent with pertinent land use planning and policy documents, including Connect SoCal, the Rialto General Plan, the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, and the Rialto Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

City of Rialto 4.10-25
significant impact on a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts
The Project is consistent with applicable land use goals and policies. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary for individual future projects, such changes h ave been, and would be, required to demonstrate consistency with the Rialto General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the proposed Project would be consistent with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not combine with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy . Any associated physical impacts are covered in the individual topic sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County of San Bernardino, City of Rialto, and other cities in the County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development . Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts associated with plans and policies are anticipated. In addition, the contribution of the proposed Project to any such cumulative impacts would be less than significant because present and probable future projects would also be required to demonstrate consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with plan or policy inconsistency and no mitigation is required.

4.10.7 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant land use and planning impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required.

4.10.9 References
City of Rialto. 1997. Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Table 8.

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 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Mineral Resources

City of Rialto 4.11-1

4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

4.11.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies the potential for mineral resources on and near the project site and assesses the potential impacts the Project could have on those resources. Impacts are assessed based on their effects on valuable mineral resources and mineral resource recovery sites.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
United States Code Title 30: Mineral Lands and Mining
Title 30 of the United States Code discusses mineral lands and mining, covering regulations and laws related to mineral resources on federal lands, such as coal, oil, gas, and other minerals. The United States Code Title Section 30.21a defines the national mining and minerals policy of the United States. This policy dictates that the United States will encourage the development of rational domestic mining reclamation practices, the sustainable development of domestic mineral resources, mining and mineral research, and the advancement of mineral waste disposal and reclamation methods. Title 30 also describes the federal regulations involving the sale of mineral lands.1
State Regulations
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) provides regulations and policy regarding surface mining and reclamation operations in California. SMARA ensures that adverse environmental impacts are minimized, and mined lands are restored to a usab le condition. SMARA also encourages the production, conservation, and protection of California’s mineral resources. California Public Resources Code Section 2207 provides annual reporting requirements for all mines in the State, and the State Mining and Geology Board is granted authority and obligations under this section.

The State Mining and Geology Board has classified land in California based on the availability of mineral resources. Four mineral resources zone (MRZ) designations have been established for classifying sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources:
▪ MRZ-1: Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. ▪ MRZ-2: Adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence, and development should be controlled. ▪ MRZ-3: The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. ▪ MRZ-4: There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.

Under SMARA, aggregate materials are classified as reserves or resources. Reserves are defined as aggregate materials believed to be acceptable for commercial use that exist within property boundaries owned or leased by an aggregate-producing company, and for which permission allowing extraction and processing has been granted by the proper authorities. Aggregate resources include reserves and similar

1 United States of America. 1996. United States Code Title 30. Retrieved from:
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title30&edition=prelim . Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Mineral Resources

City of Rialto 4.11-2
potentially usable aggregate materials that have been granted. Mineral lands are locally reviewed to ensure that significant mineral deposits are identified and protected. The State Geologist produces an annual report of the disturbed and reclaimed land totals and any amendments to the reclamation plan.

Mineral Resources and Mineral Hazards Mapping Program
The California Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Program provides data about California's varied non -fuel mineral resources (such as metals and industrial minerals), mineral hazards (such as radon, mercury, and naturally occurring asbestos), and information about active and historic mining activities throughout the state. The Mineral Resources Program divides its efforts primarily into two areas: Mineral Resources and Mineral Hazards, the latter related to asbestos, mercury, and radon.

Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The primary role of the General Plan Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply Element is to direct the use of the City’s land resources in the most equitable and productive manner possible with the aim of providing a high quality of life for residents and the overall community. The General Plan notes that Rialto is predominately developed but some areas remain substantially undisturbed. Most undisturbed areas are in the northern portion of the City. The General Plan provides guidance regarding the City’s natural resources and their preservation, including mineral resources. 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 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.

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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Mineral Resources

City of Rialto 4.11-3
City of Rialto Municipal Code
Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76: Surface Mining and Land Reclamation. Chapter 18.76 recognizes that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well -being of the City and establishes that it is the purpose and intent of the City to ensure the continued availability of important mineral resources, while regulating surface mining operations as required by SMARA. Specifically, Section 18.76.170 addresses mineral resource areas that have been classified by the State Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology or designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as well as the preservation of surface mining operations from incompatible land uses that may impede or preclude mineral extraction or processing , to the extent possible for consistency with the General Plan.

Prior to approving a use that would otherwise be incompatible with mineral resource protection, conditions of approval may be applied to encroaching development projects to minimize potential conflicts.

4.11.3 Existing Conditions
Site Conditions
The project site has never been used for mineral extraction. Adjacent properties include light industrial uses to the north; truck storage yards, a concrete manufacturing products facility, and light industrial uses to the north and east ; Robertson’s Ready Mix concrete plant and mineral recovery site (California Mine ID #: 91-36-0146) to the south and west.

Regional Conditions
The project site is located within the San Bernardino Production-Consumption (P-C) Region according to the California Geological Survey. 2 The San Bernardino P -C Region is the largest of the seven P -C regions within the greater Los Angeles area. The San Bernardino P-C Region includes portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Aggregate resources present within this region are primarily located within existing stream channels and their respective flood plains and alluvial fans. 3 According to Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey SR206 Plate 2 and General Plan Exhibit 2.7: Mineral Resource Zones, the project site is within MRZ -2, specifically, the Lytle Creek Alluvial fan area which contains Portland cement concrete (PCC) grade aggregate (MRZ-2 PCC-1). The MRZ-2 designation applies to areas where geologic data indicate that significant Portland cement concrete -grade aggregate resources are present.

4.11.4 Methodology
The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the level of impacts related to mineral resources. This analysis considers existing government-produced data from agencies such as the federal government, State government, and the City of Rialto to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain, despite compliance with regulatory framework feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

2 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2008. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California . Accessed September 4, 2024. 3 Ibid.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Mineral Resources

City of Rialto 4.11-4

4.11.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for mineral resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to mineral resources if it would:
▪ Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the State.
▪ Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.11-1: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? or Threshold 4.11-2: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

According to Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps and as shown on General Plan Exhibit 2.7: Mineral Resource Zones , the project site is within MRZ-2, which is an area where PCC - grade aggregate resources are present (MRZ-2 PCC-1). The General Plan does not include goals or policies to protect against losses of valuable mineral resources. The goals and policies in the Managing Our Land Supply Element of the General Plan are designed to protect surrounding uses from the impacts of mining operations and to ensure that reclamation and alternative uses of mining sites are explored. Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 contains provisions to protect existing mining operations from intrusion of incompatible land uses. The Municipal Code also encourages mineral extraction in compatible areas.

These standards help to reduce impacts to valuable mineral resources by providing potential and existing mining extraction operations with regulations designed to protect the resource. While the p roject site is adjacent to the Roberston’s Ready Mix concrete plant which is an active mineral recovery site, the project site has never been used for mineral extraction. Further, according to the California Geological Survey Special Report 206, the project site is not designated as a mining sector, which means resource extraction is not planned to occur on the site.

The City’s Zoning Code contains provisions to protect existing mining operations from intrusion of incompatible land uses. Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 defines incompatible land uses as those “land uses inherently incompatible with mining and/or that r equire public or private investment in structures, land improvements, and landscaping and that may prevent mining because of the greater economic value of the land and its improvements.” Examples of incompatible land uses cited by the Municipal Code include high density residential, low density residential with high unit value, public facilities, geographically limited but impact intensive industrial, and commercial. The proposed Project would develop a building containing warehouse and office space and sur face parking, which would not be incompatible land uses.

The project site does not have land use designati ons that would allow for mineral resource extraction.

The site has a General Industrial General Plan land use designation and is zoned General Manufacturing

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Mineral Resources

City of Rialto 4.11-5
(I-GM) as set forth in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. The I-GM district allow uses including warehousing, manufacturing, and multi -tenant spaces. Resource extraction uses are not permitted. Areas in the City have a designation of Open Space to protect aggregate resources as long as mining activity is feasible. The project site is not located within an area protected by the City for mining development.

The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps (specifically, Special Report 206 Plate 2), the General Plan, and Rialto Airport Specific Plan do not identify the project site as an existing, planned, or potential mineral recovery site. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a State, regional, or locally important mineral resource recovery site . Impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact on mineral resource availability. While a mineral recovery site operates directly west of the project site, as discussed above, given existing local standards and regulations (including incompatible zoning) precluding potential mineral resource recovery expansion, Project implementation would not impact such facilities. Further, all subsequent proposed projects near the City’s existing resource recovery sites would undergo the City’s review process, which includes project compliance with Municipal Code Section 18.76 and CEQA when applicable. Therefore, the Project would not result in incremental effects to mineral resources that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Therefore, following compliance with applicable State and local regulations, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact regarding mineral resources and no mitigation is required.

4.11.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.11.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with mineral resources and no mitigation is required.

4.11.10 References
California Geological Survey ( CGS). 2008. Special Report 206: Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Accessed September 4, 2024.

California Department of Conservation. ND. Mines Online. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed September 4, 2024.

United States of America. 1996. United States Code Title 30. Retrieved from:
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title30&edition=prelim. Accessed February 6, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-1

4.12 NOISE

4.12.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR describes both construction -related and operational noise and vibration levels to on-site and surrounding land uses resulting from the Project. The analysis in the section evaluates the level of noise impacts the Project would have on the environment. Noise data and assumptions that are used for quantifying the Project’s noise impacts are included as Appendix I: Noise Modeling Data to this EIR.

4.12.2 Terminology
Sound and Environmental Noise
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound.

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).

Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. The fundamental acoustics model consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. The sound from individual local sources is superimposed on this background noise. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to huma n perception of relative loudness. Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels provides typical noise levels.

Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of com munity noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of Leq that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. While L eq represents the continuous sound pressure level over a given period, the day -night noise level (Ldn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined in Table 4.12-2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-2
Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities – 110 – Rock Band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
– 100 –
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
– 90 –
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet – 80 – Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet – 70 – Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet – 60 –
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime – 50 – Dishwasher in next room

Quiet urban nighttime – 40 – Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime
– 30 – Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) – 20 –
Broadcast/recording studio
– 10 –

Lowest threshold of human hearing – 0 – Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol , September 2013.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-3
Table 4.12-2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in µPa (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascals is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expresse d in dB as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 µPa). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound Level
(dBA)
The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
Minimum Noise Level (Lmin)
The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period.

Exceeded Noise Levels
(L01, L10, L50, L90)
The dBA values that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 -hour L eq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL)
A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the sound’s average character (L eq) or the variations’ statistical behavior must be utilized. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The predicted models’

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-4
accuracy depends on various factors, such as the distance between the noise receptor and noise source, the character of the ground surface (e.g., hard or soft), and the presence or absence of structures (e.g., walls or buildings) or topography, and how well model inputs reflect these conditions.

A-Weighted Decibels
The perceived loudness of sound is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by d BA values. There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. 1 When the standard logarithmic dB is A -weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness.2 For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one sour ce under the same conditions. 3 Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dBA.4 Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern ), and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source.5 Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristi cs.6 No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground -attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed in this EIR analysis.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the noise receptor and noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise levels by 5 to 15 dBA. 7 The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior -to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual

1 California Department of Transportation. September 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol . 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Federal Highway Administration. April 2006. Highway Traffic and Construction Noise - Problem and Response.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-5
physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well -being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, spe ech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24 -hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.8 Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. 9 Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate -level noise environments are urban residential or semi - commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environment s adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted.10 ▪ Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
▪ Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. ▪ A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial. ▪ A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long -term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The L dn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise

8 Compiled from James P. Cowan . 1979. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994, and Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control 9 Compiled from James P. Cowan . 1979. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994 and Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control. 10 Compiled from California Department of Transportation . 2017. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol , September 2013, and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-6
and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance.11
Groundborne Vibration
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man -made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave and is expressed in terms of inches -per- second (in/sec). The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is expressed in terms of velocity decibels (VdB). The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 4.12-3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those list ed, depending on the level of activity or the individual’s sensitivity. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rat tling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibr ation approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth-moving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of in/sec is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

11 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise . August 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-7
Table 4.12-3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations
Maximum
PPV (in/sec)
Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria FTA Vibration Damage Criteria

0.008 --
Extremely fragile historic
buildings, ruins, ancient
monuments
--

0.01 Barely Perceptible -- --

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible -- --

0.10 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings --

0.12 -- -- Buildings extremely susceptible to
vibration damage

0.2 -- -- Non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings

0.25 -- Historic and some old buildings --

0.3 -- Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe -- --

0.5 --
New residential structures,
Modern industrial/commercial
buildings
Reinforced-concrete, steel or
timber (no plaster)
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual and Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual .

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
To limit population exposure to physically or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the Federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Guidance The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report to provide guidance on procedures for assessing impacts at different stages of transit Project development. The report covers both construction and operational noise impacts and describes a range of measures for controlling excessive noise and vibration. In general, the primary concern regarding vibration relates to potential damage from construction. The guidance document establishes criteria for evaluating the potential for damage for various structural categories from vibration.

State Regulations
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-8
General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories, Appendix D . 12 The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single -family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL.

Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acc eptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, hotel rooms, or hospitals, are located near major transpo rtation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings and habitable rooms (including hotels), the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The General Plan specifies exterior noise guidelines for land uses in Chapter 5, Safety and Noise Element.

The City requires that new developments be designed to meet these guidelines.13 Noise compatibility can be achieved by avoiding the location of conflicting land uses adjacent to one another, incorporating buffers and noise control techniques including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building construction techniques. Selection of the appropriate noise control technique would vary depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as well as the location and intended land use.

General Plan policies that directly address reducing and avoiding noise or vibration impacts include the following:

Goal 5-12 Minimize the impact of point source and ambient noise levels throughout the community.

Policy 5-12.2 Consider noise impacts as part of the development review process, particularly the location of parking, ingress/egress/loading, and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 5–12.3 Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals, and other noise sensitive areas in accordance with the Municipal Code and noise standards contained in Exhibit 5-5.

Goal 5-13 Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise.

12 Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. General Plan Guidelines – Appendix D, Noise Element Guidelines . Retrieved from:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf . Accessed August 8, 2024. 13 City of Rialto, Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024, Chapter 5: Safety and Noise, Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4458/2023 -Safety-Element?bidId=. Accessed August 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-9
Policy 5-13.3 Require development of truck-intensive uses to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses through appropriate site design.

The City of Rialto is largely built out and the street system is well established, creating challenges for separating noise-sensitive land uses from primary noise sources. Therefore, the Safety and Noise chapter of the General Plan establishes policies guarding against new noise or land use conflicts to minimize the impact of existing noise sources on the community. Table 4.12-4: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning presents the City’s exterior noise guidelines for land use planning. It should also be noted that the Safety and Noise chapter of the General Plan mentions sound levels exceeding 40 to 45 dBA are generally considered to cause sleep interference within a residence. The General Plan also references Title 24 of the California Health and Safety Code stipulating a maximum of 45 dBA for interior residential noise levels.

Table 4.12-4: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
R2 ‐ Residential 2, R6 ‐ Residential 6 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85 R12 ‐ Residential 12 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85
R21 ‐ Residential 21, R45 ‐ Residential 45 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed‐Use 50 – 60 60 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 CC ‐ Community Commercial 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 GC ‐ General Commercial 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 BP ‐ Business Park, O ‐ Office 50 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 LI ‐ Light Industrial 50 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85
GI ‐ General Industrial 50 – 75 75 – 85 NA NA
P ‐ Public Facility, P ‐ School Facility 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 85 OSRC - Open Space ‐ Recreation 50 – 75 NA 75 – 80 80 – 85 OSRS ‐ Open Space ‐ Resources 50 – 75 NA 75 – 80 80 – 85 NA = Not Applicable; dBA = Decibel
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, assuming buildings are of conventional construction.

Conditionally Acceptable – New development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements are made.

Normally Unacceptable – New development should be discouraged, or a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements mus t be made.

Clearly Unacceptable – New development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Rialto. 2024. Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024 Chapter 5: Safety and Noise.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-10
City of Rialto Municipal Code
A noise ordinance is intended to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from stationary, non-transportation noise sources. Noise ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks traveling on public roadway s. Federal and State laws preempt control of mobile noise sources on public roads. Noise ordinance standards generally apply to industrial and commercial noise sources, as well as parks and schools affecting residential areas. The Municipal Code prohibits the production of excessive noise and is applied to future development within the City to determine potential noise impacts.

The City also identifies permitted hours for disturbances specifically from construction activity under Municipal Code Section 9.50.070. This code states that no person shall be engaged in any type of work relating to construction, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolitio n, or improvement to any building or structure except within the hours provided in Table 4.12-5: Permitted Hours of Construction Work. However, Section 9.50.060 of the Municipal Code indicates exclusions from the provisions of this specific chapter of the Municipal Code. As described in Section 9.50.060(L) of the Municipal Code, n oise sources associated with construction, repair, or excavation, are exempt so long as there is a valid written agreement with the City or any of its political subdivisions that provides for noise mitigation measures.

Table 4.12-5: Permitted Hours of Construction Work
Days of Week Time1,2
October 1 through April 30
Monday – Friday 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Sunday No Permissible Hours
State Holidays No Permissible Hours
May 1 through September 30
Monday – Friday 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Sunday No Permissible Hours
State Holidays No Permissible Hours
Notes:

For purposes of this section, the following exceptions shall apply:
1 Emergency repair of existing installations, equipment, or appliances; and 2 Such work that complies with the terms and conditions of a written early work permit issued by the city manager or his or her designee upon a showing of a sufficient need and justification for the permit due to hot or inclement weather, the use of an unus ually long process material, or other circumstances of an unusual and compelling nature.

Source: City of Rialto, Code of Ordinances, Section 9.50.070.

The Project would be subject to the limitations imposed by the City regarding construction noise as identified in Table 4.11-5. The following section of the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance is relevant for operational noise.

9.50.050 Controlled hours of operation
It is unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM in all zones.

A. Operate or permit the use of powered model vehicles and planes;

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-11
B. Load or unload any vehicle, or operate or permit the use of dollies, carts, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any impulsive sound, raucous or unnecessary noise within one thousand feet of a residence; C. Operate or permit the use of domestic power tools, or machinery or any other equipment or tool in any garage, workshop, house or any other structure; D. Operate or permit the use of gasoline or electric powered leaf blowers, such as commonly used by gardeners and other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters and other property;
E. Operate or permit the use of privately operated street/parking lot sweepers or vacuums, except that emergency work and/or work necessitated by unusual conditions may be performed with the written consent of the city manager;
F. Operate or permit the use of pile driver, steam or gasoline shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other similar devices; G. Operate or permit the use of electrically operated compressor, fan, and other similar devices;
H. Perform ground maintenance on golf course grounds and tennis courts contiguous to golf courses that creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line;
I. Operate or permit the use of any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of ten thousand pounds, or of any auxiliary equipment attached to such a vehicle, including but not limited to refrigerated truck compressors, for a period longer than fifteen minutes in any hour while the vehicle is stationary and on a public right-of-way or public space except when movement of the vehicle is restricted by other traffic; J. Repair, rebuild, reconstruct or dismantle any motor vehicle or other mechanical equipment or devices in a manner so as to be plainly audible across property lines.”
Additionally, Section 9.50.060(O) of the Municipal Code states that sounds generated in commercial and industrial zones that are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein are exempt from the Controlled Hours of Operation.

4.12.4 Existing Conditions
Existing Noise Levels
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise. The existing mobile noise sources in the Project area are generated by motor vehicles traveling on North Locust Avenue, West Lowell Street, and Lake Padden Lane. The primary sources of stationary noise in the vicinity are those associated with the industrial uses to the north, south, east, and west. Industrial stationary noise sources may include mechanical equipment (use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, etc.) and parking lot activities (cars parking, open and

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-12
closing doors, etc.). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single -event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

Mobile Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project area using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes; refer to Appendix J. The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA mo del have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is

0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. 14 The average daily noise levels along roadway segments near the project site are identified in Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Existing traffic-generated noise level on roadways near the project site range from 63.0 dBA CNEL15 to 64.5 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the centerline.

Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
dBA CNEL 100 Feet from
Roadway Centerline
Locust Avenue, between Lowell Street to Persimmon Avenue 9,780 68.9 Casmalia Street, between Locust Avenue to Laurel Avenue 10,393 70.5 Riverside Avenue, between Alder Avenue to Locust Avenue 14,807 68.3 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Sources: Based on traffic data within Appendix J; see Appendix I for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

Noise Measurements
To quantify ambient noise levels in the area, five short -term noise measurements were taken on July 25, 2024. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure surrounding the project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 9:32 AM and 11:09 PM near potential sensitive receptors. Short -term L eq measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements.

Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) Time
1 2279 E. Fairview Drive 49.9 34.3 68.0 9:51 AM
2 1767 W. Carpenter Street 50.2 40.5 62.4 10:10 AM
3 Corner of Buxton Street and N. Maple Avenue 56.2 37.2 73.1 10:25 AM 4 South of the project site on W. Stonehurst Drive 64.5 45.8 85.4 10:59 AM 5 Northwest corner of Summit Avenue and Alder
Avenue 65.6 63.7 76.1 9:32 AM
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley -Horn, July 25, 2024. See Appendix J for noise measurement results.

14 California Department of Transportation . 1987. California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels . 15 CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-13
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilit ies, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses to the east and southeast. Sens itive land uses nearest to the project site are shown in Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptors.

Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from Project Site1 Description Single-Family Residences 700 feet to the east Along Carpenter Street Single-Family Residences 700 feet to the southeast Along Persimmon Avenue Wilmer Amina Carter High
School 1,745 feet to the southeast Along Maple Avenue
Alec Ferguson Park 2,240 feet to the northwest Along Casa Grande Drive Kucera Middle School 3,340 feet to the north Along Buena Vista Drive Single-Family Residences 2,060 feet to the north Along Casa Grande Drive

1. Distance measured from the project site boundary line to the property line of the sensitive receptor.

Source: Google Earth, 2024.

4.12.5 Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the FTA and the FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA L eq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level s from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.

Construction noise modeling was conducting using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). When calculating construction noise, the equipment was assumed to operate at staggered locations throughout the project site. This methodology accounts for e quipment operating at different locations within the project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. 16 The distance used in the RCNM model are provided in Appendix I. The City does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.

Operational Noise
The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise l evels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a

16 Federal Transit Administration . September 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-14
worst-case noise environment as noise levels from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan.

An analysis was conducted of the Project’s effect on traffic noise conditions at off-site land uses. Without Project traffic noise levels were compared to With Project traffic noise levels. The environmental baseline is the Without Project condition. The W ithout Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project site were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).

The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst -case representation of the roadway noise. In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable.

Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with Project construction-related activities were evaluated using typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential ground -borne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existin g operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria.

For a structure built traditionally, without assistance from qualified engineers, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage.

FTA guidelines show that modern engineered buildings built with reinforced-concrete, steel or timber can withstand vibration levels up to 0.50 in/sec and not experience vibration damage. The Caltrans 2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies a human annoyance vibra tion criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV (which is considered severe by people subjected to continuous vibrations). As the nearest structure to the project site is an industrial building, this analysis uses the 0.50 in/sec structural damage criterion and 0.40 in/sec PPV human annoyance criterion.

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.

4.12.6 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for noise impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to noise if it would:
▪ Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
▪ Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

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:

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-15
▪ For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips or airports loc ated immediately adjacent to or near the project site. The closest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, which is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not subject to an airport land use plan. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport or airstrip - related noise levels.

Construction Noise Thresholds
The City does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Therefore, this analysis uses the following construction noise thresholds:
▪ The FTA’s construction noise threshold17 of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8- hour Leq) for non-residential uses; or
▪ Increase in existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use.

Per Caltrans and FHWA, a change in noise levels of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. 18 An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial.

Existing ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.12-7.

Additionally, the following thresholds of significance are set forth in the Rialto Code of Ordinances, which states that a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if construction activities occur outside the following hours:
▪ October 1 through April 30 - 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays; and May 1 through September 30 - 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and State holidays.

Operational Noise
Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards set in the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan.

Vibration
The City does not have a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts. Therefore, this analysis uses the FTA and Caltrans structural damage criterion of 0.50 in/sec PPV for industrial buildings and the human annoyance criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV.

17 Federal Transit Administration. September 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, page 179. 18 Compiled from California Department of Transportation . 2017. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol , September 2013, and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-16

4.12.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.12-1: Would the Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM NOI-1.

Construction
On-Site Construction Noise. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and port able generators, can reach high levels. The nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 700 feet to the east and southeast of the project site.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating, and infrastructure improvement. Such activities would require dozers, excavators, and concrete saws during demolition; gr aders, dozers, excavators, scrapers and tractors during site preparation and grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; air compressors during architectur al coating; and excavators, pavers, dozers, and rollers during infrastructure improvements. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.12-9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels.

As previously mentioned, the Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal Code) does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Therefore, this analysis uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts, as well as a review of any increase in ambient noise at nearby sensitive uses (i.e., residential use) by applying an ambient noise level increase threshold of 5 dBA.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-17
Table 4.12-9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet
from Source
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
1 Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA 2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA 1 = reference noise level; d 1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Federal Transit Administration. September 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual .

The noise levels identified in Table 4.1 2-10: Project Construction Noise Levels , show estimated unmitigated and mitigated exterior construction noise without accounting for attenuation from existing physical barriers. The nearest noise -sensitive receptors are the residential uses located 700 feet to the east and 700 feet to the southeast of the project site. Additionally, the nearest non -noise sensitive use (i.e., industrial use) is located adjacent to the project site. As shown in the table, , unmitigated exterior construction noise levels could reach 87.5 dBA at the nearest non-noise sensitive use (i.e., industrial use) to the project site. Therefore, unmitigated exterior construction noise levels at the nearest non -noise sensitive use would not exceed the FTA’s 90 dBA Leq threshold.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-18
Table 4.12-10: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction
Phase Land Use Direction
Unmitigated
Modeled
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)1
Mitigated
Modeled
Exterior
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)2
Ambient
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)3
FTA Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Does
Mitigated
Noise Level
Exceed
Either
Threshold?
Demolition
Residential East 60.6 50.6 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 60.7 50.7 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 71.2 61.2 NA 90 No
Site
Preparation
Residential East 59.7 49.7 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 59.9 49.9 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 84.6 74.6 NA 90 No
Grading
Residential East 64.4 54.4 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 64.6 54.6 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 87.5 77.5 NA 90 No
Building
Construction
Residential East 62.6 52.6 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 62.8 52.8 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 87.4 77.4 NA 90 No
Paving
Residential East 60.5 50.5 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 60.6 50.6 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 86.7 76.7 NA 90 No
Architectural
Coating
Residential East 50.8 40.8 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 50.8 40.8 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 78.2 68.2 NA 90 No
Infrastructure
Improvements
Residential East 56.1 46.1 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 56.2 46.2 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 82.4 72.4 NA 90 No
Overlapping Phases
Paving +
Architectural
Coating
Residential East 61.0 51.0 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 61.1 51.1 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 87.2 77.2 NA 90 No
Architectural
Coating +
Infrastructure
Improvements
Residential East 57.2 47.2 55.2 80 No
Residential Southeast 57.3 47.3 61.2 80 No
Industrial Southeast 83.8 73.8 NA 90 No
NA = Not Applicable

1. Equipment was assumed to operate throughout the project site at staggered distances near the property line. The distances use d in the RCNM model can be seen in Appendix I.

2. Mitigated noise levels include implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI -1 to reduce construction noise levels. MM NOI -1 would require the proper maintenance of construction equipment and the installation of noise shielding/muffling devices.

3. The ambient noise threshold represents a 5 d BA increase in existing ambient exterior noise levels at a noise sensitive use. Existing ambient noise levels are show in Table 4.12-7. Noise Measurement Site 2 (50.2 dBA Leq) is representative of the residential receptor s to the east and Noise Measurement Site 3 (56.2 dBA Leq) is representative of the residential receptor s to the southeast. With the 5 dBA increase applied, the ambient noise threshold is 55.2 dBA L eq at the residential receptors to the east and 61.2 dBA L eq at the residential receptors to the southeast.

The ambient noise threshold does not apply to non -noise sensitive uses.

Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Emissions Model; refer to Appendix I, Noise Data.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-19
Additionally, unmitigated exterior construction noise levels would range from 50.8 dBA to 64.6 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive uses (i.e., residential uses) to the project site and the FTA’s 80 dBA L eq threshold would not be exceeded ( Table 4.12-10). However, unmitigated construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses would exceed the ambient noise threshold during all phases of construction, with the exception of the architectural coating phase. Therefore, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI-1 to reduce construction noise levels. MM NOI -1 would require the proper maintenance of construction equipment and the installation of noise shielding/muffling devices. The FHWA states that muffler systems can reduce noise levels by 10 dBA or more.19 As identified in the table, mitigated exterior construction noise levels at noise sensitive uses would not exceed the ambient noise thresholds.

It should be noted that construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Although some sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction, heavy construction equipment would be in motion and construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site (i.e., not concentrated in one area near sensitive uses). The City has set restrictions on construction hours to control noise impacts from construction activities. Municipal Code Section 9.50.070 states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays from October 1 through April 30 and shall only occur between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays from May 1 through September 30.

The Project would be required to comply with the allowable hours of construction set in the Municipal Code. As discussed above, Project construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA or ambient noise thresholds with implementation of MM NOI-1 and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing and future sensitive receptors include the following:
▪ Mechanical equipment
▪ Truck and loading dock noise
▪ Back-up alarms
▪ Parking areas
▪ Off-site traffic noise
As discussed previously, Section 9.50.050 of the Municipal Code identifies activities that are unlawful to engage in between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM. This includes the loading or unloading any vehicle, or operate or permit the use of dollies, cart s, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any impulsive sound, raucous or unnecessary noise within one thousand feet of a residence. However, Municipal Code Section 9.50.060 notes that sounds generated in commercial and industrial zones that are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein are exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code Chapter 9.50 (Noise Control) including Section 9.5.050 (Controlled Hours of Operation).

Additionally, all loading and unloading activities, including the operation of dollies, carts, and forklifts, would occur within the warehouse buildings while trucks are docked. Loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would

19 Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , Chapter 4 Mitigation.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-20
serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day.

Mechanical Equipment. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operations would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 fe et.20 HVAC units would be installed on the roof of the proposed warehouse building. The nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the east) would be located as close as 2,125 feet from the HVAC equipment at the project site. At this distance mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to approximately 19.4 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. 21 Additionally, industrial uses would be located approximately 115 feet southeast from the warehouse building and the mechanical equipment. At this distance, mechanical equipment noise levels would be approximately 44.8 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for general industrial land uses . Further, intervening structures are located between the proposed warehouse structure and the receptors to the east, which would further attenuate HVAC noise levels. Therefore, noise levels associated with mechanical equipment would not exceed the City’s noise standards and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Loading or unloading activities would occur on the eastern side of the project site next to the warehouse building.

Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. 22 The closest sensitive receptors would be the single -family residences located approximately 1,880 feet east of the nearest proposed loading areas. At this distance, heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be 38.5 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA).

Heavy truck operations would not increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. 23 Additionally, industrial uses would be located approximately 200 feet southeast from the proposed loading areas. At this distance, heavy truck and loading dock noise levels would be approximately 58.0 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for general industrial land uses.

Heavy truck and loading dock noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors would be further attenuated by intervening structures. Additionally, loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar i mprovements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with trucks and loading or

20 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values , 2010. 21 Ambient noise levels at the nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the east) is 50.2 dBA; refer to Nois e Measurement Site 2 in Table 4.12 -7. See Appendix I for calculations showing the Project’s operational noise level difference from ambient daytime/nighttime noise levels.
22 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden . 2015. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values . 23 Ambient noise levels at the nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the southeast) is 56.2 dBA; refer to Noise Measurement Site 3 in Table 4.12 -7. See Appendix I for calculations showing the Project’s operational noise level difference from ambient daytime/nighttime noise levels.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-21
unloading activities would not exceed the City’s noise standards and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Back-Up Alarms. Medium and heady-duty trucks reversing into loading docks would produce noise from back-up alarms (also known as back-up beepers). Back-up alarms produce a typical volume of 97 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) from the source. 24 As mentioned above, the closest sensitive receptors would be the single-family residences located approximately 1,880 feet east of the loading dock areas where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering. At this distance, exterior noise levels from back-up alarms would be approximately 41.8 dBA, which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Back-up alarms would not increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. 25 Additionally, industrial uses would be located approximately 200 feet southeast from the proposed loading areas where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering. At this distance, back-up alarm noise levels would be approximately 61.3 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for general industrial land uses . Therefore, noise levels associated with back -up alarms would not exceed the City’s noise standards and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Parking Noise. The proposed Project would provide 365 passenger vehicle surface parking spaces and 398 truck trailer parking s talls; see Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan . The Project would generate up to 200 trips during the peak hour. For the purpose of providing a conservative, quantitative estimate of the noise levels that would be generated from the vehicles entering and exiting the parking lots, the methodology recommended by FTA for the general assessment of stationary transit noise sources is used. Using the methodology, the Project’s peak hourly noise level that would be generated by the on-site parking levels was estimated using the following FTA equation for a parking lot:

Leq(h) = SELref + 10 log (NA/1,000) – 35.6
Where:

Leq(h) = hourly Leq noise level at 50 feet
SELref = reference noise level for stationary noise source represented in sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet
NA = number of automobiles per hour

35.6 is a constant in the formula, calculated as 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour
Using FTA’s reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL 26 at 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 49.4 dBA L eq at 50 feet from the parking lot. Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lots on the project site. It is also noted that parking lot noise occurs at the surrounding industrial uses under existing conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by background noise from traffic along surrounding roadways. The closest sensitive receptors would be the single-family residences located approximately 710 feet east of the nearest parking area and east of Locust Avenue. At

24 Environmental Health Perspectives. 2024. Vehicle Motion Alarms: Necessity, Noise Pollution, or Both? , Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018517/ . Accessed August 8, 2024. 25 Ambient noise levels at the nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the southeast) is 56.2 dBA; refer to Noise Measurement Site 3 in Table 4.12 -7. See Appendix I for calculations showing the Project’s operational noise level difference from ambient daytime/nighttime noise levels.
26 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-22
this distance, parking lot noise levels would be approximately 26.4 dBA, which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential exterior noise standard (60 dBA). Parking lot activities would not increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors.27 Additionally, industrial uses would be located approximately 30 feet southeast from the parking areas. At this distance, parking lot noise levels would be approximately 53.8 dBA, which is well below the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard (75 dBA) for general industrial land uses. Noise associated with parking lot activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would not exceed the City’s noise standards and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise. Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. The Project would result in approximately 1,138 daily vehicle trips. In general, traffic noise level increases of less than 3 -dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. 28 Generally, traffic volumes on area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.

The Opening Year “Opening Year With Project” and “Opening Year Without Project” scenarios are compared in Table 4.12-11: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels. As shown in the table, roadway noise levels would range from 68.5 dBA CNEL to 70.7 dBA CNEL without the Project and between 69.1 dBA CNEL and

71.5 dBA CNEL with the Project. The “With Project” noise levels would result in a maximum increase of

1.2 dBA CNEL along North Locust Avenue (between Lowell Street to Persimmon Avenue). No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.12-11: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
Without Project
Opening Year With
Project
Change
Significant
Impact3 ADT
dBA
CNEL1 ADT
dBA
CNEL1
Locust Avenue, between Lowell Street and
Persimmon Avenue 10,200 69.1 11,694 70.3 1.2 No
Casmalia Street, between Locust Avenue and
Laurel Avenue 10,800 70.7 11,878 71.5 0.8 No
Riverside Avenue, between Alder Avenue and
Locust Avenue 15,400 68.5 15,680 69.1 0.6 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.

Notes:

1. Traffic noise levels are 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependen t upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

2. The lowest Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise standard for developed uses along each roadway segment is cons ervatively used to analyze impacts.

3. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 3 dBA and the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility standard is exceeded (i.e., both must occur).

Source: Based on traffic data from Appendix I; see Appendix I for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

27 Ambient noise levels at the nearest residential sensitive receptors (residential uses to the east) is 50.2 dBA; refer to Nois e Measurement Site 2 in Table 4.12 -7. See Appendix I for calculations showing the Project’s operational noise level difference from ambient daytime/nighttime noise levels.
28 California Department of Transportation . 2013. Technical Noise Supplemental to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-23

Once operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short -term construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the criterion of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The City does not provide numerical vibration standards for construction activities. As the nearest str ucture is a warehouse building (i.e., Radial) located approximately 40 feet east from the Project’s southeastern property line, this impact discussion uses the FTA and Caltrans structural damage criterion of 0.50 in/sec PPV for industrial buildings and the human annoyance criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV.

Table 4.12-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists vibration levels at 25 feet and 40 feet for typical construction equipment. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used dur ing Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.

Table 4.12-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 40 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.044
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.044
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.038
Jackhammer 0.035 0.017
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.002
Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7 -4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , 2018.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: Federal Transit Administration . 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

As shown in Table 4.12-12, at 40 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would range from 0.002 to 0.044 in/sec PPV from the source of activity, which is below the FTA’s 0.50 PPV criterion for industrial buildings and the human annoyance criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV. It can reasonably be assumed that at any further distance, the vibration levels would attenuate further. It is also acknowledged that Threshold 4.12-2: Would the Project expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-24
construction activities would occur throughout the p roject site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.12.8 Cumulative Impacts
Construction-related noise is a localized activity and would only affect land uses that are immediately adjacent to the construction areas due to the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source.

Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Cumulative noise impacts involve development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other related development projects. As noise levels decrease as distance from the source increases, only projects in the nearby area could combine with the proposed Project to potentially result in cumulative noise impacts.

Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project wo uld contribute to other proximate construction project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant followi ng the City of Rialto Municipal Code.

Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impac ts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of the project-generated traffic on local roadways in combination with cumulative projects in the vicinity. However, noise from generators and other stationary sources could also generate cumulative noise levels.

Cumulative Stationary Noise. As discussed above, impacts from the Project’s operational stationary noise would be less than significant. Due to site distance, intervening land uses, and the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. No known past, present, or reasonably forese eable projects would compound or increase the operational noise levels generated by the Project. Therefore, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-25
Cumulative Off -Site Traffic Noise . The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two -step process. First, the combined effects from both the Project and other projects are compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the Project’s incremental effects are then analyzed. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold .

The combined effect compares the “Cumulative With Project” condition to “Existing ” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated by the Project combined with the traffic noise increase generated by cumulative projects.

The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase. ▪ Combined Effect . The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.

Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the Project in combination with identified cumulative projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the Project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase. ▪ Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and gr owth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.1 2-13: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, and net cumulative impacts.

Table 4.12-13: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
CNEL @ 100 feet from the
Centerline
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact? Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA Difference:

Existing and
Cumulative With
Project
dBA Difference:

Cumulative
Without and
With Project
Locust Avenue,
between Lowell Street
and Persimmon Avenue

68.9 69.5 70.7 1.8 1.2 No
Casmalia St, between
Locust Avenue and
Laurel Avenue

70.5 71.3 72.0 1.5 0.8 No
Riverside Avenue,
between Alder Avenue
and Locust Avenue

68.3 68.5 69.1 0.8 0.6 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level;

1. Traffic noise levels are 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on traffic data from Appendix J; see Appendix I for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-26
First, it must be determined whether the “Cumulative With Project” 3.0 dB increase above existing conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Next, under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the forecast ambient (“Cumulative Without Project”) noise level is increased by 1.0 dB or more. As shown in Table 4.12-13, the Incremental Effects criterion (1.0 dB) is exceeded along Locust Avenue (between Lowell Street to Persimmon Avenue); however, the Combined Effects criterion (3.0 dB) is not exceeded. Therefore, the Project would not exceed both the combined and incremental effects criteria along any of the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the Project, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

The Project’s contribution to traffic noise would not be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required.

4.12.9 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1: Noise Shielding and Muffling. Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and muffling devices consistent with manufacturers’ standards or the Best Available Control Technology, which achieve a noise reduction of 10 dBA or greater . All equipment shall be properly maintained, and the Applicant or Owner shall require any construction contractor to keep documentation on site during any earthwork or construction activities demons trating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

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

4.12.11 References
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2017. General Plan Guidelines – Appendix D, Noise Element Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf.

Accessed August 8, 2024.

City of Rialto. Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024, Chapter 5. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4458/2023-Safety-Element?bidId=. Accessed August 8, 2024.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the Proposed Locust Gateway Logistics Center in the City of Rialto; refer to Appendix J.

California Department of Transportation. 1987. California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels.

Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Emissions Model.

Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2010. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

City of Rialto 4.12-27
Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2015. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values.

Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004. Vehicle Motion Alarms: Necessity, Noise Pollution, or Both?, Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018517/. Accessed August 8, 2024.

Federal Highway Administration . 2017. Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, Chapter 4 Mitigation.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-1

4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.13.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR provides contextual background information on potential impacts on population growth and housing (either directly or indirectly) resulting from Project implementation in the City of Rialto (City). The analysis is based on data in the City’s General Plan and data available from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
The Housing Element is one of the General Plan elements that are mandated by the State of California (California Government Code §§ 65580 to 65589.8). California State law requires that the Housing Element provides “an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled program s for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code § 65580).

State law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and forecasted housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs.

Regional and Local Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a Joint Powers Agency established under Sections 6502 et seq. of the California Government Code.

SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county region of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, and Imperial counties. The region encompasses a population exceeding 19 million persons in an area comprised of more than 38,000 square miles. As the designated MPO, SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local governments. Rialto is a member of the SCAG Regional Council District 8.

SCAG’s demographic data is developed to enable the proper planning of infrastructure and facilities to adequately meet the needs of anticipated growth in the region. In April 2024, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024, its 2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2024 RTP/SCS). The 2024 RTP/SCS plan base year is 2019 and the horizon year is 2050. Major themes in the 2024 RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use and transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure; increase capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices; leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce, economic growth and opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmental protection and economic opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice into the plan.

Growth forecasts contained in the 2024 RTP/SCS for the County of San Bernardino County and the City are used as the basis of analysis for housing, population, and employment forecasts.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-2
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is an assessment process performed periodically as part of General Plan Housing Element updates at the local level. The RHNA process begins with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s projection of future statewide housing growth need, and the apportionment of this need to regional COGs throughout the State. SCAG is the COG responsible for developing “fair share” allocation methodology to distribute the region’s assigned share of statewide need to cities and counties in the region.1 California Government Code Section 65583 sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs (its RHNA allocation) at all income levels. Regional growth needs are defined as the number of units that would have to be added in each jurisdiction to accommodate the forecasted number of households, as well as the number of units that need to be added to compensate for anticipated demolitions and changes to achieve an ideal vacancy rate. SCAG defines a “household” as an occupied dwelling unit.

The RHNA 6th Cycle planning period is 2021-2029. The housing construction need is determined for four broad household income categories: very low (households making less than 50% of area median income), low (50 to 80 % of area median income), moderate (80 to 120 % of area median income), and above moderate (more than 120% of area median income). The intent of the future needs allocation by income groups is to relieve the undue concentrations of very low-income and low-income households in a single jurisdiction and to help allocate resources in a fair and equitable manner. 1 For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City is required to meet the RHNA number of 8,272 housing units. 2 The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted by the City on March 11, 2022.

Rialto General Plan
The City’s General Plan is a long -range planning document that puts forward a path for realizing the community’s vision through specific goals and policies. The General Plan includes the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element which provides goals and policies specifically associated with housing. The General Plan provides a framework for action and direction for the physical development of the City until 2040. The following housing goals are identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Goal 1 Maintain and improve the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods in Rialto.

Goal 2 Promote and encourage housing development that adequately meets the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community and region.

Goal 3 Maximize the use of available financial resources and pursue creative and resourceful methods to reduce the overall cost of housing.

Goal 4 Alleviate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.

1 Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. Southern California COG Final Regional Housing Need Assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community -development/housing- element/docs/Southern_California_Association_of_Governments_Regional_Housing_Need_Determination_for_the_Sixth_Housing_ Element_Update_1.pdf. Accessed on April 23, 2024.
2 Southern California Association of Governments. 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-proposed-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1614911196. Accessed April 22, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-3
Goal 5 Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.

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 accomm odate 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 population growth or housing.

4.13.3 Existing Conditions
Existing Regional and Local Population
Table 4.13-1: City and County Population Projections identifies the increase of population growth in the County and City for 2019 (i.e., 2024 RTP/SCS base plan year), 2024, and 2050 (i.e., 2024 RTP/SCS horizon year). According to the DOF and SCAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS, the County has a population of approximately 2,181,433 residents. The City has a population of approximately 103,097 residents.

Table 4.13-1: County and City Population Projections
Location
2019
Population1
2024
Population2
2050
Population1
Projected
population
increase
(2019 to 2050)
% Change
(2019 to 2050)
San Bernardino County 2,175,000 2,181,433 2,623,000 448,000 21% City of Rialto 103,700 103,097 100,7363 -2,964 -3%
Sources:

1. Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS 2024: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed September 17, 2024. City projected 2050 population estimate derived using the San Bernardino County -level persons per household ratio (i.e., 2.75 persons per household) and applying it to the City’s projected 2050 households (i.e., 36,600 units).

2. State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2020- 2024. Retrieved from: Demographics | Department of Finance . Accessed September 17, 2024. City projected 2050 population estimate derived using the San Bernardino C ounty-level persons per household ratio (i.e., 2.75 persons per household) and applying it to the City’s projected 2050 households (i.e., 36,600 units) .

Existing Regional and Local Housing
Table 4.13 -2: County and City Housing Data identifies the total housing units (Total/Occupied) plus vacancy rate and person s per household in the County and City for 2019 (i.e., 2024 RTP/SCS base plan year) and 2024 using DOF estimates. According to the DOF data, both the County and City have seen an increase in total and occupied housing units and a decrease in population household numbers. However, while the County has seen an increase in vacancy rate, the City has seen a decrease from 2019 to 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-4
Table 4.13-2: County and City Housing Data
Location
Total Units Occupied Units Vacancy Rate
Persons/
Household
20191 20242 20191 20242 20191 20242 20191 20242
San Bernardino
County 723,783 753,826 642,806 688,088 9.1% 11.2% 3.31 3.12 City of Rialto 27,553 28,523 25,749 27,863 6.6% 2.3% 3.97 3.68 Sources:

1. State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 -2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Retrieved from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -e5-2010-2020/. Accessed September 17, 2024.

City of Rialto
SCAG determines total housing needs for each community in Southern California based on three general factors: (1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future population and employment growth; (2) the number of additional units needed to allow for housing vacancies; and (3) the number of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income units needed in the community. Additional factors used to determine the RHNA include tenure, the average rate of units needed to replace housing units demolished, and other factors . Based on DOF da ta (202 4), the City ha s 28,523 housing units with an average of 3.68 persons per household. The vacancy rate is 2.3 percent (see Table 4.13-2). There is no existing residential development on the project site.

Existing Regional and Local Employment
Table 4.13-3: County and City Labor Force Data identifies the total labor force and employment and unemployment rates for the County and City for in the County and City for 2019 (i.e., 2024 RTP/SCS base plan year) and 2023 using DOF estimates. Because COVID-19 resulted in decreased employment for both the County and City, statistical information for 2020 was not used. Additionally, DOF 2024 annual average estimates are not available , therefore DOF 2023 annual average estimates are used in this analysis .

According to the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), between 201 9 and 2023, the labor force and the number of employed persons decreased in both the County and City.

Table 4.13-3: County and City Labor Force Data
Location
Labor Force Employment Unemployment Employment
Change 20191 20232 20191 20232 20191 20232
San Bernardino
County 965,400 1,013,700 928,100 966,500 37,400 47,200 -4.1% City of Rialto 44,700 46,900 42,600 44,500 2,000 2,400 -4.5% Sources:

1. State of California, Employment Development Department . Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2019 – Revised. Retrieved from: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and- census-areas.html. Accessed September 17, 2024.

2. State of California, Employment Development Department . Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2023 – Revised. Retrieved from: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and- census-areas.html. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-5
Jobs to Housing Balance
The economic analysis conducted for SCAG ’s 2024 RTP/SCS shows the following regional employment growth:
▪ Job growth from building, operating, and maintaining the 2024 RTP infrastructure projects, averaging over 279,000 jobs per year; and
▪ Increases in economic competitiveness , efficiency, and amenities from the completion of the projects and operations, averaging over 465,000 jobs per year.

In terms of the jobs to housing balance, the SCAG Rialto 2019 Local Profiles Report identified that 7.6 percent of City residents work within the City, while 92.4 percent commute to places of employment outside the City. The 2024 RTP/SCS aims to balance the region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

4.13.4 Methodology
The proposed Project is evaluated against the significance criteria below, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning population and housing. In addition, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws 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.

4.13.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for population and housing impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to population and housing if it would:
▪ Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-6

4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.13-1: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Industrial General Plan land use designation and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan General Manufacturing land use designation. Project implementation would allow for the construction and operation of a warehouse building, which is a permitted use in the General Manufacturing land use designation.

Employment opportunities would be provided both during the construction of the Project and once the Project is operational. The number of temporary construction jobs that would be created i s unknown.

With respect to long-term employment opportunities, the proposed Project would employ approximately 557 employees, based on an employment generation factor of one employee per 1, 195 sf of warehouse use (664,859 sf/1,195 sf = 556.4, rounded up to 557).3 As discussed above, approximately 92.4 percent of Rialto residents travel outside of the City for work. Given the high percentage of City residents commuting outside the City for employment and the opportunity to reduce local unemployment rates , the addition of new jobs as a result of the Project would likely be filled by the local labor market. As a result, the increase in new jobs would not induce substantial population growth.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan designations for the site, meaning that future growth associated with Project implementation has already been accounted for in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Therefore, the increase in employment opportunities at the project site and potential increase of new workers moving into the City are not considered substantial or unplanned.

The Project proposes three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane. These improvements would allow for passenger vehicle and truck access to the project site and would not result in the extension of a roadway or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth on or near the project site. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative population and housing impacts are assessed relative to the Airport Specific Plan , General Plan, and regional plans, including SCAG’s 202 4 RTP/SCS population, housing, and employment projections. SCAG’s regional growth projections reflect recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions and include local and regional policies. Local jurisdictions participate in the growth forecast development process.

Cumulative impacts would occur if development on the project site , together with other cumulative projects would induce su bstantial unplanned population growth or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing . As discussed above, the Project is consistent with the General Industrial

3 Natelson Company, Inc. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG , Table 8A.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-7
General Plan land use designation and Rialto Airport Specific Plan’s General Manufacturing zoning designation and therefore does not conflict with the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element goals. Further, the proposed Project would not result in significant direct, or indirect permanent or temporary impacts related to population or housing because the Project is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning and the off-site improvements that would be implemented as a part of the Project would not extend roadways or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth on or near the project site . Future development projects would also be subject to project -level review and project - specific measures would be required, as needed, to reduce significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in incrementally significant effects to population or housing that could b e compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other cumulative present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Given the Project’s consistency with land use and zoning, as well as the potential for other projects to be generally consistent with the City’s population and housing policies, the Project would not result in significant population and housing impacts, and therefore, taken with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, Project impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required.

4.13.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.13.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant population and housing resource impacts have been identified; no mitigation is required.

4.13.10 References
City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan Housing Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/653/General-Plan. Accessed on September 17, 2024.

Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. 2019.

Southern California COG Final Regional Housing Need Assessment. Retrieved from: Southern California COG Regional Housing Need Determination. Accessed on April 23, 2024.

Natelson Company, Inc. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS 2024:

Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Retrieved from: A Plan For A Brighter Future | Southern California Association of Governments. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2021. 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle- rhna-proposed-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1614911196. Accessed April 22, 2024.

State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Retrieved from:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City of Rialto: 4.13-8
Ibid. 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2020- 2024. Retrieved from: Demographics | Department of Finance. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Ibid. 2024. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2019 – Revised. Retrieved from: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and- unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed September 17, 2024.

State of California, Employment Development Department. 2024. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2023 – Revised. Retrieved from:
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census- areas.html Accessed September 17, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-1

4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.14.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR describes existing public services for the project area and identifies and addresses potential Project impacts related to fire and police protection services provided by the City of Rialto (City).

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U .S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation a ctivities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Federal Fire Safety Act (FFSA)
The 1992 FFSA is different from other laws affecting fire safety as the law applies to federal operations, and there is no requirement for local action unless a private building owner leases space to the federal government. The FFSA requires federal agencies to provide sprinkler protection in any building, whether owned or leased by the federal government , which has at least 25 federal employees during the course of their employment.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA's mission is to " assure America's workers have safe and healthful working conditions free from unlawful retaliation. OSHA carries out its mission by setting and enforcing standards; enforcing anti - retaliation provisions of the OSH Act and other federal whistleblower laws; providing and supporting training, outreach, education, and assistance; and working collaboratively with our state OSHA programs as well as ensuring that they are at least as effective as federal OSHA, furthering a national system of worker safety and health protections ." The agency is also charged with enforcing a variety of whistleblower statutes and regulations.

OSHA: Emergency Action Plan . Developments are required under OSHA standards to prepare an emergency action plan that is kept in the workplace that provides procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency, emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments, and to be followed by all employees. Employers are required to have and maintain an employee alarm system, provide training, and review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan.

OSHA: Fire Prevention Plan . Developments are required under OSHA standards to prepare a fire prevention plan that at minimum must include procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials, and for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heat -producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials. Furthermore, the fire prevention plan must contain the names and/or job titles of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires, and for the control of fuel source hazards.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-2
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 is a federal law that amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The DMA was signed into law on October 30, 2000, after being introduced by Representative Tillie Fowler (R -FL-4) on February 11, 1999. The DMA's goals include reducing injuries, loss of life, and property damage; helping communities understand and reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards; using a more proactive planning process; and developing more effective hazard mitigation plans.

State Regulations
California Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291
These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction within a State Responsibility Area approved after January 1, 1991, and within lands classified and designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) after July 1, 2021. The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest -covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the perimeter of the building. The regulations include the following:

1. Road standards for fire equipment access.

2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.

3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.

4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.

These regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations adopted by the State.

California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.

Industrial buildings are plan checked by local city and county building officials for c ompliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all industrial buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Fire Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 9 (California Fire Code) contains regulations for the construction and maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of Wildland-Urban Interface areas, among other issues. The California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and was last updated in 20 22 (effective January 1, 202 3). The Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification syst ems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high -rise building standards, and fire

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-3
suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings.

Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.

Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the State. EM AA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EM AA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and State emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures. San Bernardino County, including the City of Rialto, is in Region VI, which also includes San Diego, Imperial, Inyo, Mono, and Riverside counties.

Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code (Sections 66000 through 66008)) Enacted as Assembly Bill ( AB) 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency, such as the City of Rialto, establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The local agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied. Th e Mitigation Fee Act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.

Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution Subdivision (a)(2) Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution subdivision (a)(2) identifies that the protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.

Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Chapter 5, Safety and Noise Element identifies goals related to fire and police protection.

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 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 5-8 Ensure that first responders and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) have adequate capacity to respond to hazard events.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-4
Policy 5-8.7 Require that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection, pursuant to the City standard of cover and fire department strategic plan.

Goal 5-10 Provide effective, 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.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Title 3: Revenue and Finance . The California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, §§ 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local gov ernmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project.

The City has adopted development impact fee programs for various public facilities, which are codified under Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 3.33 . Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 3.33 – Development Impact Fees establishes every fee that every person or development must comply with (if applicable) regarding utility, community and recreation center impacts, library, animal center impacts, police impacts, park in- lieu/park impacts, and fire protection fees, etc.

Title 18: Zoning. The purpose and intent of Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 -Zoning Code is to set standards and guidelines for the City to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.

Title 15, Ch apter 15.28: Fire Code. The City of Rialto Fire Code is codified under Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 15.28 – Fire Code. The City has adopted and amended the California Fire Code as permitted by Health and Safety Code Section 17958 and Government Code Section 50022. The City’s Fire Code identifies methods for calculating required fire flow, hydrant placement and other requirements considered in building and site design. The Rialto Fire Department reviews plans for proposed development projects to ensure compliance with the City’s Fire Code.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-5
Emergency Response
Procedures for mitigating emergency events, such as such wildfires, floods, windstorms, hazardous materials releases, civil disturbance, and earthquakes are outlined in the City’s Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) Multi -Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). The MHFP incorporates and coordinates all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency.

4.14.3 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection
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 as fire protection within a Federal Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, a State Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of CAL FIRE, or within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a lo cal agency. CAL FIRE is responsible for fire protection within State Responsibility Areas, which are found in 56 counties in California, and provides a variety of emergency services in 36 counties.

CAL FIRE defines a State Responsibility Area as land that is not federally owned, not incorporated, does not exceed a housing density of three units per acre, contains wildland vegetation as opposed to agriculture or ornamentals, and has watershed value an d/or has range/forage value (this effectively eliminates most desert lands). Where local fire protection agencies, such as the Rialto Fire Department, are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area. The project site and adjacent areas are classified as a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

The Rialto Fire Department provides fire protection services for the City. Led by a Fire Chief, the Fire Department has a Division Chief, two Battalion Chiefs, an Emergency Medical Services Coordinator, and a Fire Marshall. The Fire Department deploys from five fire stations staffed 24 hours per day by firefighters and non-safety ambulance operators. Daily emergency medical service and fire/rescue staffing consists of one Battalion Chief, four engine companies, one truck company, and four paramedic ambulances. The closest fire station to the project site is Station 204, located at 3288 Alder Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles north of the project site . There is one fire hydrant located at the southeast corner of Locust Avenue a t Lowell Street.

Administration. The Rialto Fire Department Administration provides oversight to all department operations including project development, budgeting, development of policy and protocol, personnel development, and strategic planning to ensure highly effective fire and life safety services. Fire Administration is staffed by the Fire Chief with an Executive Assistant, a Division Chief of Operations, Administrative Battalion Chief, and one office specialist.

Rialto Fire Prevention Division. The Rialto Fire Prevention Division engages in community risk reduction services through code compliance, plan review, public education, inspection, emergency preparedness and targeted risk-specific programs.

Ambulance Operator Program. The Rialto Fire Department has provided ambulance transportation services since 1971 using a model of deployment that includes staffing of ambulances with firefighters that are cross-trained as Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians. Based on service demand and

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-6
cost of deployment, the current ambulance staffing model is being retooled to include single function, paramedic and Ambulance Operators to staff city-owned ambulances.

Rialto Fire Department Emergency Medical Service. The Rialto Emergency Medical Service is responsible for the planning, compliance, review, and oversight for the provisions of clinical medical care provided by the Rialto Fire Department. The Fire Department staffs one paramedic for all fire engines, trucks, and ambulances; all other positions are staffed by Emergency Medical Technicians.

Incident Response
Fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response. Speed refers to initial response (first due) of all -risk intervention resources (engines, ladder trucks, and squads) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergen cies within a time interval to facilitate desired outcomes.

Weight refers to multiple-unit Effective Response Force (commonly referred to as a First Alarm) responses to more serious emergencies, such as building fires, multiple -patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents. In these situations, a sufficient number of firefighters must be assembled within a reasonable time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it escalating into a more serious event . The Rialto Fire Department responded to a monthly average of 939 incidents in 2023.1
Police Protection
The Rialto Police Department provides law enforcement and police protection services throughout the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 128 North Willow Avenue, approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the project site. With 176 employees, the Police Department is a full-service law enforcement agency that is charged with the enforcement of local, State, and federal laws, and with providing 24-hour protection. Operations within the Rialto Police Department are organized within divisions — Operations, Support Services, and Professional Standards — with bureaus, teams and units, and programs within each division.2
The Rialto Police Department participates in the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan administrated by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The law enforcement mutual aid system is an ongoing cooperative effort among law enforcement agencies to ensure a n effective and organized response to a wide range of emergencies. Under the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan, the City of Rialto can both provide and request law enforcement resources to and from neighboring jurisdictions. There are seven mutual aid regions in the State and each region is comprised of multiple Operational Areas and has a Regional Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Coordinator. Rialto is located in mutual aid Region VI, which includes the counties of San Bernardino, Mono, Inyo, Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego.

4.14.4 Methodology
The Rialto Fire Department and Rialto Police Department were contacted to determine if the Project would significantly impact the departments’ ability to provide fire protection and police protection services. The following analysis considers the existing regulatory framework and available information published by the Rialto Fire Department and Rialto Police Department. Where significant impacts remain

1 Average was compiled through available monthly report data between May and October 2023. This is the most current published information. 2 The Rialto Police Department does not have publicly available response time standards or service ratios.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-7
despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

4.14.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for fire and police impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to fire and police protection if it would:
▪ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. ▪ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection.

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:
▪ Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: schools, parks, and other public facilities? The Project does not propose new or physically altered government facilities, nor would it include residential uses with the potential to create a demand for new or physically altered school, parks, or other public facilities, such as library services. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

4.14.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation

Fire Protection
The project site is vacant and located in an area currently served by the Rialto Fire Department. Impacts related to fire protection services are assessed by the Rialto Fire Department on a project-by-project basis.

In determining the potential impacts to fire protection services that could occur, the Rialto Fire Department considers a project’s land use, fire -protection related needs, and a project site’s Threshold 4.14-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-8
recommended response distance and time and fire safety requirements, as well as project design features that would reduce the demand for fire protection services.

Construction
During construction, site clearance including vegetation removal would remove potential fuel for fires which could occur during construction. The potential for emergency response incidents related to construction operations would be minimized through compliance with the established regulatory framework, including C al/OSHA, which ensures that 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.

Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. The Project would not require permanent road closures but would result in temporary partial lane closures during specific construction phases such as connection to utilities in the roadways. SC TRAN-1 in Section 4.15: Transportation requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan to identify planned travel patterns for construction and haul vehicles. These temporary lane closures would not result in the closure of any roadways that would impact the mobility of first responders. The Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth by the City during constr uction and operation. Therefore, compliance with the mentioned codes and regulations, and the temporary nature of construction activities would ensure that Project construction would result in less than significant impacts with respect to p erformance objectives for fire protection services.

Operations
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). LRAs are incorporated cities, urban regions, agriculture lands, and portions of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. The project site and its adjacent areas are classified as a Non-VHFHSZ (non-very high FHSZ).3
The proposed Project would conform to the then-current California Building Code and California Fire Code which would require fire suppression systems such as sprinklers and fire curtains. As discussed previously, the City’s Fire Code identifies standards for building and site design and fire protection and notification systems. It also contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings including Fire Department access, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.

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 will review the plot plan to ensure compliance with the City’s Fire Code.

3 CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map . Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what -we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 29, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-9
Project implementation would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services . Although the project site is not developed, the project area is already served by the Rialto Fire Department .

Therefore, the Project does not include or require construction of any new or physically altered fire station facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning assumptions for the site. The Project is not expected to substantially increase service demand such that a new or physically altered facility would need to be constructed in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.

Project plans would be reviewed by applicable City departments to ensure compliance with the Rialto Municipal Code and General Plan as well as all emergency response and fire safety requirements of the Rialto Fire Department and the California Fire Code. F urther, the Project would be required to pay all required development impact fees as adopted by City Ordinance No. 1532. Further, development impact fees are paid on a project -by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand from the Project. Therefore, upon payment of fees, impacts would be considered less than significant. Therefore, compliance with building codes and payment of development impact fees would reduce impact to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Police Protection
Construction
Impacts to police protection services are assessed based on the ability of police personnel to adequately serve the existing and future population, including residents, workers, and daytime and nighttime visitors and the Police Department’s ability to meet the additional demand for protection services with the Project. The project site is in a developed area and is adjacent to existing industrial uses.

During construction, action by the Rialto Police Department could be required in cases of trespassing, theft, or vandalism. Construction would not require road closures but may require temporary lane closures during specific construction phases such as connection to utilities in the roadways. SC TRAN-1 in Section 4.15: Transportation requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan to identify planned travel patterns for construction and haul vehicles. These temporary lane closures would not result in the closure of any roadways that would impact the mobility of first responders. The Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth by the City during construction and operation. 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 the Applicant to contract with a security service to provide security during construction and may include additional security measures, such as the installation of Threshold 4.14-2: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-10
temporary fencing . With implementation of these Standard Conditions, impacts to police protection would be less than significant during construction and no mitigation is required.

Operations
Project implementation would result in an increase in employment opportunities , which could incrementally increase the demand for police services. However, since the project site is in a developed area of the City that is already contributing toward the need for police services, the Project is not expected to substantially increase service demand such that a new police station would need to be constructed. SC PS-1 requires that all development plans be evaluated by the Rialto Police Department to ensure tha t public safety design measures are incorporated into the Project plans. Additionally, the Project is required to pay all required impact fees as adopted by City Ordinance No. 1532. Accordingly, development impact fees are paid on a project -by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and pe rsonnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand from the Project. Impacts on service demand and response times for police would be less th an significant and no mitigation is required.

4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of public services, cumulative impacts are considered for projects located within the City.

Fire Protection
The Project assumes the provision of fire protection services is based on a combination of existing fire services and the use of mutual aid agreements. Additionally, all present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to pay impact fees as adopted by City Ordinance 1532. As previously addressed, development impact fees are paid on a project-by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand caused by development. The payment of fees and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would preclude the Project’s cumulative contribution to fire protection impacts and no mitigation is required.

Police Protection
The Police Department’s operating budget is primarily generated through tax revenues and fees collected from penalties and requested services, and impact fees as adopted by City Ordinance 1532 . Increased property and sales tax from cumulative projects would increase the City’s General Fund in rough proportion to population increases, providing funding for any improvements necessary to maintain adequate police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. The payment of fees and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would preclude the Project’s cumulative contribution to police protection impacts . Moreover, should any new or altered facilities be required in the future, these facilities would be subject to separate CEQA review. The Project would not cumulatively contribute to an impact to police protection services and no mitigation is required.

4.14.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Fire Protection
Please refer to SC TRAN in Section 4.15: Transportation.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

City of Rialto 4.14-11
Police Protection
SC PS-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and/or action that would permit site disturbance, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Rialto Police Department that a construction security service or equivalent service shall be established at the construction site along with other measures, as identified by the Police Department and the Public Works Department, to be instituted during the grading and construction phase of the Project.

SC PS-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Rialto Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police Department shall review and approve all defensible space design fe atures incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for Fire or Police Protection.

4.14.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant for Police and Fire Protection services and no mitigation is required.

4.14.10 References
CAL FIRE. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we- do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 29, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-1

4.15 TRANSPORTATION

4.15.1 Introduction
This EIR section summarizes the findings of Locust Gateway Logistics Center Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley -Horn, 2025) to evaluate the potential transportation impacts associated with the proposed Project. This study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements to evaluate potential transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The report is included as Appendix J of this EIR.

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Transportation Improvement Program
The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a federally mandated four-year program of all surface transportation projects that will receive federal funding or are subject to a federally required action. The FTIP is a comprehensive listing of such transportation projects proposed over a six-year period.

As the metropolitan pl anning organization (MPO) for the region, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for developing the FTIP for submittal to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the federal funding agencies.

The FTIP identifies specific funding sources and fund amounts for each project. It is prioritized to implement the region’s overall strategy for providing mobility and improving the efficiency and safety of the transportation system, while supporting effor ts to attain federal and State air quality standards for the region by reducing transportation -related air pollution. Projects in the FTIP include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, and non -motorized projects - bicycle and pedestrian.

The FTIP must include all federally funded transportation projects in the region, as well as all regionally significant transportation projects for which approval from federal funding agencies is required, regardless of funding source. Projects in the FTIP are consistent with SCAG’s approved Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, Title 23, Part 655, Subpart F). The FHWA requires that the most recent MUTCD be adopted by individual states as their legal state standard for traffic -control devices within two years of the update. The MUTCD identifies the standards that should be used to install and maintain traffic-control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads t hat are open to public traffic. The City of Rialto (City) uses the MUTCD for determining the necessary traffic - control devices (e.g., signs, barricades, gates, warning signs, object markers, guide signs, pavement and curb markings, traffic-control signs, pedestrian control signs, in -roadway lights, and flagger control) on public streets, highways, bikeways, and school areas in the City, including temporary traffic -control devices in and near construction work areas.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-2
State Regulations
Sustainable Communities Strategies: Senate Bill 375 – Land Use Planning Senate Bill (SB) 375 (2008) provides for a planning process to coordinate land use planning and Regional Transportation Plans ( RTPs) and funding priorities in order to help California meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals established in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires that RTPs developed by metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., SCAG) incorporate a “sustainable communities’ strategy” in their RTPs that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects, such as Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs).

Senate Bill 743 – Update to the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Impacts The Steinberg Act (SB 743) (also known as the Environmental Act) was enacted in 2013 to shift the focus of transportation analysis from driver delay to reducing GHG emissions, creating multimodal networks, and promoting mixed land uses. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide alternative level of service metrics for transportation impact evaluations. In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines including the incorporation of the SB 743 modifications. The CEQA Guidelines shift traffic analysis from delay and operations to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.

Metrics to evaluate transportation impacts may include VMT, VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. According to SB 743, projects should aim to reduce VMT and mitigate potential VMT impacts through the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. By July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies were required to analyze a project’s transportation impacts using VMT. The City adopted their VMT guidelines in 2021.

Regional and Local Regulations
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal Plan . On May 10 , 2024, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved Connect SoCal 2024 ; CARB approved on May 7, 2025 . The Connect SoCal Plan is a long -range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. It includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long-range plan, required by the State of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.

Of the goals presented in Connect SoCal, the following six are applicable to transportation:
▪ Create human-centered communities in urban, suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility options and reduce travel distances
▪ Integrate the region’s development pattern and transportation network to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable more sustainable use of energy and water ▪ Improve access to jobs and educational resources

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-3
▪ 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 San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is San Bernardino’s congestion management agency . SBCTA prepares, monitors and periodically updates the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirement and the County’s Measure I Program. The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of state highways and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures; the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportation system and technical justification for the approach.

Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in San Bernardino County until March 2040 for use exclusively on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements in San Bernardino County.

The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, State and federal transportation revenues, and private fair -share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund the Measure I 2010 –2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic management systems. The City has adopted a Development Impact Fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements. The DIF program includes a local traffic development fee which is codified under Rialto Municipal Code 3.33.170.

Rialto General Plan
Chapter 2: Managing Our Land Supply
General Plan Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply (2010, as amended in 2024) , provides guidance to promote the City’s goals for current and future development related to Land Use, Community Design, Open Space and Conservation. The following list includes relevant 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 2-23 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 2-23.5 Require developments to provide pedestrian and vehicle connections and pathways between parking lots at the rear and front of buildings.

Policy 2-23.6 Require delivery areas to be separated from pedestrian areas.

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.

Chapter 3: Making the Connections – The Circulation Chapter General Plan Chapter 3: Making the Connections – The Circulation Chapter (2010, as amended in 2024) addresses the anticipated level and pattern of development that will generate travel throughout the City

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-4
and that must be accommodated by the roadway system, public transportation, and non-motorized forms of transportation. It also notes that Rialto’s increasing prominence as a logistics hub will create a demand for goods movement throughout the City that must be accommodated by commercial vehicles and railroads. To help meet these demands and achieve balanced growth, the City has adopted specific goals and policies.

Goal 4-1 Provide transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion associated with regional and local trip increases.

Policy 4-1.17 Require new streets and improvements to connect to established streets.

Policy 4-1.20 Design City streets so that signalized intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. The one exception will be Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E. Note: 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.

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.

Policy 4-2.2 Discourage non-local traffic from using neighborhood streets.

Goal 4-8 Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes that provide viable connections throughout the City.

Policy 4-8.5 Require major developments to include bicycle storage facilities, including bicycle racks and lockers.

Goal 4-9 Promote Walking.

Policy 4-9.1 Install sidewalks where they are missing, and make improvements to existing sidewalks for accessibility purposes. Priority should be given to needed sidewalk improvement near schools and activity centers. Provide wider sidewalks in areas with higher pedestrian volumes.

Policy 4-9.2 Require sidewalks and parkways on all streets in new development projects.

Policy 4-9.4 Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists ‒ in addition to automobiles ‒ when considering new development projects.

Policy 4-9.6 Encourage new development to provide pedestrian paths through projects, with outlets to adjacent collectors, secondaries, and arterial roadways.

Policy 4-9.7 Require ADA compliance on all new or modified handicap ramps.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-5
Goal 4-10 Provide a circulation system that supports Rialto’s position as a logistics hub.

Policy 4-10.1 Designate and enforce truck routes for use by commercial trucking as part of the project approval process.

Policy 4-10.3 Develop appropriate noise mitigation along truck routes to minimize noise impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.

Policy 4-10.4 Encourage the development of adequate on -site loading areas to minimize interference of truck loading activities with efficient traffic circulation on adjacent roadways.

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 accomm odate 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 included a Circulation Plan consistent with the, then current, City Master Plan of Arterial Highways .

The Specific Plan Circulation Plan has been superseded by updates to the Rialto General Pla n Circulation Element.

4.15.3 Existing Conditions
Existing Transportation System
Roadways and Roadway Characteristics
Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 210 (SR -210), located approximately one mile to the south of the project site. In addition, Interstate 15 (I-15 is located approximately four miles to the west, the Interstate 215 (I -215) is approximately four miles to the east, and Interstate 10 (I -10) is approximately six miles to the south.

Locust Avenue. Locust Avenue is located east of and adjacent to the project site, and is designated as a Secondary Arterial. The General P lan identifies that Secondary Arterials have two travel lanes in each direction with left -turn lanes. Locust Avenue is an undivided roadway with two travel lanes in each direction which is oriented in a north-south direction through and beyond the boundaries of the City.

Locust Avenue is a truck route between Baseline Road and Riverside Avenue. The posted speed limit on Locust Avenue is 45 miles per hour (mph).

Lowell Street. West of Locust Avenue, Lowell Street is an undivided roadway with one travel lane in each direction. On the north side of the street, there are sidewalks along the first property. The remainder of the north side of Lowell Street has curbs and gutters until its terminus to the west adjacent to the project site. There are no road improvements along the south side of Lowell Street.

Casmalia Street. Casmalia Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial, which provides four travel lanes with a bike lane in each direction and a raised median. Casmalia Street extends in an east-west direction through and beyond the boundaries of the City of Rialto. Casmalia Street is a truck route east of Sierra

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-6
Avenue to Ayala Drive, with truck access restricted to local deliveries to the west of Alder Avenue. The posted speed limit on Casmalia Street is 55 miles per hour (mph).

Alder Avenue. Alder Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial. Between Riverside Avenue to the north and Casa Grande Drive to the south, Alder Avenue is an undivided roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and a Class II (4-foot-wide) bike lane adjacent to the curb in each direction with a posted speed limit of 40 mph . Between Casa Grande to the north to its terminus at Summit Avenue, Alder Avenue a raised median. South of the intersection of Alder Avenue at Case Grande Drive, Alder Avenue has two southbound travel lanes and one northbound travel lane with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There is no public or improved roadway between Summit Avenue and Lake Padden Lane. Alder Avenue extends south from Lake Padden Lane to its southern terminus at I -10; it continues south of I -10 beyond the City of Rialto. Alder Avenue is a truck route between Baseline Road and Casa Grande Drive.

Renaissance Parkway. Renaissance Parkway is located approximately 1.2 miles south of the project site and south of I -210, and is designated as a Major Arterial, with four travel lanes, a bike lane in each direction, and a raised center median. Renaissance Parkway extends in an east -west direction through and beyond the boundaries of the City where it changes its name to Highland Avenue to the west and Easton Street to the east. Renaissance Parkway connects with a number of north-south streets that have interchanges with the SR -210 to the north and I -10 to the south. Renaissance Parkway is a truck route between Alder Avenue and Locust Avenue . Truck access is restricted to local deliveries between Locust Avenue and Ayala Drive, and west of Alder Avenue. The posted speed limit on Renaissance Parkway is 50 mph.

Laurel Avenue. Laurel Avenue is located approximately 0.2-mile west of Locust Avenue and north of the project site and is d esignated as a Secondary Arterial . In the vicinity of the project site, Laurel Avenue terminates at Bohnert Avenue to the north and extends south across I -210. The undivided roadway has two travel lanes; it does not have a roadway designation in the General Plan. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

Riverside Avenue . Riverside Avenue is a four - to six -lane generally north-south roadway divided by a painted median through the study area. The posted speed limit is 55 mph and on -street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway. Riverside Avenue is designated as a Modified Major Arterial II between Sierra Avenue and Locust Avenue. East of Locust Avenue, Riverside Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial to Foothill Boulevard. Between Foothill Boulevard and the BNSF Railway corridor, it is a Modified Arterial II. South of the rail corridor, Riverside Avenue is a Major Arterial to San Bernardino Avenue; it is a Modified Major Arterial II until Slover Avenue. South of Slover Avenue, it is a Modified Arterial to the southern City boundary. North of I-210, Riverside Avenue has Class II bike lanes. Riverside Avenue is a designated truck route east of Sierra Avenue to Locust Avenue.

Casa Grande Drive – Casa Grande Drive is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site with two travel lanes in each direction divided by a painted median and bike lane in each direction. Casa Grande is designated as a Secondary Arterial. Casa Grande Drive is an east-west roadway and extends from Locust Avenue to Sierra Avenue in the City. West of Alder, there is one travel lane in each direction with a Class I bike path. Casa Grande Drive is closed to through traffic at Mango Avenue.

Transit Services
OmniTrans provides public transit service to the San Bernardino Valley, inclusive of the City of Rialto. Bus stops in the project vicinity are on Locust Avenue approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Locust

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-7
Avenue at Lowell Street and on Casa Grande Drive approximately 200 feet west of Locust Avenue. There are bus stops further south on Bohnert Avenue at Locust Avenue and further to the north on Riverside Avenue at Locust Avenue. OmniTrans Route 22 operates between the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in the City of Colton to and through the City of Rialto. Route 22 operates on weekdays between approximately 5:00 AM to 9:40 PM; on Saturdays from approximately 7:15 AM to 7: 30 PM; and on Sundays from approximately 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM. Route 22 has a transfer point with Route 312 at the intersection of Renaissance Parkway at Linden Avenue south of I-210.

Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities
The Circulation Chapter of the General Plan identifies Class I Bikeways (Bike Path; exclusive use for bicycles), Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane; shares the right-of-way with roads or walkways; it has a continuous stripe of the pavement or is separated by a curb or low barrier); and Class II Bikeways (Bike Route; shares the right-of-way; no pavement markings only signage). North of I -210, there are no bikeways on Locust Avenue. The General Plan identifies Class II Bikeways on Casa Grande Drive, Alder Avenue north of Casa Grande Drive, and Riverside Avenue.

With the exception of a portion of sidewalk on the north side of Lowell Street along the property at the northwest corner of Lowell Street at Locust Avenue, there are no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along Lowell Street. There are sidewalks on portions of Locust Avenue north of Lowell Street. There are no sidewalks or road improvements along the project site fronting Locust Avenue south of Lowell Street.

4.15.4 Methodology
A significant impact would result if the proposed Project resulted in a conflict that could result in a transportation impact. 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 framewo rk, feasible mitigation measures are recommended , where warranted, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. The analysis of impacts on transportation examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

A project-specific VMT analysis was conducted for the Project. Project -generated VMT is an assessment based on trips and trip distances of project-specific trip purposes. The Project effect on VMT is an estimate of how VMT within the County will change once a project is built and new and existing traffic is redistributed.

Production/Attraction (PA) VMT. Consistent with the City’s VMT Guidelines, because the Project does not include residential uses, the Production/Attraction (PA) trip matrix was used to determine project - generated VMT, which separates and isolates employee commute VMT. The calculation of Home-Based- Work VMT per employee (Employee -Based VMT) using the PA method has two components – the total number of weekday trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle. Home-Based-Work VMT per employee is determined by dividing the total Home-Based-Work attraction VMT by total employment derived from the model. The Home-Based-Work VMT per employee is used to measure the efficiency of VMT generated by work -related uses for the project site traffic analysis zone (TAZ), under Baseline and Cumulative year conditions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-8
Boundary VMT. The Project’s effect on VMT was evaluated using the boundary method. The boundary method is the total daily VMT within a specific area calculated by multiplying the daily vehicle traffic volume on all the roadway segments by the length of each of the road way segments within that specific study area. This approach includes all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary. This method also captures the effect of cut-through and/or displaced traffic within the specific study area.

The VMT impact is determined by normalizing the boundary VMT by the service population and comparing the results between the No Project and Plus Project conditions. The Project effect on VMT using the boundary method was evaluated for the countywide boundary.

4.15.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for transportation impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would:
▪ Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
▪ Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b); ▪ Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or ▪ Result in inadequate emergency access.

VMT Thresholds
Per the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) (October 2021; VMT Guidelines), VMT impacts are evaluated based on “project- generated VMT” and the “project effect on VMT.” The “project -generated VMT” is compared to the baseline Countywide VMT efficient metric, whereas the “project -effect” effect on VMT is compared between the with and without project conditions. The following thresholds of significance apply to the VMT analysis:
▪ A project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if the baseline link -level boundary (County Boundary) VMT per service population (residents + employees) increases under plus project conditions compared to no project conditions for both baseline and cumulative scenarios. ▪ A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if the project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the San Bernardino County regional average baseline of 32.7 VMT per service population for both baseline and cumulative scenarios. ▪ The Cumulative “No Project” scenario shall reflect the adopted RTP/SCS; as such, if a project is consistent with the regional RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-9

4.15.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.15-1: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Please refer to Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning, which includes an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal: 2024 -2050 RTP/SCS and the City’s General Plan, respectively. The project site is within the SCAG region. The Connect SoCal 2024- 2050 RTP/SCS forecasts the number of people, households and jobs (at the jurisdictional level) expected throughout SCAG’s 191 cities and in unincorporated areas by 2050. This information is typically a component of the City’s General Plan, and if available, the City’s traffic analysis model.

Growth assumed in the City of Rialto General Plan and its corresponding traffic modeling information and assumptions are supplied to SCAG. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning assumptions. Therefore, because the proposed Project was accounted for in the City’s growth forecast, the Project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS. The analysis finds that the Project is consistent with the applicable goal and policies of the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS and the General Plan. The Project’s circulation plan would be consistent with the General Plan pertaining to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project would provide pedestrian sidewalks along the project site frontage of Lowell Street and Locust Avenue, which would improve pedestrian circulation in the surrounding area. Public transit routes would continue to operate during Project construction and operations and would not be impacted by Project implementation.

Transit Facilities . OmniTrans bus stops are located on Locust Avenue, Casa Grande Drive, Riverside Avenue, and Bohnert Avenue in the area. The nearest bus stop is just north of the intersection of Locust Avenue at Lowell Street. Project construction and operation would not impact surrounding roadways and thus would not impact transit facilities through closure of roadways that would impede public transit mobility.

Roadways. There is curr ently no vehicular access to the project site. The Project proposes three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane. The driveway shown on the site plan on Lake Padden Lane would be provided exclusively for emergency access purposes with n o truck or passenger vehicle access. All driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to the City’s requirements. At the Locust Avenue and Lowell Street intersection, the eastbound approach on Lowell Street would be restriped with a dedicated left-turn lane and dedicated right -turn lane ; the northbound approach on Locust Avenue would be restriped with a northbound left -turn lane. Improvements to the west side of Locust Avenue along the project site frontage include curb and gutter and pavement replacement extending 14 feet onto the east side of the roadway. Improvements to the south side of Lowell Street include curb and gutter and full width pavement replacement. The Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy concerning the existing circulation system or roadway facilities.

Bicycle Facilities. There are currently no bike lanes on Lowell Street or Locust Avenue. On-site bike storage facilities would be provided.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-10
Pedestrian Facilities . There are currently no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along the project site frontage. Project implementation includes the addition of a pedestrian sidewalk along the project site frontages of Lowell Street and Locust Avenue.

With respect to Threshold 4.15-1, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.15-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The City’s VMT Guidelines provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. According to the City’s VMT Guidelines, if a project meets the transit priority area (TPA), low VMT, or project type screening thresholds, the project is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed Project does not mee t the screening thresholds associated with Transit Priority Areas, Low VMT Areas, or Project Type.

The VMT analysis was completed using the current version of San Bernardino County’s Travel Demand Model, SBTAM version 3.1 (referred to as the SBTAM Model). The model is trip -based and considers the interactions between different land uses based on socio-economic data, such as population, households, and employment. Adjustments in socio-economic data (population and employment) were made to the appropriate Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in the SBTAM Model to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses.

The current version of the SBTAM Model maintains a base year condition of 2019, which was interpolated to 2024 to be representative of baseline conditions. The Cumulative Year for the SBTAM Model is 2050.

The project’s VMT analysis was conducted for the following scenarios:
▪ Baseline Conditions ‒ Based on 2019 SBTAM Model version 3.1 conditions and interpolated to 2024 conditions using Cumulative No Project Conditions. ▪ Baseline Plus Project Conditions – Based on the 2019 SBTAM Model with the Project and interpolated to 2024 conditions using Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. ▪ Cumulative No Project Conditions – Based on the updated 2050 SBTAM Model conditions without the Project.
▪ Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Based on the updated 2050 SBTAM Model conditions with the Project. For this scenario, the TAZ that includes the geographic boundaries of the project site was updated to reflect the Project’s land uses. In addition, other TAZs in the City had their future land use growth totals reduced on a weighted basis by employment type to maintain regional control totals. Based on the City guidelines, it is important to maintain appropriate control totals for regional jobs to housing ratio such that the model reflects appropriate future demographic and market conditions. Simply put, the total number of jobs and housing units in the City remained the same as the Cumulative No Project conditions even with the addition of the Project.

Project-generated VMT is an assessment based on trips and trip distances of project-specific trip purposes.

The Project effect on VMT is an estimate of how VMT within the County would change once a project is built and new and existing traffic is redistributed.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-11
Table 4.15-1: Baseline Year (2024) Project-Generated VMT identifies the Project’s VMT for the Baseline Year (2024) conditions. As shown in the table, the home-based work VMT per employee for the Project is

23.23, which is approximately 22 percent lower than the County average of 29.74.

Table 4.15-1: Baseline Year (2024) Project-Generated VMT VMT Metric San Bernardino County Project
HBW VMT 26,937,842 15,741
Employment 905,832 678
HBW VMT/Employee 29.74 23.23
Exceed Threshold? - No
VMT = vehicle miles traveled; HBW = Home -Based Work
Note: The current version of the SBTAM Model maintains a base year condition of 2019, which was interpolated to 2024 to be represen tative of existing conditions. The Cumulative Year for the SBTAM Model is 2050 .

Table 4.15-2: Cumulative Year (2050) Project-Generated VMT shows the project-generated home-based and home-based work VMT for Cumulative Year (2050) conditions. As shown in the table, the Project’s home-based work VMT per employee is 23.42, which is approximately 21 percent lower than the County average of 29.53.

Table 4.15-2: Cumulative Year (2050) Project-Generated VMT VMT Metric San Bernardino County Project
HBW VMT 33,810,918 23,025
Employment 1,144,814 983
HBW VMT/Employee 29.53 23.42
Exceed Threshold? - No
VMT = vehicle miles traveled; HBW = Home -Based Work
Therefore, because the Project’s Baseline (2024) and Cumulative Year (2050) Home-Based Work (HBW) VMT per employee are both less than the countywide average, according to the City’s VMT Guidelines, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning project-generated VMT.

As shown in Table 4.15-3: Baseline Year (2024) Project Effect on VMT , the County Boundary VMT per service population decreases under the With Project Condition (22.47) when compared to the Without Project Conditions (22.48).

Table 4.15-3: Baseline Year (2024) Project Effect on VMT VMT Metric Without Project With Project
County Boundary VMT 71,731,963 71,729,970
County Service Population 3,191,574 3,191,780
County Boundary VMT/Service Population 22.48 22.47
Exceed Threshold? - No
VMT = vehicle miles traveled; HBW = Home -Based Work
Note: 2024 VMT results were determined by interpolating model Base Year 2019 and Future Year 2050 results.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-12
Table 4.15-4: Cumulative Year (2050) Project-Generated VMT shows the Cumulative Year (2050) Project effect on VMT for the County. As shown in the table, the County Boundary VMT per service population of

24.59 remains the same under both the With and Without Project Conditions.

Table 4.15-4: Cumulative Year (2050) Project Effect on VMT VMT Metric Without Project With Project
County Boundary VMT 92,487,700 92,482,797
County Service Population 3,761,254 3,761,254
County Boundary VMT/Service Population 24.59 24.59
Exceed Threshold? - No
VMT = vehicle miles traveled; HBW = Home -Based Work
Therefore, because the Project’s Baseline Year (2024) and Cumulative Year (2050) Countywide Boundary VMT per service-population does not increase under the With Project conditions, according to the City’s VMT Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact based on the VMT impact thresholds and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.15-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat. There is currently no vehicular access to the project site. The Project proposes three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane. The driveway shown on the site plan along Lake Padden Lane would be provided exclusively for emergency access purposes with no truck or passenger vehicle access. All driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to the City’ s requirements. At the Locust Avenue and Lowell Street intersection , the eastbound approach on Lowell Street would be restriped with a dedicated left -turn lane and dedicated right-turn lane; the northbound approach on Locust Avenue would be restriped with a northbound left -turn lane. All drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers for emergency vehicles and fire services. Project operations would not include sharp curves nor would it introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. The two public access roadways adjacent to the project site are Lowell Street and Locust Avenue; Locust Avenue is a truck route. The Project does not include the use of incompatible vehicles on the project site. Further, the project site has a Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designation of General Manufacturing (I-GM), which permits wholesaling and warehousing uses.

The proposed Project is a permitted use under the I -GM land use designation and is considered a compatible use.

The line of sight – a straight line between the driver’s eye and oncoming vehicles on the adjacent roadway – defines the “limited use area.” The limited -use area for each driveway would be kept clear of visual obstructions, including signage, structures, and obstructive landscaping, in order to maintain adequate sight distance. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable State building codes and would meet City standards for design, including sight distance at intersections. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-13
Threshold 4.15-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Internal drive aisles would be up to 40 feet to allow for truck turning movements. In addition, all drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers to allow access for emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicle access could occur from any of the driveways.

All entry gates on the project site would be equipped with Knox Boxes for access by the Rialto Fire Department and Rialto Police Department for emergencies.

Lowell Street is not considered an evacuation route according to the City’s Safety Element. Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. While lane closures during construction may be required, c onstruction would not result in the closure of any roadways that would impact the mobility of first responders or increase traffic. SC TRAN-1 requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles. Construction management requirements may include peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short -term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan should any currently unforeseen extended lane and street closures be required. The Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth by the City during construction and operation.

Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the City. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts
Circulation System. The proposed Project would connect to the existing circulation system and implement the City’s traffic engineering design standards. In addition, the proposed Project would provide new facilities, such as sidewalks, to improve pedestrian mobility; and would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing circulation. In addition, cumulative development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions would be subject to site -specific reviews that would not allow potential cumulatively considerable impacts related to inconsistencies with plans, programs, policies, and ordinances addressing circulation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not combine with other cumulative projects to result in significant cumulative impacts and no mitigation is required.

Vehicle Miles Traveled. For cumulative conditions, a project that is below the VMT impact thresholds and does not have a VMT impact under baseline conditions would also not have a cumulative impact as long as it is aligned with long -term State environmental goals, such as reducin g GHG emissions, and relevant plans, such as the SCAG RTP/SCS. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative traffic impacts includes traffic volumes resulting from buildout of the City of Rialto. In addition, cumulative imp acts are based on the future traffic volumes estimated by SCAG, which includes population and socioeconomic projections. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and is accounted for in the growth allocated by the General Plan and analyzed in the Ge neral Plan EIR. Based on VMT thresholds of significance, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required.

Design and Incompatible Use Hazards and Emergency Access Adequacy. The evaluation of the proposed Project concluded that it would not result in impacts related to incompatible uses, hazards due to roadway design, or inadequate emergency access. The proposed circulation layout would be required to be installed in conforman ce with City design standards that would be ensured through the City’s development permitting process to provide that no potentially hazardous design features or inadequate

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Rialto 4.15-14
emergency access would be introduced by the Project that could combine with potential hazards from other nearby projects. In addition, cumulative development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions would be subject to site -specific reviews, including rev iews by building and fire authorities that would require compliance with existing building and fire code standards that limit the potential of other projects to create design hazards or interference with emergency access. The project site ’s intended use is compatible with the zoning provided by the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project with cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to circulation design features, incompatible uses, and emergency access and no mitigation is required.

4.15.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
The Project is subject to the City’s citywide traffic impact fee program. To the extent that a recommended improvement is included in an existing fee program, a project’s payment of impact fees can be used to offset the costs of implementing the measures. In addition, a project may be required to construct a needed improvement in advance of the City’s receipt of full funding, in which case the improvement may be subject to a reimbursement agreement, to allow a project to recoup costs from future development.

SC TRAN-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Applicant shall submit for City of Rialto Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer review and approval a Construction Management Plan for the Project. The Plan shall identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, construction materials and vehicle staging areas, and temporary parking arrangements for the construction workers.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.15.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant impacts concerning transportation have been identified and no mitigation is required.

4.15.10 References
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis for Locust Gateway Logistics Center, included as Appendix J of this EIR.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-1

4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Introduction
This section of the EIR provides contextual background information on tribal cultural resources on or near the project site. The extent to which implementation of the proposed Project could impact existing tribal cultural resources is evaluated. This section also provides the results of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) tribal consultation.

Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site , feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American tribe and is either [1] on or eligible for the California Historic Register or a local historic register; or [2] the lead agency at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

The analysis in this section was conducted in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and Section 21074 to identify tribal, archaeological and historic resources in the project area and evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. Baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the Cultural Resources Assessment which is included in Appendix E of this EIR. The analysis also includes information obtained during consultations with Native American tribal representatives. Native American tribal resources correspondence is provided in Appendix K. Historic and archaeological resources are addressed in Section 4.4: Cultural Resources.

Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3) requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to the adoption and amendment of general plans and specific plans. The consultation process re quires (1) that local governments send the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) information on a proposed project and request contact information for local Native American tribes; (2) that local governments then send information on the project to the tribes that the NAHC has identified and notify them of the opportunity to consult; (3) that the tribes have 90 days to respond on whether they want to consult or not, and (4) that consultation begins if requested by a tribe and there is no statutory limit on the duration of the consultation. If issues arise and consensus on mitigation cannot be reached, SB 18 allows a finding to be made that the suggested mitigation is infeasible. SB 18 is not applicable to the Project.

California Assembly Bill 52
On July 1, 2015, California AB 52 of 2014 was enacted and expand ed CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code § 21084.2).

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before an EIR can be released. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to

4.16.1 4.16.2
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-2
the Lead Agency, in writing, to be informed by the Lead Agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe.

The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either the parties agree on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource (if such a significant effect exists) or when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052
State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the San Bernardino County Coroner must be notified. HSC Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disintering, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

More precisely, if human remains are encountered, Section 7050.5 states that:
a) Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any person carrying out an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code or to any person authorized to implement Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to th e person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The Coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the Coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
c) If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.”

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-3
Regional and 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 accomm odate 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 tribal cultural resources.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 1 establishes the Historical Preservation Commission. The commission is authorized to make recommendations, decisions and determinations concerning the designation, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of these historical and cultural resources which contribute to the culture and aesthetic values of the City. Government Code Section 37361 empowers cities to adopt regulations and incentives for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of such places, buildings, structures and other objects. The adoption of reasonable and fair regulations is necessary as a means of recognition, documentation, preservation and maintenance of resources of cultural, aesthetic, or historical significance. Such regulation serves to integrate the preservation of resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development process es, and to identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts

1 City of Rialto Municipal Code . Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/ca/rialto/codes/code_of_ordinances .Accessed July 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-4
between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses. Chapter 2.20 is intended to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan.

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 elevations range from approximately 1,612 to 1,649 feet above mean sea level and generally slope from northwest to southeast at 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 ammunition 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.

Prehistoric Setting
Maara’yam/Serrano
The project site is within the ancestral territory of the Maara’yam, often referred to as “Serrano”, which was the term adopted by the Spanish and later communities. The Maara’yam occupied a territory of over

7.4 million acres, which was sparsely populated and used in a seasonal manner with clans occupying valley floors in cool seasons and higher elevations in the warm seasons. Evidence of long-term settlement in the immediate area is indicated by the presence of villages to the north and northeast in the mountains and Cajon Pass, as well as west toward Rancho Cucamonga. The Maara’yam also interacted with other cultural groups, such as the Cahuilla, Luiseno, Mojave, and Gabrieleño for the purpose of trade and cultural practice. Across the region, Maara’yam were organized into clans affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, Coyote or Wildcat.

Villages were typically clan -based and the Maara’yam typically engaged in specific practices between clans/villages, such as marriage outside their clan. Subsistence strategies focused on hunting and gathering which were supplemented by fishing. Food preparation varied, ranging from baking in earth ovens to parching. Food processing tools included scrapers, bowls, baskets, mortars, and metates.

Dwellings were usually circular domes that u sed willow and reeds. They also used ramadas, which consisted of a tha tched roof supported by vertical poles in the ground that provided shade. Other structures in villages were used for community and ceremonial reason. A lineage leader, or kika’, administered laws and ceremonies from a large ceremonial house centrally located in most villages.

Gabrieleño/Tongva
The project site is also within the ancestral territory of the Gabrieleño/Tongva. It is generally understood that their ancestral territory included the watersheds of the San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles Rivers, portions of the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, the Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek to Topanga Creek, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands. The Gabrieleño/Tongva have a rich and diverse material culture, traditionally including shell set in asphaltum, carvings, painting, baskets, an extensive steatite industry, and a wide range of stone, shell, and bone materials. At the time of European colonization, they inhabited numerous permanent villages in fertile lowlands along waterways in sheltered areas along the coast, each of which held a population in the low hundreds. Smaller villages were also located at varying distances from these permanent villages, all of

4.16.3 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16 Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-5
which were highly connected via economic, religious, and social ties. Villages contained circular and domed homes made of tule mats, fern, or carrizo, as well as small, circular earth -covered sweathouses.

Their hunting and gathering subsistence strategy in cluded land and offshore efforts that resulted in the intake of both small and large land animals, sea mammals, river and ocean fish, and a variety of plant resources. The population sometimes migrated between villages on a temporary basis throughout the year, returning to their permanent villages for ceremonies or when resources needed to be replenished.

Records show that the long history of European colonization and displacement of Native Americans initially began in 1542 as a result of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo visiting the Los Angeles area during exploration. The Missions San Gabriel and San Fernando were established in 1771 and 1797, respectively.

According to mission records, many Gabrieleño/Tongva were forced into the system because of the location of the missions within their ancestral lands. The Serrano faced similar displacement with many of the clans in the adjacent San Bernardino Valley, mountains, and Antelope Valley being removed to the San Gabriel Mission or forced to support Mission lands doing agricultural labor. Due in part to the introduction of new diseases, as well as the harsh conditions of mission life, the indigenous population quickly declined and cultural practices were lost.

Following the secularization of the missions, most surviving Gabrieleño/Tongva and Serrano became wage laborers on the ranchos of Mexican California and were later nearly completely wiped out as a result of a smallpox outbreak in the 1860s. The combination of removal, murder, disease, forced labor, and poor diet contributed to the dispersion of the Gabrieleño/Tongva and Serrano from established villages to scattered areas for survival. During the 1800s, groups of remaining Serrano in San Bernardino County were removed to the San Manuel Reservation and Morongo Reservation, where they were granted federal recognition as domestic dependent sovereign nations. The displacement of the Gabrieleño/Tongva, whose lands ancestral lands were coveted by government and pr ivate landowners, has led to difficulty in attaining federal recognition. However, during the 20 th century, there was a revitalization of the Serrano and Gabrieleño/Tongva people and culture s, and these communities remain active within their ancestral territories in the modern day.

Historic Setting
Please refer to Section 4.4: Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

Methodology
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from NAHC on February 20, 2024, to determine if there was any information relating to the potential presence of Native American cultural resources on the project site. A response was received on February 26, 2024, indicating that the SLF check was positive and noted that the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation should be contacted for additional information. A list of tribal contacts who may have also had an interest in the project site was provided with the NAHC response (refer to Appendix K).

AB 52 Tribal Consultation
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the City of Rialto sent formal notification on March 12, 2024, to tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe(s) and have requested notifications of applicable

4.16.4 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16 Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-6
development projects from the Cit y. Formal notification letters were sent to representatives of the following California Native American tribes based on the list of tribal contacts provided by the NAHC:
▪ Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) ▪ Morongo Band of Mission Indians
▪ Gabrieleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians ▪ Gabrieleño/Tongva Nation
▪ Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
▪ Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
▪ Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council ▪ Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe
▪ Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
▪ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the Kizh Nation responded on March 18, 2024 and March 21, 2024, respectively, requesting consultation to discuss the Project in further detail . The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation requested receipt of the Cultural Resources Report ( Appendix E of this EIR), the Geotechnical Investigation Report ( Appendix F 1), and the Project plans and anticipated depth of disturbance. Upon review of the information provided by the City, the Yuhaaviatam of Manuel Nation contacted the City on August 15, 2024, noting that they did not have concerns regarding the Project and provided mitigation language for incorporation into the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the EIR. The City responded to the Kizh Nation ’s request for consultation, and as a result provided their requested mitigation language to the City on August 22, 2024. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians provided comments to the City on December 12, 2024, including recommended mitigation measures.

Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for tribal cultural resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would:
▪ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.16.5 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16 Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-7
Project Impacts and Mitigation
This analysis of impacts on cultural resources examines the Project’s construction and operational effects based on application of the significance criteria outlined above. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52) requires that lead agencies evaluate a project’s potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, based on substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the City provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about the adverse effects of development on tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. The City contacted the tribal representatives as noted above.

It is unlikely that tribal cultural resources are present on the project site, given the pedestrian survey results, record search results, Native American tribal consultations, review of archival and environmental data, and existing site disturbance. While low, there is the potential for tribal cultural resources to be inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities. Therefore, Project construction activities could result in potential impacts to previously unidentified tribal cultural resou rces or human remains. The Project would be subject to compliance with MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL-5, which requires the preparation of a Cultural Resources Management plan to be approved by the consulting tribes, a cultural resource sensitivity training, and in the event a cultural resources is discovered, work shall cease within a 60 foot buffer and if the resources is Native American in origin, the consulting tribes shall be contacted regarding potential significance and treatment of the resource outlined in MM TCR-3.

The Project would also be subject to compliance with MM TCR-1 which requires the retention on a Native Threshold 4.16-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? (b) A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM CUL-5, and MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-3.

4.16.6 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16 Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-8
American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, MM TCR-2 which requires a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and MM TCR -3 which outlines protocol in the event of discovery of a tribal cultural resource, including compliance with the Cultural Resource Management plan outlined in MM CUL -2 and coordination with the Consulting Tribes. Additionally, the Project would comply with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 , as outlined in SC CUL -1, which outlines procedures and treatment in the event human remains are discovered during excavation and disturbance activities. Therefore, compliance with the established regulatory framework and the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural and tribal resources, the geographic context for cumulative analysis is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area. However, the discussion is focused on a project’s potential for resulting in site-specific impact that could contribute to a cumulative loss. Accordingly, impacts are site-specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource ex tends off the site. With this consideration, the cumulative analyses for tribal cultural resources considers whether the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common resource.

As discussed above, the project site does not contain any known tribal cultural resources. However, the potential exists for undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted during groundbreaking activities. In the event that a potential tri bal cultural resource is found, the Project would implement measures to mitigate further damage to the found tribal resource. Therefore, Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

In addition, future cumulative development projects have the potential to encounter/adversely affect tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with other project development would be site-specific and would undergo environmental and development plan review in order to evaluate potential impacts. The combination of the proposed Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural and tribal cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation. This also includes project-by-project consultation with the appropriate tribal representatives to discuss mitigation measures that would be included to mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
Please refer to Standard Condition (SC) CUL-1 in Section 4.4: Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL-5 are applicable, please refer to Section 4.4: Cultural Resources.

MM TCR-1 Native American Monitoring for Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the

4.16.7 4.16.8
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-9
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of the first permit that would result in a “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City of Rialto prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The agreement would also address the consideration of rotating monitoring with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

The monitor shall complete monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, et c., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the Project Applicant/City of Rialto upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon one of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the Project Applicant or City of Rialto that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground - disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the Project Applicant or City of Rialto that no future, planned construction activity and/or developmen t/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

MM TCR-2: Native American Monitoring for Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Prior to the issuance of the first permit that would result in a “ground-disturbing activity,” the Applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the Project. The agreement would also address the consideration of rotating monitoring with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all (or as deemed necessary) ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases o f any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. The Tribal Monitor can establish a buffer around the discovery.

MM TCR-3: Inadvertent Discovery of a Tribal Cultural Resource . The Consulting Tribes shall be contacted and informed of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment (pursuant to Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

City of Rialto 4.16-10
Measure [MM] CUL-5). Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, the find shall be addressed to the protocols outlined in the Cultural Resources Management Plan from MM CUL-2. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Project Applicant and the City of Rialto for dissemination to the Consulting Tribes.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this EIR, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

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

4.16.9 4.16.10
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-1

4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR examines the utilities and service systems that would be used by the proposed Project and describes the potential impacts on those systems due to the implementation of the Project.

Specifically, this section addresses water supply, wastewater, dry utilities, and solid waste. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (January 2025) on behalf of the West Valley Water District (WVWD). The WSA is summarized in this section and is provided as Appendix L to this EIR. Storm drain facilities are addressed in Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality.

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Please refer to Section 4.5: Energy regarding federal and State energy regulations.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (33 United States Code §§ 1251 et seq.) is the primary federal law that protects the nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, and coastal areas. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutants discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.”
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the construction or operation of a facility that may result in the discharge of any pollutant, obtain State certification. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify surface waters that have been impaired. Under Section 303(d), states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality segments that do not meet water quality standards, eve n after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (Health and Safety Code §§ 116350–116405) is intended to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act authorizes the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (U .S. EPA) to set national standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants.

State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) is the California agency focused on providing and ensuring clean sustainable water for all California residents. The SWRCB works alongside federal programs like the Clean Water Act to regulate water sources and uses. The agency regulates water consumption for irrigation and drinking, as well as water discharges from construction, municipal uses, storm wat er, and other sources.

The SWRCB preserves, enhances, and restores the quality of California’s water resources and ensures proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. Wastewater

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-2
generators must obtain a permit to discharge their wastewater. Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters through the National Pollution Dis charge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Some wastewater discharges are exempt from federal NPDES requirements, but California law may still apply.

Under California law, the SWRCB requires waste discharge requirements for some discharges, in addition to those subject to NPDES permits. Permits contain specific requirements that limit the pollutants in discharges. They also require dischargers to monitor their wastewater to ensure that it meets all requirements. Wastewater dischargers must maintain their tr eatment facilities, and treatment plant operators must be certified. The SWRCB routinely inspects treatment facilities and strictly enforces permit requirements.

California Safe Drinking Water Act
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act, with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) granted primary enforcement responsibility. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) established DHS authority and provides drinking water quality and monitoring requirements, which are equal to or more stringent than federal standards.

Urban Water Management Plan Act
In 1983, the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) was established by Assembly Bill (AB) 797, and passage of this law recognized that water is a limited resource and that efficient water use and conservation would be actively pursued throughout the State of California. The UWMP Act requires that water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare and submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years.

Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill (SB) 610 ( Public Resources Code § 21151.9 and Water Code § 10910 et seq.) requires the preparation of “water supply assessments” for large developments.1 These are defined as:
▪ A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units ▪ A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (sf) of floor space. ▪ A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space.
▪ A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. ▪ A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor area.
▪ A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.

1 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003 . Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 1610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001.

Page iii. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-3
▪ A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

These water supply assessments, prepared by public water systems responsible for service, address whether adequate existing or projected water supplies are available to serve proposed projects, in addition to urban and agricultural demands and other anticipated development i n the service area in which the project is located.

A water supply assessment is included in any environmental document prepared for a project. Where a water supply assessment concludes that insufficient supplies are available, it must describe steps that would be required to obtain the necessary supply. The content requirements for the assessment include identification of the existing an d future water suppliers and quantification of water demand and supply by source in five-year increments over a 20-year projection. This information must be provided for average normal, single-dry, and multiple -dry years. The absence of an adequate current water supply does not preclude project approval but does require a lead agency to address a water supply shortfall in its project approval findings.

Additionally, SB 610 requires new information to be included as part of an UWMP if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Information must include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted to the State. SB 221 requires written verification that there is sufficient water supply available for applicable new reside ntial subdivisions. The verification must be provided before commencement of construction.

California Recycled Water Regulations
The regulation of recycled water is vested by State law in the SWRCB and the California Department of Public Health Services (DPH). DPH is responsible for the regulations concerning the use of recycled water.

Title 17 (California Water Code, §§ 13500–13556) regulates the protection of the potable water supply through the control of cross -connections with potential contaminants, including recycled water . The established water quality standards and treatment reliability criteria for recycled water are codifie d in Title 22 of the California Water Code. The requirements of Title 22, as revised in 1978, 1990 and 2001, establish the quality and/or treatment processes required for a recycled effluent to be used for a non - potable application. In addition to recycled water uses and treatment requirements, Title 22 addresses sampling and analysis requirements at the treatment plant, preparation of an engineering report prior to production or use of recycled water, general treatment design requirements, reliability requirements, and alternative methods of treatment.

Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606
Assembly Bill (AB) 16 68 and SB 606 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for implementation and oversight of the new standards, which were required to be in place by 2022. The two bills strengthen the State’s water resiliency in the face of future droughts with provisions that include:
▪ Establishing water use objectives and long -term standards for efficient water use that apply to urban retail water suppliers; and indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial and institutional irrigation with dedicate d meters, water loss, and other unique local uses.
▪ Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-4
▪ Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and provide recommendations for drought planning. Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare for drought.

Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare for drought.2
California Code, Government Code Section 66013
Pursuant to the Government Code, water and sewer connections for new development to existing infrastructure may be associated with fees from the corresponding local agency. These fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the f ee is charged or imposed unless taken to a vote regarding if the amount imposed is in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service.

Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
The SWRCB adopted Wastewater Discharge Requirements Order 2006 -0003-Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on May 2, 2006. This order mandates all federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities (“enrollees”) that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated sewer to a publicly owned treatment works facility in California to comply with the terms of the order. Order 2006 -0003-DWQ also requires each enrollee to develop and implement a system-specific sewer management plan to facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems. Sewer system management plans must include provisions to provide proper and efficient management, oper ation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, a sewer system management plan must contain a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to a sewer system overflow in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions.

Wastewater Discharge Requirements Order 2006-0003-DWQ
On May 2, 2006, the SWRCB adopted Wastewater Discharge Requirements Order 2006 -0003-DWQ. This order mandated all federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities (“enrollees”) that own or operate sanitary sewer sys tems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated sew age to a publicly owned treatment works facility in California to comply with the terms of the order. Order 2006 -0003-DWQ also stated that, to facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, each enrollee must develop and implement a system-specific sewer management plan. To be effective, sewer system management plans must include provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operat ion, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, a sewer system management plan must contain a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to a sewer system overflow in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions.

2 State of California. California Statutes Making Conservation a California Way of Life. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statutes.html . Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-5
Sewer System Management Plan
The SWRCB requires wastewater collection providers to report sanitary sewer overflows and to prepare and implement Sewer System Management Plans (SSMP). The SSMP policy requires dischargers to provide adequate capacity in the sewer collection system, take feasible steps to stop sewer overflows, identify and prioritize system deficiencies, and develop a plan for disposal of grease, among other requirements.

In addition, wastewater providers must report sanitary sewer overflows to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), keep internal records of these overflows, and produce an annual report on overflows. Newport Beach’s Utilities Department prepared a SSMP in September 2019, in compliance with the SWRCB.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341, approved in October 2011, is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in the state. I t is the policy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. This law requires California commercial businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week, or a multi-family residential dwelling with five or more units, to arrange for recycling services.

Each local jurisdiction is required to inform businesses about the recycling requirement and to keep track of the level of recycling within the business community. In addition, each jurisdiction is required to report to California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State agency that oversees recycling and solid waste, on progress in the business community.3 Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, requires each city or county to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. Subsequent legislation changed the reporting requirements and threshold, but restated source reduction as a priority.

California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas in development projects to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act required CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, to provide adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008
The purpose of the Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act of 2008 (SB 1016) is to make the process of goal measurement (as established by AB 939) simpler, timelier, and more accurate. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplif ied measure of jurisdictions’ performance.

SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator—the per capita disposal rate—which

3 California Legislative Information (CLI). 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341. Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341 Accessed October 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-6
uses only two factors: (1) a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment) and (2) its disposal, as reported by disposal facilities. Each year, CalRecycle calculates each jurisdiction’s per capita (per resident or per employee) disposal rates. If business is the dominant source of a jurisdiction’s waste generation, CalRecycle may use the per employee disposal rate. Each year’s disposal rate will be compared to that jurisdiction’s 50 percent per capita disposal target. As such, jurisdictions will n ot be compared to other jurisdictions or the statewide average, but they will only be compared to their own 50 percent per capita disposal target. Among other benefits, per capita disposal is an indicator that allows for jurisdiction growth because, as res idents or employees increase, report -year disposal tons can increase and still be consistent with the 50 percent per capita disposal target. A comparison of the reported annual per capita disposal rate to the 50 percent per capita disposal target will be u seful for indicating progress or other changes over time.

Assembly Bill 1826
Assembly Bill 1826, also known as the Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (MORe) law of 2014, requires most businesses and multi-family complexes to recycle their organic waste dependent on weekly waste generation. Local jurisdictions across the state are required to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units.4
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets for reductions in organic waste disposal in landfills and rescue of currently wasted surplus food. The goal was to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in various sectors of California’s economy and find a sustaina ble alternative to disposing of organics in landfills. All businesses must comply with the law and enroll in an organic recycling program and utilize an organics cart for residential and commercial customers.5
CalGreen Code Section 4.408
The California Green Building Standards Code mandates that construction waste management must be recycled or salvaged for reuse at a minimum of 65 percent for nonhazardous construction and demolition waste and comply with local construction standards for demolition waste management when applicable.

Exceptions to this include excavated soil and land -clearing debris, if recycling facilities capable of compliance with this item do not exist or are not located reasonably close to the jobsite, or if the enforcing agency makes exceptions when project sites are located in areas beyond the haul boundaries of the diversion facility.6
Local and Regional Regulations
Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply Element and Chapter 3, Investing in Our Future:

Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Infrastructure provides guidance to promote the City’s goals for current and future development related to solid waste, recycling, and infrastructure, including water

4 CalRecycle, Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling. Retrieved from: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics . Accessed August 12, 2024.
5 Republic Services. What is SB 1383? Retrieved from: https://oclandfills.com/sites/ocwr/files/2022 - 06/Repub%20Services%201383%20Organics.pdf . Accessed August 12, 2024. 6 CalRecycle. Nd. Construction and Landscaping. Retrieved from Construction and Landscaping - CalRecycle Home Page.

Accessed October 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-7
and wastewater systems. 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 on the supply of water and are applicable to the proposed Project.7
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.

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

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

Policy 2-35.3 Encourage the maximum diversion from landfills of construction and demolition materials through recycling and reuse programs.

Goal 3-8 Promote affordable and quality water service capable of adequately meeting normal and emergency water demands to all areas in Rialto.

Policy 3-8.1 Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the water system to handle the increased demands which they are expected to generate.

Policy 3-8.10 Support water conservation through requirements for landscaping with drought - tolerant plants and efficient irrigation for all new development and City projects.

7 City of Rialto. The City of Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023 -City-of-Rialto- Focused-General-Plan. Accessed October 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-8
Goal 3-9 Upgrade and maintain an improved wastewater system with adequate plant efficiency and capacity to protect the health and safety of all Rialto residents, businesses, and institutions.

Policy 3-9.1 Require that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bear the cost of expanding the wastewater disposal system to handle the increased loads which they are expected to generate.

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.

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 accomm odate 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 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 framework to guide future land use and development decisions in this area. The Rialto Airpor t Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to utilities.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Chapter 12.08 Sewer System. Connections to the City’s sewer system are generally regulated by Title 12 (Public Utilities) of the Municipal Code. Chapter 12.08 establishes rules and requirements for connection to the sewer system and fees for waste deposit. The Chapter further regulates private sewer connections when connections to the public system are not feasible as well operation of private sewer systems.

Chapter 18.111 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. This chapter provides the installation, modification, operation, and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities on public and private property consistent with State and federal law. Telecommunication facilities must ensure public safety, minimize the visual effects of telecom facilities on public streetscapes, protect public views, and otherwise avoid and mitigate the visual impacts of telecom facilities on the community.

Chapter 18.108, Regulation of Recycling Facilities. The requirements of Chapter 18.108 – Regulation of Recycling Facilities established guidelines and operating standards and procedures for the permitting of recycling facilities in the City. Recycling facilities may be located and operated in commercial and industrial zoning districts in conformance with Section 18.108.040. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan Pursuant to the UWMP Act, the City adopts the San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan every five years. The current adopted plan is the 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP).8

8 San Bernardino 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 July 11, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-9

4.17.3 Existing Conditions
Water
The WVWD is located in the southwest region of San Bernardino County and serves the cities of Rialto, Fontana, Colton, and Jurupa Valley, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. WVWD’s total water service area encompasses approximately 31 square miles. Its service area is generally bordered by the City of Fontana to the west, the City of San Bernardino to the east, the U.S. Forest Service boundary to the north, and the County of Riverside to the south. The project site is located entirely within WVWD’s northern service area section. WVWD’s distribution system is divided into 8 pressure zones and u ses 25 reservoirs for a total storage capacity of 72.6 million gallons (mg). WVWD also operates a 14.4 million gallons per day (mgd) water filtration facility.

There is existing domestic water infrastructure proximate to the project site. WVWD has an existing municipal water main that varies from 8 inches to 10 inches in Lowell Street and an existing 12-inch water main in Locust Avenue.

Purchased or Imported Water . WVWD purchases State Water Project (SWP) water from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. This water is put into the distribution system based on metered flows at the Lytle Turnout off the San Gabriel Pipeline Feeder. Metering and transmission facilities are sized to enable WVWD to purchase and treat up to 20 mgd (approximately 23,000 acre-feet per year ( afy)). SWP water is treated at WVWD’s Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility (Water Filtration Facility ) and used for potable supply. WVWD is investigating the use of SWP water for groundwater recharge in the Lytle Creek Basin. In 2006, the Water Filtration Facility was expanded to increase production capacity to 14.4 mgd. In 2020, WVWD began the design of a 7.2 mgd expansion of the Water Filtration Facility to increase capacity to 21.6 mgd.

Groundwater. WVWD draws the majority of its supply from its wells from five regional groundwater basins: Bunker Hill and Lytle Creek (which are both part of the San Bernardino Basin), Rialto -Colton, Riverside North, and Chino Basins. These groundwater supply sources enter WVWD’s distribution system based on metered flows at each well. All five basins have been adjudicated and are managed for long - term sustainability.

Surface Water. WVWD uses local surface water from the east side of the San Gabriel Mountains, including North Fork Lytle Creek, Middle Fork Lytle Creek, and South Fork Lytle Creek. WVWD has the right to divert and export out of the Lytle Creek Region at 2,290 gallons per minute (gpm) when it is available. WVWD can also purchase an additional 1,350 gpm of Lytle Creek flows through an agreement with the City of San Bernardino, which is treated at the Water Filtration Facility. WVWD also uses Lytle Creek surfa ce water flows for groundwater recharge in the Lytle Creek Basin. When flows at the mouth of Lytle Creek Canyon drop below 7,182 gpm, all diversion rights holders must reduce their diversions to a prorated schedule set in the 1897 McKinley Decree entered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20,790. If WVWD is not recei ving its full Lytle Creek surface water allotment, WVWD is permitted to make up the difference through additional pumping in the Lytle Creek Region.

Transfer Opportunities. WVWD has interconnections with the Fontana Water Company, Marygold Mutual Water Company, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the cities of Rialto, Colton and San Bernardino, which can be used as needed for short-term supply needs.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-10
Future Water Projects. To meet future demands within the system, WVWD plans to rehabilitate existing wells, drill new wells, and equip wells with wellhead treatment if required. These wells are planned for various groundwater basins and pressure zones within the distribution sys tem. WVWD is expanding the Water Filtration Facility by 7.2 mgd for a total capacity of 21.6 mgd to allow additional treatment of SWP water, when available. When planning future water supply sources, WVWD selects projects that provide sufficient supply to meet peak day demands. When possible, these sources are planned by pressure zone, thereby reducing the need to lift water to a higher zone. As development progresses and increased demands are placed on the system, WVWD will determine which projects to implement. Although WVWD may not need to use each source to its full potential, construction of these water supply projects gives WVWD this option should one or more sources be offline due to maintenance. WVWD plans to collaborate with the other parties to implement groundwater recharge in the Rialto Basin to increase water levels.

Increased water levels will result in an increase in WVWD's allowable pumping from the Rialto Basin, thereby increasing supply. The potential supply increase has not yet been quantified.

Recycled Water. Wastewater collected within WVWD’s service area is treated by the cities of Rialto and Colton, San Bernardino County, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. In 2012, WVWD prepared a master plan to evaluate potential uses of recycled water within its service area. WVWD does not currently have a recycled water distribution system and is not pursuing recycled water use at this time because it is not cost effective to extend facilities from the wastewater treatment plants to the locations of potential use.

Service Area
The current and projected population for WVWD’s water service area is shown in Table 4.17 1: WVWD Water Service Area Projected Population . The population projections were prepared as part of the IRUWMP. The 2020 population was determined using the DWR Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based tool (DWR Tool) to estimate the population within WVWD’s service area using census data and the number of service connections. Future population was projected based on the 2020 WVWD Water Facilities Master Plan. Based on various growth rates identified in the Water Facilities Master Plan, it was estimated that population between 2020 and 2025 would grow at 2.84 percent, then reduce to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent from 2025 through 2045.

Table 4.17-1: WVWD Water Service Area Projected Population Growth 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area
Population 89,101 102,490 110,410 118,943 128,136 138,039 Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

WVWD’s available supplies for future years are summarized in Table 4.17 2: Current and Projected Water Supplies. These quantities are established in the IRUWMP.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-11

Table 4.17-2: Current and Projected Water Supplies
Water Supply Detail on Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Groundwater Bunker Hill (part of the San
Bernardino Basin)
2,052 2,353 3,554 4,754 6,455
Bunker Hill (part of the San
Bernardino Basin, via Baseline
Feeder)
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Lytle Creek (part of the San
Bernardino Basin)
2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900
Rialto-Colton 4,426 4,538 4,650 4,761 4,873
Riverside-Arlington 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,000
Chino - 900 900 900 900
Purchased or
Imported Water
SWP – Rialto Colton
Groundwater Supplemental
Supply
- - - - -
SWP - Direct Delivery 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Surface Water Lytle Creek 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 Total 26,978 28,791 30,603 32,415 34,229
Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Wastewater
The City owns, operates, and maintains the local public sanitary sewer system, which includes a wastewater collection system and treatment plant. Wastewater is treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 501. E. Santa Ana Avenue in Rialto. The Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant treats domestic and commercial/industrial wastewater generated in the City of Rialto and portions of the City of Fontana. The combined total treatment design capacity of the plant is 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd).9 The City processes over 2 billion gallons of wastewater per year at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Processing of sewage can be accomplished in numerous ways through mechanical, biological, and chemical treatment methods. Primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment standards reflect the degree by which the sewage has been treated. Primary treatment includes the removal of relatively large objects such as trash, rags, cans, and gravel. Secondary treatment involves the removal of biological solids such as fat , grease, human waste, soaps, and other organic materials. Tertiary treatment further clarifies wastewater utilizing chemical washes, biological decomposition, and disinfection. Tertiary treatment involves the removal of nitrates, phosphorus, pathogens, and other microorganisms.10 Tertiary treated water can be used as reclaimed water for irrigation and other uses that can rely on non- potable water. Reclaimed water is produced at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, there is no infrastructure for citywide use of recycled water for irrigation or other non-potable uses and there are no plans to install such infrastructure. The City’s Utilities Division is responsible for maintaining over 150 miles of sewer mains. The collection method uses gravity flow through vitrified clay pipes that flow from

9 Veolina. Nd. Strengthening Rialto's Water & Wastewater Infrastructure. Retrieved from: https://www.veolianorthamerica.com/case - studies/strengthening-rialtos-water-wastewater-infrastructure. Accessed October 8, 2024. 10 City of Rialto. 2010, as amended. Rialto General Plan Update EIR. Accessed October 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-12
northwest to southeast. There is an existing 12-inch sewer line in Locust Avenue and an 8-inch sewer line in Lowell Street.

Dry Utilities‒ Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunications Electricity
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the primary distribution provider for electricity in the City.11 SCE services approximately 15 million people in a 50,000-square-mile service territory. SCE is a regulated electrical utility and maintains electrical facilities and infrastructure within the City and surrounding areas.

SCE facilities and infrastructure a re used to provide service to the City under the applicable rules and tariffs approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is responsible for ensuring that California utilities’ customers have safe and reliable utility service. SCE provides service in accordance with Tariff Rule 2 as authorized by the CPUC. In addition to the specific rule requirements, each service request is individually designed taking into consideration factors that include but are not limited to: the customer’s projected electrical load, location of the customer’s metering point, requested service voltage, reliability needs, proximity and delivery capacity of SCE’s near -by facilities, potential for load expansions and future development of the SCE system. 12 There is an 11-foot-wide SCE easement on Locust Avenue parallel to the right -of-way. The SCE easement and the 5 -foot-wide public utility easement on Lowell Street are shown on Figure 11: Tentative Parcel Map in Section 3.0: Project Description.

Natural Gas
The City is served by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). SoCalGas serves approximately 21.1 million people in a 24,000-square mile service territory.13 According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service area was 5 026 million therms in 2022 (most recent data).14
SoCalGas projects that total demand for natural gas will decline at an annual average rate of 2.0 percent per year through 2040.15 The decline in demand is due to modest economic growth, the CPUC mandated energy efficiency standards and programs, tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable electricity goals, the decline in commercial and industrial de mand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications are provided by multiple telecommunications companies that operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure which currently serves the City.

11 Southern California Edison. 2019. Southern California Edison’s Service Area. Retrieved from:
https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/?f_id=5cc32d492cfac24d21aecf4c&content_verified=True . Accessed October 8, 2024.
12 Southern California Edison. ND. Expansion and New Facilities. Retrieved from: https://www.sce.com/business/consulting - services/expansion. Accessed October 8, 2024.
13 SoCalGas. ND. Company Profile. Retrieved from: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile. Accessed October 8, 2024. 14 California Energy Commission. 2022. Gas Consumption by Southern California Gas . Retrieved from: Natural Gas Consumption . Accessed May 7, 2025.
15 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2024. California Gas Report 2024. Page 5. Retrieved from:
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2024 -08/2024-California-Gas-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-13
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste Industries provides trash collection and recycling services including hazardous waste disposal and recycling services to the City of Rialto. Burrtec transports solid waste to the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works Mid -Valley San itary Landfill located approximately one mile southwest of the project site at 2390 Alder Avenue. The Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day and the remaining capacity is 54,219,377 cubic yards. There is currently no solid waste generation at the project site since the site is vacant.

4.17.4 Methodology
Water
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (January 2025) on behalf of the West Valley Water District (WVWD). The WSA is summarized in this section and is provided as Appendix L to this EIR. As required by Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), the WVWD is responsible for assessing whether the total projected water supplies available during average, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year projection will meet the projected water demand for the proposed Project, in addition to WVWD’s existing and planned future uses. A water supplier’s UWMP serves as a foundational document for a WSA. The water demands of the proposed Project were not accounted for in WVWD’s IRUWMP (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and Woodard & Curran, June 2021), as submitted to the DWR in June 2021. Updated projections were incorporated into the WSA to reflect the most recent supply and demand information. Additional information from other sources were also incorporated into this WSA to document suppli es from all sources, including groundwater and purchased water. Documentation includes identifying and quantifying water rights, contracts, and/or entitlements to the supply. Th e WSA includes the following:
▪ Overview of WVWD’s water system;
▪ Description of the Project and proposed water demand; ▪ Information on WVWD’s current and projected water supplies; ▪ Comparison of WVWD’s service area water supplies and water demands for average, single dry, and multiple dry years; and,
▪ Determination of the WVWD water service area water supply sufficiency.

Wastewater
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds and information concerning current service levels and the ability of the service providers to accommodate the increased demand created by the proposed Project. The wastewater analysis identifies the types of wastewater that is anticipated to be generated by Project implementation and wastewater treatment requirements related to wastewater.

Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed Project would not comply or would conflict with existing applicable wastewater regulations resulting in a 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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-14
environmental impacts. Refer to Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality for information regarding the Project’s impacts on drainage.

Dry Utilities ‒ Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunications The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds and information concerning current service levels and the ability of the service providers to accommodate the increased demand created by the Project. This analysis addresses the Project’s potential impacts on dry utility infrastructure, including electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. 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. Energy consumption that would occur during both construction and operation of the Project and specific analysis methodologies was assessed in Section 4.5: Energy . Energy calculations are provided in Appendix B of this EIR and are based on the same assumptions used in Section 4.2: Air Quality , and Section 4.7:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Solid Waste
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds and information concerning current service levels and the ability of the service providers to accommodate the increased demand created by 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.

Landfill Capacity : The analysis of the proposed Project’s impact on landfill facilities is based on the anticipated generation of solid waste that would occur during construction and operation of the Project.

The analysis identifies the projected amount of non-hazardous construction debris and operational solid waste that would be generated from implementation of the Project and the amount that would be disposed of in landfills after compliance with recycling/diversion requirements. The proposed Project’s impact regarding solid waste would be significant if the Project’s anticipated solid waste generation would substantially affect landfill capacity, such that additional or expanded landfill facilities would be required to accommodate the Project.

Solid Waste Regulations: The analysis of the proposed Project consists of the Project’s conformance of applicable solid waste regulations related to the generation or disposal of solid waste. Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed Project would not comply with all applicable federal, State, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste.

4.17.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for utilities and service system impa cts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact if it would:
▪ Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. ▪ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-15
▪ Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. ▪ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
▪ Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
▪ Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. ▪ Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.17.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Water

Water infrastructure for domestic water, fire protection, and landscape irrigation would be extended to the site from Lowell Street, and water infrastructure for fire protection would be extended to the site from Locust Avenue. The proposed Project would receive water supplies from WVWD through the existing 12-inch water main in Locust Avenue and the existing 8 -inch to 10-inch water main in Lowell Street. For the Project’s proposed 12 -inch water connection to the water main in Lowell Street, either the Proj ect would connect to the existing 10 -inch portion of the existing water main or the existing 10 -inch main would be replaced with a 12-inch water main. WVWD would be responsible for the review of water infrastructure design plans and would determine if the existing water line in Lowell Street requires replacement during final engineering . The City would provide an encroachment permit for the construction/installation of required infrastructure in the public right-of-way.

Construction activities related to the new on -site and off -site water infrastructure would occur within areas that would be disturbed for other aspects of the proposed Project. The water infrastructure would be installed as part of grading, building construction, and installation of other utilities. The proposed off- site connections to water mains would occur within roadway rights-of-way that would be provided as part of the implementation of the proposed Project. Reconstruction or replacement of the water line would occur within the same location both horizontally and vertically in Lowell Street. The installation of off-site water infrastructure is assumed as part of the impact analysis for the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to water infrastructure would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.17-1: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-16

The Locust Gateway WSA was prepared for the proposed Project to satisfy the requirements of SB 610.

As required by SB 610, the WVWD is responsible for assessing whether the total projected water supplies available during average, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year projection will meet the projected water demand for the Project, in addition to WVWD’s existing and planned future uses. The findings of the WSA are summarized below and the WSA is provided as Appendix L to this EIR.

Project Water Demand
The City designates the project site’s land use as industrial which corresponds to the 2020 WVWD Water Facilities Master Plan ’s industrial water demand factor category . The Rialto Airport Specific Plan designates the property as General Manufacturing. To provide consistency with previous WVWD WSAs prepared for warehouse uses, the heavy industrial demand factor was used to provide a conservative estimate. The estimated heavy industrial water demand factor applied is provided in Table 4.17-3: Project Water Demand. The WSA identified that the Project’s water demand would be approximately 68 afy.

Table 4.17-3: Project Water Demand
Use Area (Acres) Demand Factor (gpd/ac) Demand (afy)
Heavy Industrial 39.91 1,530 68
gpd/ac; gallons per day per acres; ac = acre; afy = acre-feet per year Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Table 4.17-4: Historic and Projected Water Demand identifies the IRUWMP historical and projected demands by customer class , which includes cumulative projects . The Project’s water demand was compared to the demands projected within the IRUWMP starting in 2025 ; the net Project demand is included in the table. The IRUWMP reports projections every five years (2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045). The IRUWMP projected a 94 AFY increase of industrial demands from 2020 to 2025, which is more than the Project’s water demand.

Table 4.17-4: Historic and Projected Water Demand
Customer Class
Demand, AFY1, 2
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family3 12,049 13,715 14,647 15,578 16,509 17,440 Multi-Family 481 553 591 628 665 702
Commercial 1,689 1,943 2,073 2,204 2,334 2,465
Industrial4 623 1,115 1,282 1,330 1,378 1,426
Institutional5 860 972 1,039 1,105 1,172 1,238
Landscape Irrigation 2,161 2,485 2,652 2,819 2,986 3,153 Hydrant 272 313 334 355 376 397
Golf Course - - - - - -
Threshold 4.17-2: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-17
Table 4.17-4: Historic and Projected Water Demand
Fire Service 5 5 6 6 7 7
Agricultural Irrigation 70 81 86 92 97 103
Water Losses 1,889 2,513 2,682 2,851 3,020 3,189
Total6 20,099 23,694 25,391 26,967 28,543 30,119

1. Demand for 2020 provided in Table 10 -3 of the IRUWMP

2. Demand for 2025 – 2045 provided in Table 10 -5 of the IRUWMP.

3. Single-family demands here differ from the IRUWMP because they exclude the existing 144 AFY single -family use of the Bloomington Business Park site to be redeveloped.

4. Industrial demands here differ from the IRUWMP because they include the demands from the Pepper Commerce Center (119 AFY) and Bloomington Business Park (236 AFY), WSAs prepared after the IRUWMP.

5. Institutional demands here differ from the IRUWMP because they exclude the existing institutional use of 17 AFY from the Bloo mington Business Park WSA site to be redeveloped.

6. Demand totals updated to reflect the changes to the IRUWMP projections.

Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Water Supply and Demand
As a part of the IRUWMP, the WVWD estimated that water demands could increase by 10 percent during a single dry year. During a multiple dry year period and to provide for the most conservative estimate, the IRUWMP assumed that demand could continue to exhibit a 10 percent increase although it is expected that conservation messaging and restrictions would help reduce overall consumption.

Table 4.17-5: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison provides a comparison of supply and demand projections for a normal year including the IRUWMP, proposed Project demand, and other WSA demands.

Table 4.17-6: Single Year Supply and Demand Comparison identifies the supply and demand projections for a single dry year.

Table 4.17-5: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Totals 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 26,978 28,791 30,603 32,415 34,229
Demand Totals 23,764 25,459 27,035 28,612 30,188
Difference 3,214 3,332 3,568 3,803 4,041
Notes: Supply information provided in the IRUWMP Table 10-12. Demand totals updated to reflect addition of net Project demand and additional demands identified in WSAs developed subsequent to the IRUWMP including the Bloomington Business Park (236 AFY) and Pepper Commerce Center (119 AFY).

Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Table 4.17-6: Single Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Totals 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 26,110 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,566 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Notes: Supply information provided in the IRUWMP Table 10-12. Demand totals updated to reflect addition of net Project demand and additional demands identified in WSAs developed subsequent to the IRUWMP including the Bloomington Business Park (236 AFY) and Pepper Commerce Center (119 AFY). WVWD’s demands in single dry years are assumed to increase by 10% above normal year demands.

Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-18
Table 4.17-7: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison identifies the supply and demand for multiple dry years. The water demands presented in these tables differ from the IRUWMP in order to show the demand required to serve the Project (68 afy) and the additional demands identified in WSAs prepared subsequent to the IRUWMP.

According to the IRUWMP, WVWD has adequate supplies to meet its customer demands and replacement water needs during average, single dry, and multiple dry years throughout the planning period. Even with the addition of the Project demands and the water dema nds of the cumulative projects noted in the tables, to the projected demands established in the IRUWMP, WVWD anticipates sufficient supply to serve the Project with additional surplus supply for as-needed use. The WVWD has adequate supplies to meet demands during average, single dry, and multiple dry years throughout the planning period. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.17-7: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Year Totals 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,873 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,803 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Second Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,873 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,803 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Third Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,873 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,803 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,873 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,803 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,873 27,963 29,697 31,430 33,164
Difference 3,803 3,707 3,966 4,227 4,487
Notes: Supply information provided in the IRUWMP Table 10 -12. Demand totals updated to reflect addition of net Project demand and additional demands identified in WSAs developed subsequent to the IRUWMP including the Bloomington Business Park (236 AFY) an d Pepper Commerce Center (119 AFY). WVWD’s demands in dry years are assumed to increase by 10% above normal year demands.

Source: Locust Gateway Water Supply Assessment, 2025.

Wastewater
Threshold 4.17-3: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 4.17-4: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-19

The Project would construct an 8 -inch sewer PVC pipe along the eastern portion of the project site that would flow to an on-site private sewer lift station. The flows would then be pumped to a gravity manhole that would discharge to an existing 8 -inch sewer in Lowell Street. The City would be responsible for the review of wastewater infrastructure design plans and would provide an encroachment permit for the construction/installation of required infrastructure in the public right -of-way. Wastewater from the Project would be conveyed to and treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant. The design capacity of the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant is permitted for 11.7 mgd of treatment capacity and treats an average of 7 to 8 mgd with 4 to 5 mgd remaining c apacity. Based on wastewater generation rates from the Rialto Master Sewer Study, the Project would generate 60,000 gpd of wastewater or 67.2 acre feet per year (1,500 gpd/acre × 40 acres = 60,000 gpd). Projected wastewater demand for the Project would account for less than one percent of the daily treatment volume at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of the treatment plant. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodat e the project -generated wastewater and continue to maintain a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment.

Further, the City’s General Plan EIR evaluated wastewater demand based on the proposed land use and zoning identified for the project site. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the project site. Lastly, the City of Rialto has provided a Will Serve letter dated September 19, 2024, stating that the City can provide sewer service to the proposed Project.

Therefore, the Project would not require expansion or relocation of a wastewater facility as there is sufficient capacity at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve the Project. Further, the City collects development impact fees, specifically Sewer Frontag e fees and Sewer Treatment fees, from new development under Ordinance No. 1532. Collection of fees would also fund future expansion of wastewater infrastructure facilities as needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Dry Utilities‒ Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunications Threshold 4.17-6: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

SoCalGas and SCE provide natural gas and electric power services to the area. These service providers install and maintain mainline systems throughout the City. Several companies provide telecommunications. Project construction would use approximately 0.0080 gigawatt -hours (GWh) of electricity, 35,998 gallons of gasoline, and 97,770 gallons of diesel. 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 upon implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG-4; see Section 4.5: Energy.

Electricity
SCE currently operates electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines in both aboveground and buried lines. The Project would connect to existing SCE lines which would enable services to the site.

Although some new utility infrastructure may be required on the site, extension of services is not

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-20
anticipated to require the construction of any new off -site electric power facilities in order to serve the project site. The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with SCE to prevent disruption of service while electrical infrastructure is extended to the project site. Impacts would be than significant and mitigation is not required.

Natural Gas
As identified in Section 4.2: Air Quality , Mitigation Measure (MM) A Q-2 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. Although there are natural gas lines in the area , natural gas infrastructure would not be extended to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur related to natural gas and no mitigation is required.

Telecommunications
The project site would require telecommunication services , which are provided by private purveyors .

There are existing telecommunication lines located within existing adjacent rights -of-way that serve the existing surrounding development. Service to the project site would require tying into these lines but these improvements would occur within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. Any upgrades to existing telecommunication facilities and the construction of new facilities to meet the demand of users would be determined by the service provider. However, t he construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructure is not assumed to be required. These impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Solid Waste
Threshold 4.17-5: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 4.17-6: Would the Project c omply with federal , State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Construction
Site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities) and construction activities would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardboard, and green waste. Non - salvaged construction and demolition waste would resu lt in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.

Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily intake capacity of 7,500 tons per day. 16 Therefore, the landfill would support a temporary increase in solid waste during construction of the Project. Recycling of construction debris would reduce the potential amount of waste disposed of at the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill and would contribute to the recycling goals set forth by the City, the CBC, and AB 939. Construction activities would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to

16 CalRecycle. 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 . Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-21
solid waste. As a result, impacts associated with short-term solid waste would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operations
As of August 2024, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 54,219,377 cubic yards. Based on a generation rate of 41.64 pounds per employee per day for industrial uses, the Project would generate approximately 11.6 tons per day.17 This accounts for less than one percent of the maximum daily capacity of the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill. The existing landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project and solid waste generated during construction and operations would represent a nominal increase compared to the daily permitted tonnage at the landfill. Compliance with all applicable regulations and laws regarding solid waste would further reduce impacts. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The Project would comply with applicable local, State and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including those of the City of Rialto. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed Project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), AB 1826, SB 2022, SB 1383, SB 1019, CalGreen Code Section 4.408, AB 341, and the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.08. The regulatory framework is described above in the regulatory setting and details what requirements the Project must follow to be compliant. The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.08 outlines policies and regulations regarding solid waste handling and recycling for both customers and collectors in the City. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.08, the Project would maintain a sufficient number of containers to hold all solid waste; deposit all solid waste, including gray container waste, non-organic recyclables, and organic waste generated or accumulated on the premises into the proper containers; and cleanup of any and al l solid waste generated, accumulated, or spilled on the premises prior to collection. Compliance with the above- mentioned policies and programs would ensure that the Project would not conflict with federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Further, the General Plan contains a goals and policies related to solid waste and recycling. Following adherence to these federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of public utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts are considered for projects on a system-wide basis and are associated with the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure from local responsible agencies. As addressed in this section of the EIR, the Project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards.

With respect to water, a s previously addressed, the WSA evaluated the water demand of the proposed Project as well as the projected demands as set forth in the IRUWMP and WSAs prepared subsequent to the preparation of the IRUWMP. The WVWD has determined that it will be able to provide adequate water supplies to meet the potable water demand for this Project in addition to existing and future uses during average, single dry, and multiple dry years . Impacts related to a cumulatively considerable increase in water supply demands would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

17 CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates . Accessed August 12, 2024. Note: [41.64(lb/employee/day) x 557(employee)] ÷ 2000(lb/ton) = 11.59(ton/employee/day)

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-22
With respect to wastewater, g iven the existing available capacity at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant, the wastewater treatment needs of the Project, when combined with past, presents, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the project site, would not result in the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities that could result in significant environmental impacts or exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities. Furthermore, the Project would have adequate wastewater capacity to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development.

All projects within the vicinity of the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would minimize environmental impact and prevent a cumulatively considerable significant impact from occurring. No significant impact is anticipated with respect to wastewater capacity, and the Project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact relating to wastewater treatment would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

With respect to dry utilities, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to dry utilities.

Regarding cumulative impacts, the electric power and telecommunication needs of the Project, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the project site, would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or telecommunication facilities that could result in significant environmental impacts or exceed the capacity of the electricity, n atural gas, and telecommunication providers. All projects within the vicinity of the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would minimize environmental impacts and prevent a cumulatively considerable significant impact from occurring. Based on the foregoing, no significant cumulative impact is anticipated with respect to dry utilities, and the Project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact relating to electric power and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

With respect to landfills and solid waste, p otential future projects in the City would increase solid waste generation and decrease available capacity at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and other landfills within the County. However, as with the proposed Project, these projects would be subject to environmental review prior to construction and comply with federal, State and local regulations to minimize water, wastewater and solid waste impacts . Additionally, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is projected to have sufficient capacity to serve current and future needs until its scheduled closure in 2045. The Project would not result in a significant impact and combined with other projects within the vicinity would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts to solid waste standards, infrastructure, or reduction goals.

Furthermore, the Project would comply and it is expected that projects within the vicinity of the project site would also comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, a cumulatively considerable significant impact is not expected with respect to solid waste and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated relative to utility and service systems, and the Project’s contribution toward potential future utility and service system impacts is not cumulatively considerable.

4.17.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-23
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.17.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

4.17.10 References
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 1610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. Page iii. Accessed August 12, 2024.

California Energy Commission. 2022. Retrieved from: Natural Gas Consumption. Accessed May 7, 2025.

California Legislative Information. 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341. Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341.Accessed August 12, 2024.

CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed August 12, 2024.

CalRecycle, Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling. Retrieved from:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics. Accessed August 12, 2024.

CalRecycle. Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement (2007 and Later). Retrieved from: Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement (2007 and Later) - CalRecycle Home Page. Accessed August 12, 2024.

CalRecycle. Construction Waste Management. Retrieved from: Construction and Landscaping - CalRecycle Home Page. Accessed August 2025.

City of Rialto. Will Serve Domestic Sewer Services for APN Number 0239-19-23 letter dated September 19, 2024.

City of Rialto, Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023-City-of-Rialto-Focused-General-Plan. Accessed August 12, 2024.

CLI. 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341. Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Natelson Company, Inc. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A.

State of California. California Statutes Making Conservation a California Way of Life. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statut es.html. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Rialto Water Services. 2021. Wastewater. Retrieved from: https://rialtowater.com/about- us/wastewater/. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Republic Services. What is SB 1383? Retrieved from: Repub Services 1383 Organics.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.17
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems

City of Rialto 4.17-24
San Bernardino 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 July 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-1

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA provides that an EIR focus on the significant effects on the environment, discussing the effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The City of Rialto, as the lead agency for the Locust Gateway Development Project (proposed Project) , is subject to specific environmental review under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 provides that if a lead agency determines that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, an Initial Study is not required. In this case, the City determined that an EIR will need to be prepared based on the Project’s potential to create short- term, long-term, and cumulative impacts. California Public Resources Code (PRC) §21100 (c) states that an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that a project’s various possible significant effects were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR (PRC §21000 et. seq.). The Draft EIR further evaluates all of the Project’s possible sig nificant effects in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Where it was determined that the Project would have “less than significant impact” or “no impact,” these threshold issues have not been addressed in the EIR, except to be identified in this section. The following identifies the threshold and a discussion of why the “less than significant” or “no impact” determination was reached.

5.1.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? There are no officially designated State scenic highways in or proximate to the City.1 The nearest officially designated scenic highway is State Route 38 (Rim of the World Scenic Byway), located approximately 33 miles east of the project site.2 Therefore, since the project site is not within the vicinity of any designated or eligible State scenic highways, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur and this threshold question is not addressed further in the EIR.

5.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ▪ Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ▪ Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defi ned by Government Code section 51104(g))?

1 California Department of Transportation. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways . Retrieved from:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap -landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

Accessed October 20, 2024.
2 Ibid.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-2
▪ Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ▪ Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.3 No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract.4 Additionally, the area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture use.5 Therefore, the Project would result in no impact concerning mapped farmlands, Williamson Act Contracts, agricultural, forest, or timberland zoning, or the conversion or loss of Farmland, forest land, or timberland.

For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed further in the EIR.

5.1.3 Biological Resources
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located with an active Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area6. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.4 Geology and Soils
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ 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 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS). The closest known fault to the site is the San Jacinto fault, which is mapped about 1.4 miles to the northeast7. Therefore, the Project would not directly, or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not addressed further in the EIR. ▪ Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

3 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder . Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ . Accessed October 20, 2024. 4 State of California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment 2023 . Retrieved from:
https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/item.html?id=c608c0e32810424f8f4f9d39570cc45b . Accessed October 20, 2024. 5 City of Rialto. 2013. City of Rialto Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning -Map---July- 2013. Accessed October 22, 2024.
6 Rocks Biological Consulting. 2025. Biological Technical Report . Included as Appendix D to this EIR. 7 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. November 2024. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.

Retrieved from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ . Accessed October 22, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-3
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.8 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 in volving landslides would occur. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not addressed further in the EIR. ▪ 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. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR. Section 4.17: Utilities of this EIR addresses wastewater service and facilities.

5.1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ 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. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.
▪ Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

8 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 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-4
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, the Project would not result in exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. For this reason, no impacts would occur and this threshold questions is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.6 Land Use and Planning
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ 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 uses, 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 manufacturing uses, and Mid -Valley Landfill to the west. The residential neighborhood is approximately 7 00 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, curb and gutter, restriping, pavement replacement, and utility connections. Project improvements would not include features 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 .

For this reason, this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.7 Noise
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips or airports loc ated immediately adjacent to or near the project site. The closest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, which is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not subject to an airport land use plan. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport or airstrip -

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-5
related noise levels . No impact would occur. For this reason, this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.8 Population and Housing
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is vacant; there is no housing on the site. Therefore, Project implementation would not create an impact that would displace people or housing. For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.9 Public Services
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: schools, parks, and other public facilities including libraries? Implementation of the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services; no residential uses are proposed. The addition of employment-generating uses on the project site would assist the City in achieving its goal to provide a better jobs/housing balance within the City (allowing more City residents to work in the City rather than commuting elsewhere). The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the region and would therefore not indirectly generate a substantial number of new school-aged students in the City requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a demand for additional public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute development impact fees to the Rialto Unified School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. For this reason, impacts to public schools would be less than significant, this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

The proposed Project does not include any residential uses and would not directly create a demand for public park facilities and would not result in the need to modify existing or construct new park facilities.

For this reason, no impact would occur and this threshold question is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.10 Recreation
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-6
▪ Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed Project does not include the development of any residences or recreational facilities, which would directly increase population and result in increased demand for parks and recreational facilities resulting in the need for new or expanded existing off -site recreational facilities. The collection of taxes and payment of development impact fees as outlined in Rialto Municipal Code Title 3 contributes to the funding of recreational facilities. For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.1.11 Wildfire
The CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following:
▪ If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as set forth in Public Resources Code Sections 4201 -4204 and Government Code Sections 51175-89. FHSZs are categorized fire protection with in 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 (LRA) under the jurisdiction of a local agency. CAL FIRE is responsible for fire protection within SRAs. CAL FIRE defines an 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). LRAs are incorporated cities, urban regions, agricultur al lands, and portions of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. The project site and its adjacent areas are classified as a Non-VHFHSZ (non-very high FHSZ).9 For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not further addressed in the EIR.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant levels. The environmental effects of

9 CAL FIRE. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map . Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness- and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 29, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-7
the proposed Project are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.1 7 of this EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts for the following topical issues:
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Noise
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires EIRs to describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant levels. The environmental effects of the proposed Project are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.1 7 of this EIR. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts for the following topical i ssues: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Project standard conditions (SCs) and mitigation measures (MMs) provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 would reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant, except construction and operations-related greenhouse gas emissions impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable as discussed below.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project is located within South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. While SCAQMD has not adopted its proposed 3,000 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO2e) threshold, this EIR’s analysis conservatively uses the proposed 3,000 MTCO 2e screening threshold rather than the higher 10,000 MTCO 2e industrial threshold. Project construction and operation would generate approximately 10,180 MTCO2e per year, and therefore exceed the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold despite implementing MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4. As such, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds despite all feasible mitigation measures, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project should it be implemented. Generally, the section notes that a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
▪ The project would involve large amounts of nonrenewable resources during initial and continued phases in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely; ▪ The primary and secondary impacts from the Project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
▪ The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from a potential environmental accident; and
▪ The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Project implementation would require long -term commitment of natural resources and land. Project development would result in committing land resources associated with warehouse uses. The Project includes infrastructure to support the proposed land use. Project construction and long-term operation would require committing and reducing available nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-8
including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle use, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures) and lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building construction, piping, and roadway infrastructure). Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by Project implementation; examples include air quality, through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases and water supply , through the increased potable water demands for drinking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs. The project does not propose land uses that are associated with such effects and would not include the use, storage, or disposal of materials that could damage the environment in the event of a release (i.e., refer to Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials ). With regard to the consumption of resources, as analyzed in Section 4.5: Energy, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

5.4 GROWTH -INDUCING EFFECTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires EIRs to include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth -inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indi rectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The proposed Project would therefore have a growth-inducing impact if it would:
▪ Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
▪ Remove obstacles to population growth;
▪ Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
▪ Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. The following analyzes the Project’s potential growth -inducing impacts for the criteria outlined above, in a ccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d). Potential growth -inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-9

5.4.1 Would the Project d irectly or Indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing?
Population and Employment
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF) , the City’s estimated population in 2024 is 103,097 persons.10 The California Employment Development Department (EDD) calculated the City’s workforce in 2023 to be approximately 46,900 persons with 44,500 persons employed and 2,400 unemployed.11 As discussed in Section 4.13: Population and Housing , the Project could generate approximately up to 557 employees, based on an employment generation factor of one employee per 1,195 sf of warehouse use. 12 The Project’s estimated employment generation would be anticipated to draw from the local workforce. Further, a high percentage of City residents commute outside the City for employment.13 Given the City’s existing available local workforce , the Project would likely only have an indirect effect on the City’s population through the expansion of economic activity within the City.

Housing
The project site is undeveloped, and the Project does not propose residential uses. Further, the Project is consistent with both the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning, and the impacts from future development have already been accounted for in the City’s General Plan EIR. Therefore, given the City has already accounted for the Project ’s general economic and population effects, the Project would not directly affect housing availability within the City.

5.4.2 Would the Project rem ove obstacles to population growth or require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects?
The Project would not remove obstacles to growth through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities. Although the project site is undeveloped, it is bordered by existing uses and is planned for development in the City’s General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

As discussed in Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems , existing utilities and service systems ( i.e., water, wastewater, solid waste, and electricity) are available to serve the Project. While upgrades to the existing utilities may be necessary, major infrastructure is already present in the area . Project improvements are distribution lines that would serve the project site via existing infrastructure such as the existing water and sewer mains in Lowell Street. The Project does not propose improvements that would extend services to areas that currently are not served or provide additional capacity in these infrastructure improvements, thereby facilitating new off -site development. There are no properties adjacent to the project site that would benefit b y having the utilities extended. Therefore, the Project is

10 State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2020-2024.

Retrieved from https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the- state-2020-2024/. Accessed September 17, 2024.City projected 2050 population estimate derived using the San Bernardino County -level persons per household ratio (i.e., 2.75 persons per household) and applying it to the City’s projected 2050 households (i.e., 36,6 00 units). 11 State of California, Employment Development Department . Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2023 – Revised. Retrieved from: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and- census-areas.html. Accessed September 17, 2024.
12 Natelson Company, Inc, 2001, Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A. 13 SCAG. 2019. Local Profile Report: Profile of the City of Rialto. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file - attachments/rialto_localprofile.pdf . Accessed August 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-10
not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth or through the provision of infrastructure.

5.4.3 Would the Project enco urage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively ? The potential impacts associated with the Project have been analyzed in this EIR in Sections 4.1 through

4.17. Project mitigation measures and standard conditions would reduce identified potential significant environmental effects to less than significant except for greenhouse gas emissions . The Project’s long - term operational unmitigated GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold. To reduce impacts associated with GHG emissions, the Project would implement Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) GHG-1 through LOR GHG -7, MM AQ -2 through MM AQ -5, MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -4.

However, Project GHG emissions would remain above the 3,000 MTCO 2e threshold with the implementation of feasible mitigation. Project GHG impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Project implementation is anticipated to have a beneficial economic effect. Project construction would create design, engineering, and construction-related jobs. These jobs would span from Project planning to construction, lasting until Project completion. This would be a direct but temporary growth -inducing Project impact.

5.5 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1)-(4) requires preparation of an EIR when certain specified impacts may result from construction or implementation of a project. An EIR determines a finding of significance if a project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish o r wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. In practice, this is the same standard as a significant effect on the environment, which is defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial or potentially adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” An EIR has been prepared for the Project, which fully addresses all of the Mandatory Findings of Significance. This EIR in its entirety addresses and discloses all known potential environmental effects associated with the development of the Project includi ng direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the following resource areas:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Noise
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Services Systems

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-11
A summary of all potential environmental impacts, level of significance before and after the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures is provided in Section 1.0: Executive Summary. Endemic and endangered animals within California and the Project’s potential effect on those species are discussed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources, of this EIR. The section found that although the project site has potential habitat to support burrowing owl, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, prairie falcon, merlin, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard, Cooper’s hawk, Costa’s hummingbird , and Lawrence’s goldfinch existing habitat on site has been disturbed by previous grading and is no longer suitable habitat for the species. Project implementation would have the potential to impact the above-mentioned species during construction activities. As such, the Project has included mitigation, as further discussed in the section. Crotch’s bumble bee which is a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act ( CESA) was observed on the project site. As described further in Section 4.3: Biological Resource, mitigation would be implemented which requires that an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the California Fish and Wildlife Service for the Crotch’s bumble bee be obtained. One special-status plant species, Parry’s spineflower was observed on the site. 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. Compensatory mitigation would be required to conserve, enhance, or restore Parry’s spineflower habitat. Therefore, biological impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Section 4.4: Cultural Resources, of the EIR analyzed the potential historic and cultural resource impacts that could occur due to the implementation of the Project and found no recorded historic or prehistoric resources located within the project site. Mitigation proposed within the sec tion would include the retainment of a professional archaeologist to further minimize potential effects to cultural resources. The mitigation presented in the section further lowered the significance of the potential impacts to less than significant levels.

5.6 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we- do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Accessed April 29, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. November 2024. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.

California Department of Transportation. ND. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and- community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed October 20, 2024.

City of Rialto. 2013. City of Rialto Zoning Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning-Map---July-2013. Accessed October 22, 2024.

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

5. Accessed July 14, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

City of Rialto 5-12
Natelson Company, Inc. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A.

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

SCAG. 2019. Local Profile Report: Profile of the City of Rialto. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rialto_localprofile.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

State of California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed October 20, 2024.

State of California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment 2023.

Retrieved from:
https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/item.html?id=c608c0e32810424f8f4f9d39570cc45b.

Accessed October 20, 2024.

State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2020-2024. Retrieved from: Demographics | Department of Finance.

Accessed September 17, 2024.

State of California, Employment Development Department. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), Annual Average 2023 – Revised. Retrieved from:
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census- areas.html. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-1

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND

ANALYSIS
Under CEQA, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a project is a fundamental part of the environmental review process. Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an EIR by stating that in addition to determining a project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is ... to identify alternatives to the project.” Direction regarding the definition of project alternatives is provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a):

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of th e project , and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to a proposed project, “…even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”1 The CEQA Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed.2
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional bound aries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.

Beyond these factors, the CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “no project” alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for a project, if feasible. Based on the alternatives analysis, the City of Rialto (City) must identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, then the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. 3 In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and discuss the reasons for their rejection.

6.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
As proposed, the Project would develop the approximately 40-acre site with a 664,859 square feet (sf) warehouse, inclusive of 7,713 sf of ancillary office space, 3 65 vehicle parking stalls, 398 trailer parking stalls, and a fence-secured dock area with 82 dock doors. The Project proposes three new driveways on Lowell Street, one driveway on Locust Avenue, and one emergency vehicle only driveway on Lake Padden Lane. The Proj ect would be constructed using concrete tilt -up panels with architectural treatments for

1 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b).
2 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f).
3 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-2
visual relief along the building facades. The warehouse would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing. Views of the warehouse building would be shielded with a screen wall. The proposed Project is described in further detail in Section 3.0: Project Description.

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. 4 The General Industrial designation permits manufacturing and distribution, as well as similar uses. The designation allows for a maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of

1.0. The proposed Project would have an approximate 0.38 FAR. The Project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.

The project site is within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and has a Specific Plan land use designation of General Manufacturing (I -GM), which permits wholesale and warehousing operations. A Conditional Development Permit would be required for the development of a warehouse, which is a conditionally permitted use in industrial zones in the City.5

6.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVES
The range of feasible alternatives must be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Several criteria were used to select alternatives to the proposed Project. These criteria are described below.

Ability To Achieve Project Objectives
Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially les sen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

The CEQA Guidelines do not require an EIR to consider every plausible alternative to a project, but rather must examine in detail only the ones which the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. For purposes of the alternative analysis, each alternative assessed in this EIR was evaluated to determine the extent to which it could attain the following objectives identified for the proposed Project:

Objective 1: Develop and operate a warehouse that is in close proximity to three major freeways (State Route 210, Interstate 215, and Interstate 15) to support the distribution of goods throughout the region and that also limits traffic truck disruption to residential areas within the City and neighboring jurisdictions.

Objective 2: Develop and operate a warehouse that maximizes the efficient use of a vacant and underutilized and environmentally constrained site near available infrastructure, to allow

4 City of Rialto. 2010. General Plan. Page 2-10.
5 City of Rialto. 1997. Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Table 8.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-3
the City of Rialto to compete on a domestic and international scale through the efficient and cost-effective movement of goods.

Objective 3: Develop a warehouse in an appropriate location that is predominantly surrounded by other industrial uses and is consistent with the project site’s General Manufacturing land use designation under the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

Objective 4: Maximize the efficient movement of goods throughout the region by locating a warehouse development in close proximity to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Objective 5: Develop and operate an attractive warehouse development in the City of Rialto that meets industry standards for operational design criteria that will attract quality tenants and that will be competitive with other similar facilities in the region.

Objective 6: Positively contribute to the economy of the City of Rialto through new capital investment, expansion of the tax base and creation of new employment opportunities, including opportunities for highly trained workers.

Objective 7: Provide local employment for residents of the City to improve jobs -housing balance within the City, thereby reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the Project vicinity to work.

Objective 8: Provide infrastructure improvements including street and sidewalk improvements to Lowell Street and Locust Avenue , undergrounding of existing utilities, and drainage and water quality treatment improvements.

Objective 9: Develop a project that does not contribute to surface and groundwater quality degradation by treating surface and stormwater flows.

Elimination/Reduction of Significant Impacts
Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment ( Public Resources Code § 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”
Therefore, the alternatives evaluated in this EIR have been selected because they are anticipated to reduce and/or eliminate one or more significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. Potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through

4.17 of this EIR. With implementation of the respective Mitigation Program which could include existing requirements based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws and Mitigation Measures (MM s) identified for each topical issue, all significant impacts resulting from the Project would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with the exception of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. The Project’s operational GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, the majority due to non- construction related truck and passenger car trips. Despite all feasible mitigation implemented, including Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4, project-related GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-4
Feasibility
Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; see Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1753, fn. 1).

Each alternative was evaluated for its feasibility, its ability to attain the proposed Project’s objectives, and its ability to reduce and/or eliminate significant impacts associated with the Project.

6.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), an EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, meri t in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible and need not be considered further. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f), (f)(3)). This section identifies alternatives considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for their exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects.

Alternative Project Location
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), alternate sites should be evaluated, if any feasible sites exist, where significant impacts can be lessened. An alternative location was considered and rejected as discussed below.

An alternative location was rejected from further consideration because the Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and the Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM for the project site and there are no site -specific significant and unavoidable impacts that would be lessened if a different site were selected. It is required under CEQA that alternative site(s) be evaluated if any feasible sites exist where significant impacts can be lessened. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact. Due to the cumulative nature of GHG emissions, the environmental impacts of development on any other site in the City are expected to be similar to those of the proposed Project.

In addition, other sites, depending on their biological or cultural resources may have similar or greater impacts than the Project. Given the nature of the proposed Project, an alternative location would not alleviate the impacts because a relocation of the proposed Project would not lessen the significant and unavoidable GHG impact. Therefore, an alternative location may meet most of the basic Project objectives but would not substantially lessen impacts and meet the CEQA definition of an alternative. Therefore, this alternative was not further considered.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-5

6.5 ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to provide sufficient information about each alternative to allow for meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an analysis of alternatives is presented in this EIR to provide decision-makers with alternatives to be considered. The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen the Proje ct’s significant effects but need not consider every conceivable alternative.

The analysis provides a comparison of the alternatives’ varying environmental effects and their merits and/or disadvantages in relation to the proposed Project and to each other; their feasibility and ability to achieve Project objectives are also discussed. The environmentally superior alternative is identified as required by CEQA see Section 6.6: Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Four alternatives to the proposed Project have been identified. ▪ Alternative 1: No Development Alternative
▪ Alternative 2: Truck Trailer Parking Alternative
▪ Alternative 3: Business Park Alternative
▪ Alternative 4: Reduced Warehouse Alternative
The four analyzed alternatives present a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. The analysis in this section focuses on significant and unavoidable impacts attributable to each alternative and the ability of each alternative to meet basic Project objectives. The evaluation of each alternative uses the same thresholds of significance identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.17.

For the alternatives, it is assumed that relevant regulatory requirements, applicable project design features, and project-specific mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project would also be implemented with each alternative and thus serve to reduce or avoid potential significant impacts similar to the proposed Project.

Alternative 1: No Development Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision - makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it. The No Development Alternative assumes that the proposed Project would not be developed, which means there would be no warehouse facilities, truck trailer parking, la ndscape improvements, or off -site roadway improvements. In its existing condition, the site would remain vacant and disturbed, and the remnants of a World War II-era bunker structure, rail spurs, and underground transformer would remain.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies the following:

The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation [NOP] is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that when the project is not a land use or regulatory plan, the “no project” alternative:

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-6
…is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapp roval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others … this “no project” consequence should be discussed.

Therefore, although this alternative assumes “No Development” (as required by CEQA), this is considered a speculative assumption as the land is assumed to remain in private ownership (as there are no offers to purchase the land for public use).

Alternative 1: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Under the Alternative 1 scenario, no development would occur, and the project site would remain vacant. There would be no buildings on site and no related on-site or off-site improvements would be provided. Because there are no scenic vistas proximate to the project site, neither the proposed Project nor Alternative 1 would adversely affect a scenic vista. Because no development on the project site would occur, regulations governing scenic quality are not applicable. However, it is noted that the proposed Project would be consistent with regulations governing scenic quality as addressed in the General Plan, Rialto Airport Specific Plan, and the Municipal Code. Because Alternative 1 would not involve development of the project site, there would be no new sources of lighting ; the proposed Project would not result in significant lighting impacts . Neither the Project nor Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts regarding the topic of aesthetics.

Air Quality. Under the Alternative 1 scenario, because there would be no development, no air quality emissions would be generated. The proposed Project would generate emissions during construction and operational activities that require mitigation. Although Alternative 1 would not have any air quality impacts, all significant air quality impacts associated with the Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Biological Resources. Alternative 1 would have no impacts to biological resources, including potential impacts to the burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee. Trees and other vegetation on the project site that currently could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would remain because no existing vegetation would be removed. Although Alte rnative 1 would not have any biological resources impacts, all potentially significant impacts associated with the Proje ct would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current condition and would therefore prevent potential impacts to cultural resources. No construction or grading activities would occur. 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 empty munitions bunker and historic debris. Although these resources have been determined not to be historically or archeologically significant, under this alternative the resources would remain in situ because the project site would not be developed.

Therefore, the potential to discover and impact previously undisturbed cultural resources, including archaeological resources, would not occur. Although this Alternative 1 would have no impact on cultural resources, all potentially significant impacts associated with the Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-7
Energy. The energy usage during construction associated with water for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on -road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would not occur under the Alternative 1 scenario because no construction or development would occur. However, it is also noted that implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts concerning energy usage.

Therefore, although Alternative 1 would have no impact on energy, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Geology and Soils. Under the Alternative 1 scenario, no development would occur on the project site.

Therefore, the potential to expose additional people or structures to adverse effects of seismic ground shaking, ground failure, expansive soils, or other unstable geologic h azards would not occur. No soil erosion or loss of topsoil would occur since the project site would remain in its existing condition.

Additionally, the potential to unearth unknown paleontological resources during Project implementation would not occur. Although Alternative 1 would have no impact on soils and geology or paleontological resources, impacts associated with the Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction activities or associated construction equipment operations or operational activities. Therefore, there would be no short -term GHG emissions from construction activities or long -term GHG emissions from mobile sources, area sources, or the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water associated with operations of the land uses assumed as a part of the Project. Alternative 1 would not generate additional GHG emissions and would have no impact, while the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of all feasible mitigation.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Alternative 1 scenario, no development would occur on the project site. The existing ammunitions bunker and brick and mortar structure, which were constructed in the 1940s , would not be demolished . The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) , which was prepared for the proposed Project, determined that there is the potential for the project site to contain unexploded ordinances (UXOs) and discarded military munitions (DMMs) due to the historical use of the site for munitions storage and the unknown suspected use of the site by historic adjacent pyrotechnic facilities. Although Alternative 1 would have no impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials, potential UXOs and DMMs would remain on the site.

Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed Project would create a safety hazard as it pertains to an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan because the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school . Mitigation would be required such that Project demolition activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction and would not result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, although the proposed Project would require mitigation , potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Alternative 1 assumes no development would occur on the project site.

Because there would be no subsurface excavation, the potential to encounter groundwater would not occur. The existing on -site drainage pattern and runoff quantities would remain the same , and Alternative 1 would not affect groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-8
Under the proposed Project scenario, development would alter the site’s existing drainage pattern because the site would change from a primarily undeveloped site to a developed site. However, the proposed drainage facilities would be sized to adequately treat runoff water from the project site, and the site does not include discharge to any streams or rivers. The proposed Project would be required to obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity, prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP ) and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize on-site and off -site erosion and siltation. Therefo re, Alternative 1 would have no impact on hydrology and water quality, whereas the proposed Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain vacant. Neither Alternative 1 nor the Project would physically divide an established community through the introduction of physical or community barriers or cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The Project would comply with Connect SoCal, the General Plan, Rialto Airport Specific Plan, and Rialto Municipal Code. Alternative 1 would have no impact on land use and planning because no development would occur, while the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mineral Resources. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain vacant. The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps (specifically, Special Report 206 Plate 2), the General Plan, and Rialto Airport Specific Plan do not identify the project site as an existing, planned, or potential mineral recovery site. Neither Alternative 1 nor the Project would result in the loss of in the availability of a known mineral resource or the loss of in the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Although Alternative 1 would result in no impacts to mineral resources, the Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding mineral resources.

Noise. Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction activities or associated construction equipment operations or development. Therefore, there would be no construction noise impacts. There would be no substantial temporary increase in noise levels or exposure o f persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards. Therefore, Alternative 1 would avoid construction and operational noise impacts associated with the Project, whereas the Project’s noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Population and Housing. Alternative 1 would not create any new jobs; involve the development of additional housing; or cause increases in the residential population of the City. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with inducing substantial population growth. This alter native would maintain the site in its existing condition. The proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population or displace any existing housing, and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 1 would result in no impacts regarding population and housing whereas the Project would result in less than significant impacts.

Public Services. Alternative 1 would not involve new development, and therefore, no impacts to fire and police protection services would occur. Development of the proposed Project would incrementally increase the demand for fire and police protection services; however, the proposed Project is not expected to substantially increase service demand such that new or physically altered fire and police facilities would need to be constructed, which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire and police

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-9
protection. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact , while the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on fire and police protection services.

Transportation. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain vacant and would not generate any additional vehicle trips, compared to the 1,138 trips, including 455 truck trips, which would be generated by the Project. Passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were then applied to the truck types, based on number of axles to determine the total PCE volumes generated by the project. Therefore, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 1,908 daily PCE trips. Alternative 1 would have no impact concerning vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) while the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact concerning the Project’s effect on VMT. While this alternative would have no transportation impacts, the proposed Project would have less than significant transportation impacts based on the City’s CEQA significance criteria.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Alternative 1 would not involve any construction or excavation activities. Tribal cultural resource impacts are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development, as well as depth of excavation. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact on tribal cultural resources, whereas potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Utilities and Service Systems. Alternative 1 would not involve the development of industrial land uses or the generation of any new employees; therefore, no impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.

Since Alternative 1 would not provide new facilities or infrastructure, there would be no physical impacts associated with construction or operation of facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with increased usage of existing facilities. In addition, since there would be no development of industrial land uses or generation of new employees under Alternative 1, demand for water, wastewater facilities, dry utilities (electricity, natural gas, telecommunications), or solid waste disposal would not be required.

The proposed Project would generate new employees, resulting in an incremental increase in the demand for water, wastewater, and dry utilities use , and the generation of solid waste. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no impacts to utilities and service systems while the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 1 fails to meet the Project’s basic objectives. Alternative 1 would fail to develop and operate a warehouse that maximizes efficient use of a vacant and underutilized site that is near available infrastructure, major freeways, and other industrial developments. Additionally, this alternative would not provide infrastructure improv ements including street and sidewalk improvements, undergrounding existing utilities, and drainage and water quality treatment improvements on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Finally, Alternative 1 would also fail to provide expanded economic activity to the City and would also not provide additional employment opportunities. This would conflict with the City’s goals of expanding its economic base and providing greater economic opportunity to the City’s residents.

Conclusion
Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts when compared to the proposed Project because no development would occur . Significant unavoidable GHG impacts associated with the proposed Project would not occur. No mitigation would be required to reduce potential significant impacts to a less than significant level. All impact areas which were anticipated to cause a less than significant impact, less than significant with mitigation measures, or a significant and unavoidable impact due to implementation of

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-10
the proposed Project would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative; see Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts. However, none of the Project objectives would be met.

Alternative 2: Truck Trailer Parking Alternative
Under the Truck Trailer Parking Alternative, the project site would be developed as an approximately 40- acre trailer truck and truck-mounted container storage parking facility. The project site has a Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM, which permits land uses including wholesale and warehousing operations. Under this alternative scenario, no warehouse uses are assumed. Trucks and trailers would be parked while waiting to be moved to and from off-site locations such as nearby warehouse facilities in instances where there are scheduled delays related to trailer drop off or pick up. The Truck Trailer Parking Alternative would include a one-story, 1,500 sf ancillary free-standing small security office building, 15 passenger vehicle parking stalls for employees, and 960 truck trailer parking spaces.

Table 6-1: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison identifies a reduction of 663,359 sf of building area compared to the proposed Project.

Table 6-1: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison Development Standard Proposed Project Alternative 2 Difference Building Area (sf) 664,859 1,500 -663,359
Truck Trailer Parking 398 960 +562
Employee Parking 365 15 -350
Alternative 2: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would comply with the development requirements of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan which are included in Table 4.1 -1: Development Standard s Consistency Summary in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, as well as General Plan and Municipal Code regulations governing scenic quality. As addressed in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, the project site is not proximate to a scenic vista; therefore, no impact would occur under either development scenario. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would comply with applicable light and glare regulations, such as General Plan Policy 2-14.3, which requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare. Further, similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would provide lighting in the surface parking areas; light would also be generated from trucks and passenger vehicle headlights when accessing and leaving the project site.

There are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site and Locust Avenue is a designated truck route.

Therefore, no significant light and glare impacts would be associated with Alternative 2 or the proposed Project. Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed Project would result in significant visual impacts. Potential impacts associated with the topic of Aesthetics would be less than significant for both the proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Air Quality. Alternative 2 would construct a much smaller building but a larger surface parking area than the proposed Project. This alternative assumes a shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment.

Accordingly, the maximum daily emissions would be lower than the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less construction emission impacts than the proposed Project.

Mobile source emissions associated with Alternative 2 would increase, as Alternative 2 would result in more truck trips per day than the proposed Project. This increase in truck trips would result in greater

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-11
mobile emissions. However, Alternative 2 would also reduce stationary emission sources from mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units ) as the facility for Alternative 2 is 663,359 sf smaller than the proposed Project. Potential impacts to air quality would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Biological Resources. Biological resources are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts to biological resources. Therefore, as with the Project, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in regard to biological resources.

Cultural Resources. Cultural resources are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for Alternative 2 and the proposed Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts for cultural resources. Therefore, as with the Project, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Energy. Construction of Alternative 2 would likely result in a shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment. Therefore, the energy usage during construction associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on -road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would less than or similar to the proposed Project. With respect to operational uses, Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in energy usage given this alternative would result in a decrease of building development. Energy usage resulting from Alternative 2 would be proportionally reduced as compared to the proposed Project. Energy impacts would be less than significant.

Geology and Soils. Potential geological, soil, and paleontological resource impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project because it would be developed within the same footprint and under the same geologic unit and soil conditions. The potential for seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, or collapse would be the same or similar. D evelopment under this alternative would also be required to comply with California Building Code standards and applicable construction and operational BMPs to reduce impacts related to geologic hazards . Additionally, the potential to unearth unknown paleontological resources during Project implementation could occur. Impacts associated with Alternative 2 and the Project would be reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Alternative 2 assumes the construction of a smaller facility but larger surface parking area than the proposed Project. A shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities would be lower t han the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these construction-related GHG emissions would cease. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction are quantified and amortized over 30 years. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in operational GHG emissions from area sources, given that this alternative would result in a decrease of 663,359 sf of deve lopment. However, the average daily trips

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-12
associated with Alternative 2 would increase and result in greater GHG emissions from mobile sources compared to the Project. As the majority of the GHG emissions ( approximately 77%) from the proposed Project are associated with mobile sources , Alternative 2 would likely result in greater overall GHG emissions. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would implement MM AQ -2 through MM AQ -5 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 to reduce operational emissions. Despite implementation of mitigation, both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emission impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project because it would be developed within the same footprint. Alternative 2 would still include the demolition of an ammunition bunker and brick and mortar stru cture and there is still the potential for the project site to contain UXOs or DMMs due to the historical use of the site. MMs HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 would also be applicable to Alternative 2 to reduce potential impacts associated with asbestos, lead-based paint, the potential for UXOs and DMMs, and soil contamination to a less than significant level. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not expose persons on the project site to airport hazards, affect aircraft operations, or create an airport safety hazard for on-site employees.

Additionally, there are no schools within 0.25 -mile of the project site. Alternative 2 would include the operation of a truck trailer parking facility and would not result in the release of hazardous materials.

Impacts associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The development footprint for Alternative 2 and the Project would be the same. Therefore, under both development scenarios, the amount of pervious surface would decrease associated with buildings and parking. Alternative 2 would still be required to obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity and prepare a SWQMP, 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. The Project’s operator would also be required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.60.260. With respect to hydrology and water quality, impacts associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with Standard Conditions incorporated.

Land Use and Planning. As with the proposed Project, the Alternative 2 development scenario would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers and would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Alternative 2 would comply with the existing land use designation s requirements applicable to the site, including the Rialto Airport Spec ific Plan, General Plan, and Municipal Code . Further, both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be consistent SCAG 2020 -2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal). Additionally, neither scenario would introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect surrounding land uses. Therefore, both Alternative 2 and the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with land use and planning.

Mineral Resources. Potential mineral resources impacts would be the same as the Project because it would be developed within the same footprint. The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps (specifically, Special Report 206 Plate 2), the General Plan, and Rialto Airport Specific Plan do not identify the proj ect site as an existing, planned, or potential mineral recovery site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the existing land use designations of the project

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-13
site. Neither Alternative 2 or the proposed P roject would result in the loss of availability of a significant mineral resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Noise. Under the Alternative 2 scenario, there would be fewer construction activities because the Alternative would require construction of a much smaller facility than the proposed Project and surface parking construction would be less time -intensive than construction of a warehouse . Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in lower construction noise impacts. However, construction of Alternative 2 would still require implementation of MM NOI-1 which requires the proper maintenance of construction equipment and the installation of noise shielding/muffling devices to mitigate construction noise impacts.

Therefore, in regard to construction noise, impacts associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would both be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Under Alternative 2, operational noise impacts would be similar to or greater than the proposed Project.

Alternative 2 would generate less noise from mechanical equipment due to the reduction of 663,359 sf of building development. H owever, there would be more noise from trucks including parking, back -up alarms, and off-site traffic noise due to the increase in daily traffic trips. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would have greater noise impacts. It is anticipated that operational noise impacts associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would both be less than significant.

Population and Housing. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would generate new construction and permanent employment opportunities. The Project proposes a warehouse building and would employ approximately 557 employees. Alternative 2 would involve the development and operation of a truck trailer parking facility, w hich would have fewer employment opportunities than the proposed Project .

Similar to the Project, future employees are anticipated to travel to and from the site from within the City and surrounding area. Neither Alternative 2 nor the Project would require the construction of additional residential units that could induce substantial unplanned population growth not analyzed in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 would reduce the number of employees required for operations when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

Public Services. Development under both Alternative 2 and the Project would incrementally increase the demand for police and fire protection services . However, Alternative 2 would reduce the number of employees required for on-site operations, which would incrementally reduce the demand o n public services when compared to the proposed Project . Neither scenario is expected to substantially increase service demand such that a new or physically altered facility would need to be constructed, which would cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police and fire protection. Further, development impact fees are paid on a project-by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand from a project.

Alternative 2 would incrementally reduce the demand of public services when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation. Based on the trip generation assumptions established by the City, Alternative 2 is expected to result in an increase in average daily trips, compared to the Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would likely result in greater VMT and transportation impacts than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would generate 1,138 trips, including 455 truck trip s. The VMT impacts are measured based on the Citywide VMT per Service Population Threshold and the Countywide VMT per Employee Threshold

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-14
and would result in less than significant impacts concerning VMT. However, based on the City’s significance criteria, it is anticipated that under both scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Tribal cultural resources are primarily dependent upon the construction and operations footprint of each development. Like the Project, Alternative 2 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts for tribal cultural resources. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, this alternative would result i n a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources with mitigation incorporated.

Utilities and Service Systems. When compared to the Project, the reduced square footage and number of employees associated with Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in demand on utilities, as the Alternative would result in a decrease of 663,359 sf of development. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project, which concluded that the Project would not significantly impact water supply. Therefore, because Alternative 2 would only include a 1,500-sf building, the water and wastewater demand compared to the Project would be substantially lower during construction and operations. A smaller building would also result in a lower demand for electrical power and telecommunications infrastructure; the parking area would have a slightly higher demand for electricity than the parking area associated with the proposed Project; no natural gas use is assumed. Alternative 2 would result in lower solid waste generation than the Project; neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed Project would significantly impact the permitted capacity of the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill. Alternative 2 would incrementally reduce the demand of utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 2 fails to meet the proposed Project’s Objectives 1 through 5. Alternative 2 would fail to develop and operate a warehouse that maximizes efficient use of a vacant and underutilized site that is near available infrastructure, major freeways, and other industrial developments. Alternative 2 does not reflect the type of development proposed by the Applicant. However, this alternative would provide infrastructure improvements including street and sidewalk improvements, undergrounding of existing utilities, and drainage and water quality treatment improvements on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue.

Additionally, Alternative 2 would provide expanded economic activity and a dditional employment opportunities to the City, but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would not conflict with the City’s goals of expanding its economic base and providing greater economic opportunity to the City’s residents.

Conclusion
Alternative 2 would have a building area of approximately 1,500 sf, which is a decrease of 663,359 sf when compared to the Project but would increase the number of truck trailer parking spaces . Uses of Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Specific Plan and impacts would be similar to that of the Project (see Table 6-4).

Like the Project, this alternative assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 2, there would be no change in the significance of the potential impacts. This would be the case for the topics of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level . Similarly, this would

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-15
also be the case for hydrology and water quality and mineral resources, which would be less than significant.

Neither Alternative 2 nor the Project would result in significant aesthetic impacts. Although the building square footage associated with Alternative 2 would decrease, the remaining project site area would be developed with truck trailer parking and site landscaping. With respect to traffic, Alternative 2 is expected to result in an increase in average daily trips compared to the Project. Alternative 2 would likely result in greater VMT impacts than the proposed Project.

Alternative 2 assumes the construction of facility that is 663,359 sf smaller than the proposed Project.

Therefore, a shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparatio n and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, construction air quality emissions, GHG emissions, energy usage and noise levels would be lower than the proposed Project. However, the increase in average daily trips associated with Alternative 2 would likely result in greater operational air quality emissions, energy usage, GHG emissions, and noise impacts. As with the proposed Project, energy usage impacts would be less than significant, air quality emissions and noise impacts would still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and GHG emission impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation.

Alternative 2 would fail to develop and operate a warehouse that maximizes efficient use of a vacant and underutilized site that is near available infrastructure, major freeways, and other industrial developments as set forth in Project Objectives 1 through 5. Alternative 2 would provide infrastructure improvements and would provide expanded economic activity to the City and would also provide additional employment opportunities. This alternative would still contribute to the City’s goal of positively contr ibuting to the economy through new capital investment, expansion of the tax base , and creation of new employment opportunities but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project.

Alternative 3: Business Park Alternative
Under the Business Park Alternative, the project site would be developed as a 667,000-sf business park.

Alternative 3 would develop multi-tenant, free-standing small buildings with office/commercial-related uses. The Business Park Alternative would accommodate a variety of uses including commercial, flexible office space, meeting rooms, or event space. The buildings would be one story and building height would be consistent with development standards included in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Under the Business Park Alternative scenario, no warehouse uses are assumed. Therefore, no truck trailer parking would be provided, and individual buildings would not have dock doors for large trucks. All employee and visitor parking would be provided on t he project site, this alternative assumes 2,224 passenger vehicle parking stalls for employees. The parking requirements for the Airport Specific Plan are based on the Municipal Code and would be calculated for administrative/office uses. Table 6-2: Alternative 3 and Proposed Project Comparison, identifies an increase of 1,859 passenger vehicle parking spaces and a reduction of 398 truck trailer parking spaces when compared to the proposed Project.

Table 6-2: Alternative 3 and Proposed Project Comparison Development Standard Proposed Project Alternative 3 Difference Building Area (sf) 664,859 667,000 +2,141
Truck Trailer Parking 398 0 -398
Employee Parking 365 2,224 +1,859

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-16
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and has a Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM. Under this alternative scenario, a General Plan Amendment to Business Park would be required. Table 8 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan identifies permitted uses within the I-GM land use designation including manufacturing and processing, warehousing and distribution, chemical or petroleum products processing and refining, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses.6 A business park is not a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use in the I-GM land use designation.

Business and commercial uses are permitted under several Specific Plan land use designations including Office/Freeway Commercial (O/FC), Airport -Related Planned Industrial Development (I -AR). Therefore, Alternative 3 would require additional discretionary permits/approvals including a Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the development of a business park on the project site.

Alternative 3: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Because there are no scenic vistas proximate to the project site, neither Alternative 3 nor the proposed Project would adversely affect a scenic vista. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would be required to be consistent with the development standards of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, as well as the General Plan and Municipal Code . Both the proposed Project and Alternative 3 would comply with applicable light and glare regulations, such as General Plan Policy 2 -14.3, which requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare. Further, Alternative 3 and the proposed Project assume roughly the same b uilding square footage . Alternative 3 would be consistent with the visual quality of adjacent industrial, warehouse, and office land uses. Alternative 3 would include surface parking and landscaping, similar to the Project. Therefore, both Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics.

Air Quality. While the square footage of both Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would be almost the same, Alternative 3 assumes multiple buildings and office uses would require more internal building improvements than a warehouse facility. Therefore, a longer construction schedule, a similar site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of more construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, maximum daily construction emissions would likely be greater than the proposed Project.

Alternative 3 would generate 8,297 daily trips when compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a substantial increase in average daily trips , and thus a proportional increase in mobile source emissions when compared to the Project. Although this alternative would result in less truck traffic , the number of passenger vehicles would increase. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not significantly reduce s tationary emission sources from mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units) and landscaping equipment for project site maintenance. Alternative 3 would still require implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -5 to mitigate air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Air quality emissions would be proportionally greater than the proposed Project due to the increased average daily trips associated with Alternative 3.

Biological Resources. Like the Project, Alternative 3 assumes that the entire project site would be graded.

Therefore, for environmental issues where site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 3, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. Therefore, as with the

6 City of Rialto. 1997. Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Table 8.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-17
proposed Project, impacts to biological resources associated with Alternative 3 would also be less than significant with mitigation.

Cultural Resources. Like the Project, Alternative 3 assumes that the entire project site would be graded.

Therefore, for environmental issues where site disturbance would be the same for the proposed Project and Alternative 3, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. Therefore, as with the Project, impacts to cultural resources associated with Alternative 3 would also be less than significant with mitigation.

Energy. Alternative 3 would require more construction than the proposed Project because multiple buildings would be constructed. Therefore, energy usage during construction associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on -road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would be greater than the Project due to the longer construction schedule, and the use of more construction materials and equipment. Additionally, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in operational energy usage based on the nature of the land uses assumed under this alternative scenario. However, potential energy impacts would remain less than significant.

Geology and Soils. Potential geological, soil, and paleontological resource impacts for Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project because it would be developed within the same footprint and under the same geologic unit and soil conditions. The potential for seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, or collapse would be the same as with the proposed Project . Development under Alternative 3 would also be required to submit a site -specific geotechnical investigation, comply with California Build ing Code standards, and applicable construction and operational BMPs to reduce impacts related to geologic hazards. Impacts associated with Alternative 3 and the Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because the construction of multiple buildings is assumed, a longer construction schedule and the use of more construction materials and equipment is anticipated.

Accordingly, direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities would be greater than the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in average daily trips compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would generate 8,297 daily trips when compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 3 would result in greater GHG emissions compared to the Project during operation s. Both the Project and Alternative 3 would implement MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 to reduce operational emissions. Despite implementation of mitigation , Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would result in signifi cant and unavoidable impacts regarding GHG emissions. However, GHG emissions under Alternative 3 would be proportionally greater than the proposed Project due to the increased average daily trips.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project because it would be developed within the same footprint. Alternative 3 would still include the demolition of an ammunition bunker and brick and mortar structure and there is still the potential for the project site to contain UXOs or DMMs due to the historical use of the site. MMs HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 would also be applicable to Alternative 3 to reduce potential impacts associated with asbestos, lead-based paint, the potential for UXOs and DMMs, and soil contamination to a less than significant level. Like the Project, Alternative 3 would not expose persons on the project site to airport hazards, affect aircraft operations, or create an airport safety hazard for employees. Alternative 3 would

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-18
consist of the operation of a commercial office park and would not result in the release of hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. Impacts associated with Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The development footprint for Alternative 3 and the Project would be roughly the same. Therefore, under both development scenarios, the amount of pervious surface would decrease associated with buildings and parking. Alternative 3 would still be required to obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity and prepare a SWQMP , which must include erosion-control and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Const ruction General Permit to control potential construction -related pollutants. The Project’s operator would also be required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.60.260. With respect to hydrology and water quality, impacts associated with Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with Standard Conditions incorporated.

Land Use and Planning. Development of Alternative 3 would require a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. The project site has a Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM.

Under this alternative scenario, a General Plan Amendment from General Industrial to Business Park would be required. It is also noted that a business park is not a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use in the I-GM land use designation; thus, Alternative 3 would require discretionary permits/approvals including a Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the development of a business park on the project site.

Alternative 3 would be required to be consistent with the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, General Plan, and Municipal Code. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be consistent with Connect SoCal.

Like the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers and would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Additionally, neither scenario would introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect surrounding land uses.

Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to land use and planning because it would require discretionary permits/approvals including a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the development of a business park on the project site. Impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant under both scenarios.

Mineral Resources. Potential mineral resource impacts for Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project because it would be developed within roughly the same footprint. The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps (specifically, Special Report 206 Plate 2), the General Plan, and Rialto Airport Specific Plan do not identify the project site as an existing, planned, or potential mineral recovery site. Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed Project would result in the loss of availability of a significant mineral resource and impacts would remain less than significant.

Noise. Under the Alternative 3 scenario, there would be slightly more construction activities because the alternative would require construction of multiple buildings. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in longer duration of construction noise. Construction of Alternative 3 would still require implementation of MM NOI-1 which requires the proper maintenance of construction equipment and the installation of noise shielding/muffling devices to mitigate construction noise impacts.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-19
Although Alternative 3 would have less truck traffic, the number of passenger vehicles would increase by 1,859 stalls compared to the Project. Alternative 3 would generate 8,297 daily trips when compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in average daily trips, and thus, an increase in vehicle traffic volumes on nearby roadways. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Project , Alternative 3 would have incrementally greater noise impacts. However, it is anticipated that operational n oise impacts associated with Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would both be less than significant.

Population and Housing. Both Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would generate new construction and permanent employment opportunities. The Project proposes a warehouse building and would employ approximately 557 employees. Alternative 3 would involve the development of a commercial business park , which would have greater employment opportunities. Similar to the Project, future employees are anticipated to travel to an d from the site from within the City and surrounding area.

Neither Alternative 3 nor t he Project would require the construction of additional residential units that could induce substantial unplanned population growth not analyzed in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 3 would increase the number of employees required for operations when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

Public Services. Development of both Alternative 3 and the Project would incrementally increase the demand for police and fire protection services . However, Alternative 3 would increase the number of employees required for operations, which would incrementally increase the demand on these services when compared to the proposed Project. Neither scenario is expected to substantially increase service demand such that a new or physically altered facility would need to be constructed, which would cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police and fire protection. Further, development impact fees are paid on a project-by-project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed toward facilities, equipm ent, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand from a project.

Alternative 3 would incrementally increase the demand of fire and police protection services when compared to the proposed Project. Under both developmen t scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation. Alternative 3 would generate 8,297 daily trips. The VMT impacts are measured based on the Citywide VMT per Service Population Threshold and the Countywide VMT per Employee Threshold.

The Project would generate 1,138 trips, including 455 truck trips (or 1,908 daily PCE trips), and would result in a less than significant impact concerning VMT. Alternative 3 is expected to result in an increase in average daily trips, compared to the Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would likely result in greater VMT and transportation impacts than the proposed Project. Under both scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Like the Project, Alternative 3 assumes that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, for environmental issues where site disturbance would be the same for the proposed Project and Alternative 3, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. Therefore, as with the Project, impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with Alternative 3 would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-20
Utilities and Service Systems. When compared to the Project, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in demand on utilities because of the nature of office and commercial uses compared to a warehouse . A Water Supply Assessment would be required and is assumed that this alternative scenario would require increased water and wastewater demand compared to the Project during construction and operations.

The uses would also result in an increased demand for electrical power , natural gas , and telecommunication services. While Alternative 3 may result in greater solid waste generation than the Project, no significant impact is assumed because the landfill has a permitted daily capacity to accommodate development under this alternative scenario. Alternative 3 would increase the demand on utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 3 fails to meet most of the Project’s basic objectives because Alternative 3 does not propose a warehouse, which is the Applicant’s proposed use for the project site. Development of the site as a business park would require a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment . However, Alternative 3 would provide expanded economic activity to the City and would also provide additional employment opportunities. This alternative would also provide infrastructure improvements including street and sidewalk improvements, undergrounding of existing utilities, and drainage and water quality treatment improvements on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue. Alternative 3 would also not conflict with the City’s goals of expanding its economic base and providing greater economic opportunity to the City’s residents.

Conclusion
A business park is not a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use under the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation for the project site. Th erefore, Alternative 3 would require additional discretionary permits/approvals to allow for the development of a business park on the project site.

Like the Project, this alternative assumes that the entire project site would be graded and developed within the same footprint. Therefore, for environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the Project and Alternative 3, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. This would be the case for the topics of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources which would be mitigat ed to a l ess than significant level. Similarly, this would also be the case for hydrology and water quality and mineral resources, which would be less than significant.

Neither Alternative 3 nor the Project would result in significant aesthetic impacts. With respect to traffic, Alternative 3 is expected to result in an increase in average daily trips , compared to the Project.

Alternative 3 would generate 8,297 daily trips compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would likely result in greater VMT impacts than the proposed Project, although both would result in less than significant impacts.

Alternative 3 would require the construction of multiple buildings when compared to one larger warehouse building. Therefore, a longer construction schedule and the use of more construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, construction air quality emissions, energy usage, GHG emissions, and noise impacts would be incrementally greater than the proposed Project. Additionally, the increase in average daily trips associated with Alternative 3 is also likely to worsen operational impacts related to air quality emissions, energy usage, GHG emissions, and noise impacts. As with the proposed

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-21
Project, energy usage impacts would be less than significant, air quality emissions and noise impacts would still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated , and GHG emission impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation.

Alternative 3 would fail to develop and operate a warehouse that maximizes efficient use of a vacant and underutilized site that is zoned for industrial uses and that is near available infrastructure, major freeways, and other industrial developments . However, Alternative 3 would provide infrastructure improvements and would provide expanded economic activity to the City and would also provide additional employment opportunities. This alternative would still contribute to the City’s goal of positively contr ibuting to the economy through new capital investment, expansion of the tax base and creation of new employment opportunities.

Alternative 4: Reduced Warehouse Alternative
The proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable GHG emissions. To reduce GHG impacts to a less than significant level, the size of the proposed warehouse would need to be substantially reduced by approximately 71 percent, which is equivalent to a 193,220 -sf warehouse with 4 dock doors and 137 passenger vehicle parking spaces. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would have 3 98 truck trailer parking spaces. Table 6-3: Alternative 4 and Proposed Project Comparison identifies a reduction of 471,639 sf of building area when compared to the proposed Project. The implementation of Alternative 4 would not use the entire 40-acre project site. This alternative assumes the truck trailer parking in the same location as assumed for the proposed Project. When compared to the proposed Project site plan, approximately one-half or more of the warehouse site (the southern portion of the site) would not be developed and would remain vacant.

Table 6-3: Alternative 4 and Proposed Project Comparison Development Standard Proposed Project Alternative 4 Difference Building Area (sf) 664,859 193,220 -471,639
Truck Trailer Parking 398 398 0
Employee Parking 365 137 -228
Alternative 4: Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project Aesthetics. Because there are no scenic vistas proximate to the project site, neither Alternative 4 nor the proposed Project would adversely affect a scenic vista. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would be required to be consistent with the development standards of the Specific Plan , General Plan, and Municipal Code . Both Alternative 4 and the Project would comply with applicable light and glare regulations, such as General Plan Policy 2-14.3, which requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare. Alternative 4 would be consistent with the visual quality of adjacent industrial, warehouse, and office land uses. Alternative 4 would include surface parking and landscaping. However, the southern portion of the site (perpendicular to Lowell Street) would not be developed. Although neither Alternative 4 nor the proposed Project would result in significant impacts associated with aesthetics , Alternative 4 would retain more of the project site in its current undeveloped condition resulting in less change in the visual character of the site.

Air Quality. Alternative 4 would result in the construction of a warehouse that is reduced by approximately 71 percent, which is equivalent to a 193,220 -sf warehouse with 4 dock doors and 137 passenger vehicle parking spaces. Therefore, a shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-22
preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, the maximum daily emissions during construction would be lower than the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in lower construction emission s than the proposed Project.

Alternative 4 would also result in a decrease in average daily trips , which would result in lower mobile source emissions than the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would generate 330 daily trips, including 132 truck trips (553 daily PCE trips) compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would have similar stationary emission sources from mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units) and landscaping equipment for project site maintenance , although to a lesser degree than the proposed Project . This alternative would likely still require implementation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5 to mitigate operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Air quality emissions would be proportionally lower than the proposed Project due to the decreased development square footage and average daily trips associated with Alternative 4. Potential impacts to air quality would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Biological Resources. Unlike the Project, Alternative 4 does not assume that the entire project site would be graded. The southern portion of the site would remain vacant and there would be a proportional reduction in the impact to biological resources. Although fewer acres would be disturbed, the significance of potential impacts would be the same and the mitigation program would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, impacts to biological resources associated with Alternative 4 would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cultural Resources. Unlike the Project, Alternative 4 does not assume that the entire project site would be graded. Therefore, the area of potential impact would be reduced. The 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 empty munitions bunker and historic debris. Although these resources have been determined not to be historically or archeologically significant, under this alternative the resources would remain in situ because that portion of the project site would not be developed. As with the Project, impacts to cultural resources associated with Alternative 4 would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Energy. Alternative 4 assumes the construction of a smaller warehouse than the proposed Project. The energy usage during construction associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on-road hauling trips and off -road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road worker commute and vendor trips would be lower than the Project due to the shorter construction schedule, less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment. Additionally, Alternative 4 would result in a decrease in operational energy usage given this alternative would result in a decrease of 471,639 sf in the size of the warehouse. Energy usage would be proportionally lower than the proposed Project due to the decreased development square footage associated with Alternative 4. Potential impacts to energy would be less than the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils. Because less of the site would be developed, p otential geological, soil, and paleontological resource impacts would incrementally lessen when compared to the Project. The potential for seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, or collapse would be the same as with

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-23
the proposed Project. Development under Alternative 4 would also be required to submit a site -specific geotechnical investigation, comply with California Building Code standards, and applicable construction and operational BMPs to reduce impacts related to geologic hazards. With respect to paleontological resources, the area of potential impact would be reduced. Impacts associated with both Alternative 3 and the Project would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Alternative 4 would result in the construction of a warehouse that is reduced by approximately 71 percent, which is equivalent to a 193,220 -sf warehouse with 4 dock doors and 137 passenger vehicle parking spaces . Therefore, a shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment is anticipated. Accordingly, direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities would be less than the proposed Project.

Additionally, Alternative 4 would result in a decrease in average daily trips compared to the Project.

Alternative 4 would generate 330 daily trips, including 132 truck trips (553 daily PCE trips) compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. The reduction in square footage of the warehouse and decrease in average daily trips would reduce operational GHG emissions to a less than significant level. As such, Alternative 4 would result in less GHG emissions compared to the Project during construction and operations. Alternative 4 would avoid the need for implementation of MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -4 to reduce operational emissions. GHG emissions would be proportionally lower than the proposed Project due to the decreased development square footage and average daily trips associated with Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would have less than significant GHG impacts while the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding GHG emissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Alternative 4 would be developed on a portion of the project site while the southern part of the site would remain undeveloped. Alternative 4 does not assume the demolition of an ammunitions bunker and brick and mortar structure; therefore, MM HAZ-1 is not required. There is still the potential for the project site to contain UXOs or DMMs due to the historical use of the site. MMs HAZ-2 through MM HAZ -4 would be applicable to Alternative 4 to reduce potential impacts associa ted with potential UXOs and DMMs and soil contamination to a less than significant level. Like the Project, Alternative 4 would not expose persons on the project site to airport hazards, affect aircraft operations, or create an airport safety hazard for Project employees. Alternative 4 would include the operation of business office park and would not result in the release of hazardous materials. The routine use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, State, and local regulatio ns 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. Additionally, there are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. Impacts associated with Alternative 4 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The development footprint for Alternative 4 would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. The amount of impervious surface would decrease when compared to the Project. Both Alternative 4 and the Project would be required to obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity and prepare a SWQMP, 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. The Project’s operator

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-24
would also be required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.60.260. With respect to hydrology and water quality, impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be less than the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Standard Conditions.

Land Use and Planning. As with the Project, the Alternative 4 development scenario would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers and would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Alternative 4 would comply with the land use designations of the site. Alternative 4 would be required to be consistent with the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, General Plan, and Municipal Code. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be consistent Connect SoCal. Additionally, neither scenario would introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect surrounding land uses. Therefore, both Alternative 4 and the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with land use and planning.

Mineral Resources. Potential mineral resource impacts for Alternative 4 would be similar to the Project although less of the site would be developed. The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey maps (specifically, Special Report 206 Plate 2), the General Plan, and Rialto Airport Specific Plan do not identify the project site as an existing, planned, or potential mineral recovery site. As with the Project, Alternative 4 would be consistent with the existing land use designation s of the proj ect site.

Neither the Project nor Alternative 4 would result in the loss of availability of a significant mineral resource and impacts would remain less than significant.

Noise. Alternative 4 would result in the construction of a warehouse that is reduced by approximately 71 percent. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in less construction noise impacts than the proposed Project because of the shorter duration of construction . With respect to construction noise, impacts associated with Alternative 4 and the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 4 would have lower average daily trips. Alternative 4 would generate 330 daily trips, including 132 truck trips (553 daily PCE trips) compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. A lternative 4 would result in less truck and passenger vehicle traffic volumes on nearby roadway segments compared to the proposed Project, resulting in lower roadway noise levels. The reduced building size for Alternative 4 would likely result in lower o perational noise impacts when compared to the Project. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would have less noise impacts. Operational n oise impacts associated with Alternative 4 and the proposed Project would both be less than significant.

Population and Housing. Both the Project and Alternative 4 would generate new permanent employment opportunities. Alternative 4 would have approximately 162 employees , based on an employment generation factor of one employee per 1,195 sf of warehouse use. 7 Using this generation factor, the proposed Project would employ approximately 557 employees. Similar to the Project, future employees are anticipated to travel to and from the site from within the City and surrounding area. Neither Alternative 4 nor the Project would require the construction of additional residential units that could induce substantial unplanned population growth not analyzed in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 4 would decrease the number of employees required for operations when compared to the

7 Natelson Company, Inc, 2001, Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-25
proposed Project and impacts to population and housing would be lower. Under both development scenarios, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

Public Services. Development of both Alternative 4 and the Project would incrementally increase the demand for police and fire protection services . However, Alternative 4 would decrease the number of employees required for operations, which would reduce the demand on public services when compared to the proposed Project. Neither scenario is expected to substantially increase service demand such that a new or physically altered facility would need to be constructed, which would cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police and fire protection. Further, development impact fees are paid on a project -by- project basis to ensure a proportionate fair share is contributed tow ard facilities, equipment, and personnel that would be needed over time to accommodate the additional demand from a project.

Alternative 4 would reduce the demand for fire and police protection services when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation. VMT impacts are measured based on the Citywide VMT per Service Population Threshold and the Countywide VMT per Employee Threshold. Alternative 4 would generate 330 daily trips, including 132 truck trips (553 daily PCE trips) compared to the 1,138 daily trips, including 455 truck trips (1,908 daily PCE trips) for the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would result in lower VMT impacts than the proposed Project. Under both scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Unlike the Project, Alternative 4 does not assume that the entire project site would be graded. Although less of the site would be disturbed, under both development scenarios there is a potential to discover previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Although the area of potential impact would be reduced, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. Therefore, as with the Project, impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with Alternative 4 would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Utilities and Service Systems. When compared to the Project, Alternative 4 would result in a decreased demand on utilities as the alternative would result in a decrease of 471,639 sf of building area . Under Alternative 4, a Water Supply Assessment would not be required. Because the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project did not identify significant impacts, a decrease of 471,639 sf would result in lower water demand as well as wastewater generation when compared to the Project during construction and operations. A smaller building would also result in a decreased demand for electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure . Alternative 4 would also result in lower solid waste generation because of the reduction of development on the project site. Alternative 4 would reduce the demand on utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed Project. Under both development scenarios, impacts would be less than significant.

Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 4 would not meet Project Objective 2 because the construction of a 193,200 -sf warehouse, which is more than 7 1 percent smaller than the proposed Project on less than half of the 40 -acre site, does not maximize “the efficient use of a vacant and underutilized and environmentally constrained site.” Further, Alternative 4 would not meet Project Objective 5 because a substantially smaller warehouse would have a different tenant base than would be associated with the size of the proposed Project; it may not be “an attractive development” that would “attract quality tenants” and “be competitive with other similar facilities in the region.” The significant reduction in total square footage presented in Alternative

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-26
4 is of a magnitude that is sufficiently severe as to render this alternative impractical. Based on the significantly reduced scope, Alternative 4 only partially meets the remaining Project Objectives.

Alternative 4 would provide infrastructure improvements including street and sidewalk improvements, undergrounding of existing utilities, and drainage and water quality treatment improvements on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue , but potentially reduced in scale due to the smaller warehouse and development footprint . Additionally, the Reduced Warehouse Alternative would provide expanded economic activity to the City and provide additional employment opportunities , but to a substantially lesser degree than the proposed Proj ect because it would be approximately 71 percent smaller .

Alternative 4 would not conflict with the City’s goals of expanding its economic base and providing greater economic opportunity to the City’s residents , but it would do so to a lesser degree than the proposed project due to the reduced scale of the warehouse.

Conclusion
Alternative 4 would have a building area of approximately 193,220 sf, which is a reduction in development area of approximately 471,639 sf when compared to the proposed Project. Uses of Alternative 4 would be consistent with the Specific Plan and impacts would be similar to that of the Project, as identified in Table 6-4.

For environmental issues where project site disturbance would be the same for the proposed Project and Alternative 4, there would be no change in the significance of potential impacts. This would be the case for the topics of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources which would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Similarly, this would also be the case for hydrology and water quality and mineral resources, which would be less than significant.

Neither Alternative 4 nor the Project would result in significant aesthetic impacts. Although the building square footage associated with Alternative 4 would decrease and parking and landscaping would be provided, the southern portion of the project site would not be developed and would remain vacant. With respect to traffic, Alternative 4 would result in a decrease in average daily trips and would result in lower VMT impacts than the proposed Project. Therefore, like the proposed Project , transportation im pacts from Alternative 4 would be less than significant.

The reduction in square footage and average daily trips of Alternative 4 would likely result in lower air quality emissions, energy usage, GHG emissions, and noise impacts. A shorter construction schedule, a less intensive site preparation and grading phase of construction, and the use of less construction materials and equipment is anticipated . Accordingly, construction air quality emissions, GHG emissions, Energy usage and noise levels would be lower than the proposed Project. Further, the reduction in average daily trips associated with Alternative 4 would reduce operational air quality emissions, energy usage, GHG emissions, and noise impacts. As with the proposed Project, energy usage impacts would be less than significant and air quality emissions and noise impacts would still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 4, GHG emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level, while the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Alternative 4 would develop and operate a warehouse, but it would not maximize efficient use of a vacant and underutilized site that is near available infrastructure, major freeways, and other industrial developments, resulting in a smaller development project that would be less competitive in the marketplace to attract quality tenants . Alternative 4 would provide infrastructure improvements ,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-27
expanded economic activity to the City, and additional employment opportunities, but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project . Similarly, Alternative 4 would contribute to the City’s goal of positively contributing to the economy through new capital investment, expansion of the tax base and creation of new employment opportunities, but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project.

Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts compares the alternative’s anticipated environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation, as required. Table 6-5: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis summarizes each alternative’s ability to achieve the Project objectives.

Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts Topic
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:

No
Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

Truck Trailer
Parking
Alternative
Alternative 3:

Business Park
Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced
Warehouse
Alternative
Aesthetics LS - = = -
Air Quality LS/M - + + -
Biological Resources LS/M - = = -
Cultural Resources LS/M - = = -
Energy LS - - + -
Geology and Soils LS/M - = = -
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions SU - + + -
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LS/M - = = =
Hydrology and Water
Quality LS - = = -
Land Use and Planning LS - = + =
Mineral Resources LS - = = =
Noise LS/M - + + -
Population and Housing LS - = = -
Public Services LS - + + -
Transportation LS - + + -
Tribal Cultural Resources LS/M - = = -
Utilities and Services
Systems LS - + + -
LS = Less than Significant
LS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation/Standard Conditions S/U = Significant Unavoidable Impact
(─) The alternative would result in a lesser impact than the proposed Project or no impact. (+) The alternative would result in a greater impact than the proposed Project. (=) The alternative would result in the same/similar impacts as the proposed Project. (*) The alternative would reduce/eliminate a significant and unavoidable impact.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-28
Table 6-5: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis
Project Objective
Alternative 1:

No
Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

Truck Trailer
Parking
Alternative
Alternative 3:

Business Park
Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced
Warehouse
Alternative
Consistent?
Objective 1: Develop and operate a
warehouse that is in close proximity to
three major freeways (State Route 210,
Interstate 215, and Interstate 15) to
support the distribution of goods
throughout the region and that also
limits traffic truck disruption to
residential areas within the City and
neighboring jurisdictions.

No No No Partially met
Objective 2: Develop and operate a
warehouse that maximizes the efficient
use of a vacant and underutilized and
environmentally constrained site near
available infrastructure, to allow the City
of Rialto to compete on a domestic and
international scale through the efficient
and cost-effective movement of goods.

No No No No
Objective 3: Develop a warehouse in an
appropriate location that is
predominantly surrounded by other
industrial uses and is consistent with the
project site’s General Manufacturing
land use designation under the Rialto
Airport Specific Plan.

No No No Partially met
Objective 4: Maximize the efficient
movement of goods throughout the
region by locating a warehouse
development in close proximity to the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

No No No Partially met
Objective 5: Develop and operate an
attractive warehouse development in
the City of Rialto that meets industry
standards for operational design criteria
that will attract quality tenants and that
will be competitive with other similar
facilities in the region.

No No No No
Objective 6: Positively contribute to the
economy of the City of Rialto through
new capital investment, expansion of
the tax base and creation of new
employment opportunities, including
opportunities for highly trained workers.

No Yes Yes Partially met

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-29
Table 6-5: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis
Project Objective
Alternative 1:

No
Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

Truck Trailer
Parking
Alternative
Alternative 3:

Business Park
Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced
Warehouse
Alternative
Consistent?
Objective 7: Provide local employment
for residents of the City to improve jobs-
housing balance within the City, thereby
reducing the need for members of the
local workforce to commute outside the
Project vicinity to work.

No Yes Yes Partially met
Objective 8: Provide infrastructure
improvements including street and
sidewalk improvements to Lowell Street
and Locust Avenue, undergrounding of
existing utilities, and drainage and water
quality treatment improvements.

No Yes Yes Yes
Objective 9: Develop a project that does
not contribute to surface and
groundwater quality degradation by
treating surface and stormwater flows.

No Yes Yes Yes

6.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts.

If the “No Project” Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA Guid elines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the Project’s basic objectives be chosen as the environmentally superior alternative.

The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives, and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the o bjectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. As such, the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts of the Project. How ever, while the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting any of the basic objectives for the Project.

The CEQA Guidelines state that should the No Project Alternative be the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the EIR shall identify another Environmentally Superior Alternative among the remaining Alternatives. Aside from the No Project Alternative, the e nvironmentally superior alternative to the Project is the one that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation undertaken, it is assumed that Alternative 4: Reduced Warehouse Alternative is the environmentally superior Alternative. This is an environmentally superior project alternative because Alternative 4 would reduce GHG impacts to a less than significant level and reduce impacts to air quality, energy, noise, public services and utilities and service systems. Alternative 4 meets the requirements of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan development standards and therefore would be in conformance with all

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives

City of Rialto 6-30
applicable City regulations, including the goals and policies of the General Plan. This Alternative fails to meet two Project objectives and only partially meets the remaining Project objectives.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Preparers and Contributors

City of Rialto 7-1

7.0 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

7.1 EIR PREPARERS
City of Rialto (Lead Agency)
Daniel Casey ......................................................................................................................... Principal Planner Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Dana C. Privitt, AICP ............................................................................................................. Project Manager Addie Sedoff .......................................................................................................... Assistant Project Manager Davie Cowan, P.E. ............................................................................................................ Technical Manager Kevin Smith, P.E. .............................................................................................................. Technical Manager Tim Chan, P.E. ....................................................................................................................... Traffic Manager Ace Malisos ............................................................................. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise Manager Danielle Millar ........................................................................... Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise Planner Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA ....................................................................................Cultural Resources Manager Jamie Parra, MA, RPA .......................................................................................... Cultural Resources Analyst Sarah Miller .......................................................................................................................... Planning Analyst Kiana Graham, AICP ............................................................................................................ Planning Analyst Heather Boland .................................................................................................................... Planning Analyst

7.2 CONTRIBUTORS
Rocks Biological Consulting ................................................................................ Biological Resources Report Southern California Geotechnical. .................................. Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Report Hazardous Management Consulting, Inc. .................... Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and West Valley Water District .......................... Water Supply Assessment Western Science Center ................................................................................. Paleontological Record Search State of California Native American Heritage Commission ........... Native American Tribal Consultation List

Rialto City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Rialto City Council
January 27, 2026